18980 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the common thresher shark (Alopias the species (or subspecies) to which it vulpinus) as threatened or endangered belongs. National Oceanic and Atmospheric under the ESA throughout its entire Section 3 of the ESA defines an Administration range, or, as an alternative, to list 6 endangered species as ‘‘any species which is in danger of extinction [Docket No. 141219999–6234–02] distinct population segments (DPSs) of the common thresher shark, as throughout all or a significant portion of RIN 0648–XD680 described in the petition, as threatened its range’’ and a threatened species as or endangered, and designate critical one ‘‘which is likely to become an Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat. On April 27, 2015, we received endangered species within the and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding a separate petition from Defenders of foreseeable future throughout all or a on Petitions to List the Common Wildlife to list the bigeye thresher shark significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, Thresher Shark and Bigeye Thresher as threatened or endangered throughout in the context of the ESA, the Services Shark as Threatened or Endangered its range, or, as an alternative, to list any interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be Under the Endangered Species Act identified DPSs, should we find they one that is presently at risk of (ESA) exist, as threatened or endangered extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on species pursuant to the ESA, and to the other hand, is not currently at risk AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries of extinction, but is likely to become so Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and designate critical habitat. We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted in the foreseeable future. In other words, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a key statutory difference between a Commerce. for both species; on March 3, 2015, and August 11, 2015, we published positive threatened and endangered species is ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and 90-day findings for the common the timing of when a species may be in availability of status review report. thresher (80 FR 11379) and bigeye danger of extinction, either now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future SUMMARY: NMFS has completed thresher (80 FR 48061), respectively, announcing that the petitions presented (threatened). The statute also requires us comprehensive status reviews under the to determine whether any species is Endangered Species Act (ESA) for two substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned endangered or threatened as a result of species of thresher shark in response to any of the following five factors: The petitions to list those species. These actions of listing each species may be warranted, and explaining the basis for present or threatened destruction, species are the common thresher shark modification, or curtailment of its (Alopias vulpinus) and the bigeye those findings. We also announced the initiation of a status review of both habitat or range; overutilization for thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus). commercial, recreational, scientific, or Based on the best scientific and species, as required by Section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA, and requested information educational purposes; disease or commercial information available, predation; the inadequacy of existing including the status review report to inform the agency’s decision on whether the species warranted listing as regulatory mechanisms; or other natural (Young et al., 2015), and after taking or manmade factors affecting its into account efforts being made to endangered or threatened under the ESA. continued existence (ESA, section protect these species, we have 4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the determined that the common thresher Listing Species Under the Endangered ESA requires us to make listing (A. vulpinus) and bigeye thresher (A. Species Act determinations based solely on the best superciliosus) do not warrant listing at scientific and commercial data available this time. We conclude that neither We are responsible for determining after conducting a review of the status species is currently in danger of whether the common and bigeye of the species and after taking into extinction throughout all or a significant thresher sharks are threatened or account efforts being made by any State portion of its range nor likely to become endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. or foreign nation or political subdivision so within the foreseeable future. 1531 et seq.). To make this thereof to protect the species. In DATES: This finding was made on April determination, we first consider evaluating the efficacy of existing 1, 2016. whether a group of organisms protective efforts, we rely on the constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under Section 3 ADDRESSES: The status review report for Services’ joint Policy on Evaluation of of the ESA, then whether the status of common and bigeye thresher sharks is Conservation Efforts When Making the species qualifies it for listing as available electronically at: http:// Listing Decisions (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; either threatened or endangered. Section www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ March 28, 2003) for any conservation 3 of the ESA defines species to include common-thresher-shark.html and http:// efforts that have not been implemented, ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ or have been implemented but not yet plants, and any distinct population bigeye-thresher-shark.html. You may demonstrated effectiveness. segment of any species of vertebrate fish also receive a copy by submitting a or wildlife which interbreeds when Status Review request to the Office of Protected mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS We convened a team of agency Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to conduct the status review Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted for the common and bigeye thresher Attention: Thresher Shark 12-month a policy describing what constitutes a sharks and prepare a report. The status Finding. DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR review report of common and bigeye FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4722). The joint DPS policy identified thresher sharks (Young et al., 2015) Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of two elements that must be considered compiles the best available information Protected Resources, (301) 427–8491. when identifying a DPS: (1) The on the status of both species as required SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: discreteness of the population segment by the ESA, provides an evaluation of in relation to the remainder of the the discreteness and significance of Background species (or subspecies) to which it populations in terms of the DPS policy, On August 26, 2014, we received a belongs; and (2) the significance of the and assesses the current and future petition from Friends of Animals to list population segment to the remainder of extinction risk for both species, focusing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18981

primarily on threats related to the five abundance, threats, and extinction risk temperate waters (Moreno et al., 1989; statutory factors set forth above. We is attributable to the status review Goldman, 2009). In the North Atlantic, appointed a biologist in the Office of report. However, we have common thresher sharks occur from Protected Resources Endangered independently applied the statutory Newfoundland, Canada, to Cuba in the Species Conservation Division to provisions of the ESA, including west and from Norway and the British undertake a scientific review of the life evaluation of the factors set forth in Isles to the African coast in the east history and ecology, distribution, Section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E), our regulations (Gervelis and Natanson, 2013). Landings abundance, and threats to common and regarding listing determinations, and along the South Atlantic coast of the bigeye thresher sharks. Next, we our DPS policy in making the 12-month United States and in the Gulf of Mexico convened a team of biologists and shark finding determination. are rare. Common thresher sharks also experts (hereinafter referred to as the occur along the Atlantic coast of South Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) team) to Life History, Biology, and Status of the America from Venezuela to southern conduct extinction risk analyses for Petitioned Species Common Thresher Argentina. In the eastern Atlantic, the both species, using the information in Shark (Alopias vulpinus) common thresher ranges from the the scientific review. The ERA team was Taxonomy and Species Description central coast of Norway south to, and comprised of a fishery management including, the Mediterranean Sea and All thresher sharks belong to the specialist from NMFS’ Highly Migratory down the African coast to the Ivory family Alopiidae, genus Alopias, and Species Management Division, four Coast. They appear to be most abundant are classified as mackerel sharks (Order research fishery biologists from NMFS’ along the Iberian coastline, particularly Lamniformes). Thresher sharks are Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, and during spring and fall. Specimens have recognized by their elongated upper Pacific Island Fisheries Science Centers, also been recorded at Cape Province, and two natural resource management caudal lobe (tail fin) almost equal to its South Africa (Goldman, 2009). In the specialists with NMFS’ Office of body length, which is unique to the Indian Ocean, the common thresher is Protected Resources. The ERA team had Alopiidae family. There are currently found along the east coast of Somalia, group expertise in shark biology and three recognized species of thresher and in waters adjacent to the the ecology, population dynamics, highly shark: common thresher (Alopias Maldive Islands and Chagos migratory species management, and vulpinus), bigeye thresher (Alopias archipelago. The species is also present stock assessment science. The status superciliosus), and pelagic threhser off Australia (Tasmania to central review report presents the ERA team’s (Alopis pelagicus). Eitner (1995) used Western Australia), Sumatra, Pakistan, professional judgment of the extinction allozymes to infer phylogenetic India, Sri Lanka, Oman, Kenya, the risk facing common and bigeye thresher relationships in the genus Alopias, and northwestern coast of Madagascar and sharks but makes no recommendation as suggested the existence of an South Africa. A few specimens have to the listing status of the species. The unrecognized fourth thresher shark been taken from southwest of the status review report is available species. Results from a recent genetics Chagos archipelago, the Gulf of Aden, electronically at http:// study (Carden˜ osa et al., 2014) suggest and northwest Red Sea. However, www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ that this fourth thresher shark species Romanov (2015) raises serious questions common-thresher-shark.html and http:// may be a second species of pelagic regarding the occurrence of common www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ thresher shark; however, more thresher in the equatorial and northern bigeye-thresher-shark.html. information is needed to confirm this. tropical Indian Ocean, suggesting the The status review report was The common thresher shark (Alopias species demonstrates strong fidelity to subjected to independent peer review as vulpinus) is the largest of the thresher subtropical and temperate coasts of required by the Office of Management shark species and is distinguished from South Africa and Australia. In the and Budget Final Information Quality other thresher sharks by the presence of western Pacific Ocean, the range of Bulletin for Peer Review (M–05–03; labial furrows, the origin of the second common thresher includes southern December 16, 2004). The status review dorsal fin posterior to the end of the Japan, Korea, China, parts of Australia report was peer reviewed by three pelvic fin free rear tip, and the white and New Zealand. They are also present independent specialists selected from color of the abdomen extending upward around several Pacific Islands, the academic and scientific community, over the pectoral fin bases, and again including New Caledonia, Society with expertise in shark biology, rearward of the pelvic fins. The Islands, Fanning Islands, Hawaii and conservation and management, and common thresher shark has moderately American Samoa. In the Northeast knowledge of thresher sharks. The peer large eyes, a broad head, short snout, Pacific Ocean, the geographic range of reviewers were asked to evaluate the narrow tipped pectoral fins, and lateral common thresher sharks extends from adequacy, appropriateness, and teeth without distinct cusplets. Dorsal Goose Bay, British Columbia, Canada to application of data used in the status coloration may vary from brown, blue the Baja Peninsula, Mexico and out to review as well as the findings made in slate, slate gray, blue gray, and dark lead about 200 miles (322 km) from the coast the ‘‘Assessment of Extinction Risk’’ to nearly black, with a metallic, often (Goldman, 2009). Additionally, they are section of the report. All peer reviewer purplish, luster. The lower surface of found off Chile and records exist from comments were addressed prior to the snout (forward of the nostrils) and Panama (Compagno, 1984; Ebert et al., finalizing the status review report. pectoral fin bases are generally not 2014). We subsequently reviewed the status white and may be the same color as the Habitat Use and Movement review report, its cited references, and dorsal surface (Compagno, 1984; peer review comments, and believe the Goldman, 2009). The common thresher shark is a status review report, upon which this highly migratory, pelagic species of 12-month finding is based, provides the Current Distribution shark that is both coastal, ranging over best available scientific and commercial The common thresher shark is found continental and insular shelves, and information on the common and bigeye throughout the world in temperate and epipelagic, ranging far from land, thresher sharks. Much of the tropical seas, with a noted tolerance for though they are most abundant near information discussed below on cold waters as well; however, highest land approximately 40–50 nautical thresher shark biology, distribution, concentrations tend to occur in coastal, miles (74–93 km) from shore (Strasburg,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18982 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

1958; Bedford, 1992). Although the 2003; MacNeil et al., 2005). Studies (Gervelis and Natanson, 2013); however, species is migratory, A. vulpinus from the U.S. West Coast and southern most recently, longevity of common appears to exhibit little to no coast of Australia showed common threshers was estimated to be 38 years immigration and emigration between thresher sharks exhibit narrower dietary based on bomb radiocarbon validation geographic areas; namely between the preferences in comparison to other local (Natanson et al., in press). Male Pacific and Northwest Atlantic pelagic shark species (Preti et al., 2012; common thresher sharks are thought to populations (Gubanov, 1972; Moreno et Rogers et al., 2012). Given their more grow faster than females (with a growth al., 1989; Bedford, 1992; Trejo, 2005). In specialized diet, they are more likely to coefficient, k, of 0.17/year for males and the eastern Pacific, conventional tagging exert top-down effects on their prey, 0.09/year for females) but reach a data (N = 110 tag returns) from NMFS’ although this remains to be smaller asymptotic size (225.4 cm fork Southwest Fisheries Science Center demonstrated. Based on studies at length (FL) for males versus 274.5 cm (SWFSC) show that common threshers NMFS’ SWFSC, the top six prey species, FL for females) (Gervelis and Natanson, often migrate between the United States in order, are northern anchovy, Pacific 2013). Using life history parameters and Mexico on the West Coast. While sardine, Pacific hake, Pacific mackerel, from the eastern North Pacific, Corte´s et these data confirm active transboundary jack mackerel, and market squid (Preti al. (2012) estimated productivity of the migration in this species between the et al., 2001; 2004; 2012). common thresher shark, determined as United States and Mexico, there is no intrinsic rate of population increase (r), Reproduction evidence to support regular migration to be 0.121 per year (median). However, beyond the West Coast of North Compared to the other Alopias it should be noted that this study relied America. Similarly, in the Atlantic, species, the common thresher (A. on an earlier estimated age at maturity mark recapture data (number tagged = vulpinus) has the fastest growth rate and for A. vulpinus females from the eastern 203 and recaptures = 4) from the NMFS also attains the largest size, and thus North Pacific (i.e., 5–6 years) and did Cooperative Shark Tagging Program matures at an earlier age, between 5 and not take into account more recent age at (CSTP) between 1963 and 2013 provide 12 years depending on the geographic maturity estimates calculated for A. supporting evidence that common location (Smith et al., 2008; Gervelis vulpinus females in the Northwest thresher sharks do not make and Natanson, 2013). In terms of size, Atlantic (i.e., 12 years), which may transatlantic movements (Kohler et al., females attain maturity generally around slightly decrease the species’ overall 1998; NMFS, unpublished data). The 315–400 cm total length (TL) while productivity. Overall, the best available range of movement for common males reach maturity at similar sizes data indicate that the common thresher threshers based on CSTP data was (generally around 314–420 cm TL) (see shark is a long-lived species (at least 20– relatively small, with an observed Table 1 in Young et al., 2015). Female 40 years) and can be characterized as maximum straight-line distance common thresher sharks utilize a mode having relatively low productivity travelled of 86 nautical miles (nmi; 159 of reproduction of aplacental (based on the Food and Agriculture km) in the Northwest Atlantic and 271 ovoviviparity and oophagy (i.e., eggs are Organization of the United Nations nmi (502 km) in the Northeast Atlantic. deposited into one of two uterine horns (FAO) productivity indices for exploited Several studies have shown that and developing embryos are nourished fish species, where r < 0.14 is common thresher sharks make daily by feeding on other eggs), and gestation considered low productivity), making vertical migrations, moving to deeper is thought to be around 9 months them generally vulnerable to depletion water during the day, with a maximum (PFMC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). Litter and potentially slow to recover from depth reported to 640 m in Australia. In sizes are typically small, and may vary overexploitation. the Marshall Islands, common thresher depending on geographic location; they sharks showed a preference for an range from only 2 pups in the Indian Current Status optimum swimming depth, water Ocean to between 3 and 7 in the Common thresher sharks can be found temperature, salinity and dissolved Northeast Atlantic, while 3–4 pups are worldwide, with no present indication oxygen range of 160–240 m, 18–20 °C, common in the Eastern Pacific (with of a range contraction. Although 34.5–34.8 ppt and 1.0–1.5 ml/l, occasional litters of up to 6 pups off potentially rare in a large portion of its respectively, during daytime (Cao et al., California). Pupping is thought to occur range and generally not targeted, they 2011). These studies indicate that in the springtime, with mating thought are caught as bycatch in many global common thresher sharks may spend to occur in the summer in both the fisheries, including bottom and pelagic most of the day at deeper depths below Northeast Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. longline tuna and swordfish fisheries, the thermocline (≤200 m) and most of However, pregnant females in the purse seine fisheries, coastal gillnet the night in shallower waters between western Indian Ocean have been fisheries, and artisanal fisheries. 0–200 m. Juveniles occupy relatively observed in August and November, Common thresher sharks are more shallow water over the continental shelf indicating that birth of young common commonly utilized for their meat than (<200 m), while adults are found in thresher sharks may occur throughout fins, as they are a preferred species for deeper water (up to at least 366 m, with the year in this area (Goldman, 2009). human consumption; however, they are dive depths up to at least 640 m), but also valuable as incidental catch for the Size and Growth rarely range beyond 200 nmi (321.87 international shark fin trade. km) from the coast. Both adults and Historical records indicate the In 2009, the International Union for juveniles are associated with highly common thresher can reach maximum Conservation of Nature (IUCN) biologically productive waters, found in lengths of 690–760 cm TL (Bigelow and considered the common thresher shark regions of upwelling or intense mixing Schroeder, 1948; Hart, 1973). More to be Vulnerable globally, based on an (PFMC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). recent studies report A. vulpinus assessment by Goldman et al. (2009) reaching 573 cm TL and possibly up to and its own criteria (A2bd, 3bd and Diet 600 cm depending on sex and 4bd), and placed the species on its ‘‘Red Common thresher sharks feed at mid- geographic location (Smith et al., 2008; List.’’ Under criteria A2bd, 3bd and 4bd, trophic levels on a mix of small pelagic Goldman, 2009). The lifespan of a species may be classified as fish and cephalopods (Corte´s, 1999; common threshers has been broadly Vulnerable when its ‘‘observed, Bowman et al., 2000; Estrada et al., estimated to be between 15 and 50 years estimated, inferred or suspected’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18983

population size is reduced by 30 percent a significant portion of its range.’’ fully recovered after the implementation or more over the last 10 years, the next Neither we nor the USFWS have of management measures in 1985 was 10 years, or any 10-year time period, or developed formal policy guidance about approximately 20–30 years (which over a 3-generation period, whichever is how to interpret the definitions of comports with 3 generation times of the the longer, where the reduction or its threatened and endangered with respect species). causes may not have ceased or may not to what it means to be ‘‘in danger of In addition, the foreseeable future be understood or may not be reversible, extinction.’’ We consider the best timeframe is also a function of the based on an index of abundance available information and apply reliability of available data regarding the appropriate to the taxon and/or the professional judgment in evaluating the identified threats and extends only as actual or potential levels of exploitation. level of risk faced by a species in far as the data allow for making The IUCN’s justification for the deciding whether the species is reasonable predictions about the categorization is based on the species’ threatened or endangered. We evaluate species’ response to those threats. Since declining populations. The IUCN notes both demographic risks, such as low the main threats to the species were that the species’ regional trends, slow abundance and productivity, and threats identified as fisheries and the life history characteristics (hence low to the species, including those related to inadequacy of existing regulatory capacity to recover from moderate levels the factors specified in ESA section measures that manage these fisheries, of exploitation), and high levels of 4(a)(1)(A)–(E). the ERA team felt that they had the largely unmanaged and unreported background knowledge in fisheries Methods mortality in target and bycatch fisheries, management and expertise to give cause to suspect that the As we described previously, we confidently predict the impact of these population has decreased by over 30 convened an ERA team to evaluate threats on the biological status of the percent and meets the criteria to be extinction risk to the species. This species within this timeframe. categorized as Vulnerable globally. As a section discusses the methods used to Often the ability to measure or note, the IUCN classification for the evaluate threats and the overall document risk factors is limited, and common thresher shark alone does not extinction risk to the species. For information is not quantitative or is provide the rationale for a listing purposes of the risk assessment, an ERA lacking altogether. Therefore, in recommendation under the ESA, but the team comprised of fishery biologists and assessing risk, it is important to include classification and the sources of shark experts was convened to review both qualitative and quantitative information that the classification is the best available information on the information. In assessing extinction risk based upon are evaluated in light of the species and evaluate the overall risk of to the species, the ERA team considered standards on extinction risk and extinction facing the common thresher the demographic viability factors impacts or threats to the species. shark now and in the foreseeable future. developed by McElhany et al. (2000) The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ was and the risk matrix approach developed Distinct Population Segment Analysis defined as the timeframe over which by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to As described above, the ESA’s threats could be reliably predicted to organize and summarize extinction risk definition of ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any impact the biological status of the considerations. The approach of subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, species. After considering the life considering demographic risk factors to and any distinct population segment history of the common thresher shark, help frame the consideration of (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or availability of data, and type of threats, extinction risk has been used in many wildlife which interbreeds when the ERA team decided that the of our status reviews (see http:// mature.’’ As stated in the joint DPS foreseeable future should be defined as www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links policy, Congress expressed its approximately 3 generation times for the to these reviews). In this approach, the expectation that the Services would common thresher shark, or 30 years. A collective condition of individual exercise authority with regard to DPSs generation time is defined as the time it populations is considered at the species sparingly and only when the biological takes, on average, for a sexually mature level according to four demographic evidence indicates such action is female common thresher shark to be viability factors: abundance, growth warranted. NMFS determined at the 90- replaced by offspring with the same rate/productivity, spatial structure/ day finding stage that the petition to list spawning capacity. This timeframe (3 connectivity, and diversity. These the common thresher shark as six DPSs generation times) takes into account the viability factors reflect concepts that are (Eastern Central Pacific, Indo-West time necessary to provide for the well-founded in conservation biology Pacific, Northwest and Western Central conservation and recovery of the and that individually and collectively Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic, species. As a late-maturing species, with provide strong indicators of extinction Mediterranean, and Northeast Atlantic) slow growth rate and relatively low risk. did not present substantial scientific or productivity, it would likely take more Using these concepts, the ERA team commercial information to support the than a generation time for any evaluated demographic risks by identification of these particular DPSs. conservative management action to be assigning a risk score to each of the four As such, we conducted the extinction realized and reflected in population demographic risk factors. The scoring risk analysis on the global common abundance indices. This is supported by for these demographic risk criteria thresher shark population. the fact that we have a well-documented correspond to the following values: 0— example of how this species responds to unknown risk, 1—low risk, 2—moderate Assessment of Extinction Risk intense fishing pressure, and the time risk, and 3—high risk. Detailed The ESA (Section 3) defines an required for the initial implementation definitions of the risk scores can be endangered species as ‘‘any species of regulatory measures to be reflected in found in the status review report. The which is in danger of extinction population abundance indices. For the ERA team also performed a threats throughout all or a significant portion of northeastern Pacific stock of common assessment for the common thresher its range.’’ A threatened species is thresher, the time period from being in shark by evaluating the effect that the defined as ‘‘any species which is likely an overfished state (i.e., lowest point threat was currently having on the to become an endangered species within was approximately 30% of virgin extinction risk of the species. The levels the foreseeable future throughout all or reproductive output in 1995) to almost included ‘‘low effect,’’ ‘‘moderate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18984 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

effect’’ and ‘‘high effect.’’ The scores each team member distributed 10 included the swordfish/shark drift were then tallied and summarized for ‘‘likelihood points’’ among the gillnet, pelagic longline, and artisanal each threat. It should be emphasized extinction risk levels. This approach has (panga) fisheries. This assessment that this exercise was simply a tool to been used in previous NMFS status incorporated fisheries-dependent data help the ERA team members organize reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern (including estimated removals, size the information and assist in their Resident killer whale, Puget Sound compositions, indices of relative thought processes for determining the rockfish, Pacific herring, and black abundance, and conditional age-at- overall risk of extinction for the abalone) to structure the team’s thinking length) as well as fisheries-independent common thresher shark. and express levels of uncertainty when data (e.g., size compositions and a Guided by the results from the assigning risk categories. Although this relative abundance index for juvenile demographic risk analysis and the process helps to integrate and common thresher sharks). The results of threats assessment, the ERA team summarize a large amount of diverse this stock assessment indicate that the members were asked to use their information, there is no simple way to common thresher shark stock along the informed professional judgment to make translate the risk matrix scores directly West Coast of North America (including an overall extinction risk determination into a determination of overall Mexico and Canada) experienced a large for the common thresher shark. For this extinction risk. Other descriptive decline (>70 percent) in spawning analysis, the ERA team defined three statistics, such as mean, variance, and output with the advent of the drift levels of extinction risk: 1—low risk, standard deviation, were not calculated, gillnet fishery in the late 1970s; 2—moderate risk, and 3—high risk, as the ERA team felt these metrics however, the decline was arrested in the which are all temporally connected. would add artificial precision or mid-1980s with a series of regulations Detailed definitions of these risk levels accuracy to the results. The scores were restricting the fishery and the stock has are as follows: 1 = Low risk: A species then tallied and summarized. recovered gradually over time. In fact, may be at a low risk of extinction if it Finally, the ERA team did not make the spawning output in 2014 was exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is recommendations as to whether the estimated to be 94.4 percent of its not currently experiencing a moderate species should be listed as threatened or unexploited level. Therefore, the stock risk of extinction now, nor is it likely to endangered. Rather, the ERA team drew is not likely in an overfished condition have a high risk of extinction in the scientific conclusions about the overall or experiencing overfishing at this time foreseeable future (see definitions of risk of extinction faced by the common (Teo et al., in prep). The ERA team ‘‘Moderate Risk’’ and ‘‘High Risk’’ thresher shark under present conditions accepted the results of this stock below). More specifically, a species may and in the foreseeable future based on assessment and concluded that common be at low risk of extinction due to an evaluation of the species’ thresher shark abundance is likely projected threats and its likely response demographic risks and assessment of increasing in this portion of its range. to those threats (i.e., stable or increasing threats. In the Northwest Atlantic, several trends in abundance/population growth, Evaluation of Demographic Risks studies have been conducted to spatial structure and connectivity, and/ determine trends in abundance of or diversity and resilience); 2 = Abundance various shark species, including the Moderate risk: A species is at moderate There is currently a lack of reliable common thresher shark. In the risk of extinction if it exhibits a estimates of global population size for Northwest Atlantic longline fisheries, trajectory indicating that it is likely to the common thresher shark, with most thresher sharks (both common and be at a high risk of extinction in the of the available information indicating bigeye threshers) are typically recorded foreseeable future (see description of that the species is naturally rare in a at the genus level by observers as well ‘‘High Risk’’ below). More specifically, a large portion of its range. The ERA team as in logbooks, with the bigeye thresher species may be at moderate risk of expressed some concern regarding the shark typically dominant in the catches. extinction due to projected threats and common thresher shark’s global Baum et al. (2003) analyzed logbook its likely response to those threats (i.e., abundance, particularly given that the data for the U.S. pelagic longline fleets declining trends in abundance/ species likely experienced localized targeting swordfish and tunas, and population growth, spatial structure and population declines over the past few reported an 80 percent decline in connectivity, and/or diversity and decades. Given the lack of data, and the relative abundance for thresher sharks resilience); 3 = High risk: A species is fact that most of these assessments are (common and bigeye threshers at high risk of extinction when it is not specific to common thresher, the combined) from 1986 to 2000. However, currently at or near a level of extent of the decline and current status these results were challenged (see abundance, spatial structure and of the global population are unclear. discussions in Burgess et al. 2005a and connectivity, and/or diversity and However, some information, including a Burgess et al. 2005b) on the basis of resilience that place its persistence in recent stock assessment and a species- whether correct inferences were made question. Demographic risk may be specific analysis of observer data regarding the magnitude of shark strongly influenced by stochastic or provide some insight into current population declines in the Atlantic. In depensatory processes. Similarly, a abundance levels of the species. a more recent re-analysis of the same species may be at high risk of extinction In the eastern North Pacific, the logbook dataset using a similar if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., NMFS SWFSC conducted the only methodology, Corte´s et al. (2007) confinement to a small geographic area; species-specific stock assessment of the reported an overall 63 percent decline imminent destruction, modification, or common thresher shark to date, which from 1986–2005, and a 50 percent curtailment of its habitat; or disease incorporates data from the United States decline from 1992–2005. In contrast, the epidemic) that are likely to create such and Mexico for the period 1969–2014. analysis of the observer dataset from the imminent demographic risks. The ERA The U.S. fisheries included the same fishery resulted in an opposite team adopted the ‘‘likelihood point’’ swordfish/shark drift gillnet, trend to that of the logbook analysis, (FEMAT) method for ranking the overall recreational, nearshore setnet and small- with a 28 percent increase in abundance risk of extinction to allow individuals to mesh drift gillnet, and miscellaneous for the same period of 1992–2005 express uncertainty. For this approach, fisheries. The Mexican fisheries (Corte´s et al., 2010). Baum and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18985

Blanchard (2010) also analyzed observer including variation in locations between depensatory processes based on its data from 1992–2005 and reported no surveys and differences in data sources current abundance levels. change in the population trend over the (e.g., fishery-independent data vs. Growth Rate/Productivity time period, concluding that individual fishery-dependent data), and seriously year estimates for thresher sharks questioned the conclusions regarding Similar to abundance, the ERA team suggest that the population potentially the magnitude of thresher abundance expressed some concern regarding the stabilized. It should be noted that while decline. Further, to use a thresher effect of the common thresher shark’s the sample size in the latter observer complex or other thresher species as a growth rate and productivity on its risk analysis was very small (n = 14–84) proxy for common thresher abundance of extinction. Sharks, in general, have lower reproductive and growth rates compared to that in the logbook analysis is erroneous because of the differences compared to bony fishes; however, (n = 112–1292) (Kyne et al., 2012), in their distributions and life history, as common thresher sharks exhibit life- observer data are generally regarded as well as the proportions they make up in more reliable than logbook data for non- history traits and population parameters commercial catches. When identified to that are intermediary among other shark target shark species (Walsh et al., 2002). species level, common thresher sharks As such, and using a similar approach species. As previously noted, common do not appear to be a significant part of thresher shark productivity, determined as Corte´s et al. (2007), the ERA team the direct or incidental shark catch analyzed the most recent species- as intrinsic rate of population increase throughout most of their range (e.g., (r), has been estimated at 0.121 per year specific observer data for the common Western and Central Pacific Ocean, thresher shark from 1992–2013, and (Corte´s et al., 2012). The species’ Indian Ocean, South Atlantic). In fact, demographic parameters place it found no obvious change in the some evidence suggests that this species population trend over time, indicating towards the moderate to faster growing may be naturally rare in fisheries sharks along a ‘‘fast-slow’’ continuum of that the population in the Northwest throughout the tropical Western and Atlantic Ocean has stabilized. population parameters that have been Central Pacific and Indian Oceans due calculated for 38 species of sharks by In other areas of the common thresher to its more coastal and temperate Corte´s (2002, Appendix 2). In fact, a shark range, species-specific abundance distribution. This is evidenced by the number of studies have shown common data are absent, rare, or presented as a species’ rarity in fisheries data as well thresher sharks to be among the most thresher complex. In the Northeast as information (albeit limited) from productive species of sharks. For Atlantic and Mediterranean, only one genetic studies of shark fins throughout example, a recent study found that study provided a time-series analysis of these regions. As such, the common common thresher sharks ranked among fishery data specific to common thresher’s predominantly coastal and the highest in productivity when thresher sharks (Ferretti et al., 2008). temperate distribution may buffer the compared with other pelagic shark The study, which compiled 9 time species from exposure to high levels of species (ranking 9 out of 26 overall) in series of abundance indices from industrial high-seas fishing pressure in terms of its egg production, rebound commercial and recreational fishery a large portion of its range that could potential, potential for population landings, scientific surveys, and reduce its abundance. Finally, in most increase, and stochastic growth rate sighting records, used generalized linear areas showing overall declines in (Chapple and Botsford, 2013). However, models to extract instantaneous rates of Alopiids, the declines are not attributed primarily based on the fact that most change from each data set, and to common threshers, with the species of elasmobranchs require many conducted a meta-analysis to compare exception of the Mediterranean. years to mature, and have relatively low population trends. Results of this study fecundity compared to teleosts (bony Based on the very limited abundance indicate that common thresher fishes), these life history characteristics information available, from both fishery- abundance in this area decreased by 96– could pose a risk to this species in 99 percent over the last two centuries. independent and -dependent surveys, combination with threats that reduce its Most of the other scientific information and its general rarity in fisheries catch abundance. that we and the ERA team reviewed in a large portion of its range, the ERA presented data on other species of team concluded that the common Spatial Structure/Connectivity threshers or a thresher complex (see thresher shark has likely declined from The ERA team did not identify habitat Young et al., 2015). For example, one historical numbers as a result of fishing structure or connectivity as a potential study compared estimates of body mass mortality; however, based on the best risk to the common thresher shark. and indices of abundance and biomass available information, current common Habitat characteristics that are derived from data collected in recent thresher abundance is either stable, important to the common thresher shark years by observers on commercial recovered, or shows no clear trend for are largely unknown, as are nursery longliners in the tropical Pacific with most areas. While the level of decline in areas. The common thresher is a those from a scientific survey conducted the Mediterranean is concerning, the relatively widespread species, with in the same general region in the early ERA team concluded, and we agree, that multiple stocks in the Pacific, Indian, 1950s (Ward and Myers, 2005). This the Mediterranean represents a small and Atlantic oceans. The population study estimated a decline in combined portion of the common thresher shark’s exchange between these stocks is thresher abundance (all three Alopias global range and likely does not affect unknown but probably low, so loss of a spp.) of 83 percent, with a decline in the global population, particularly given single stock would not constitute a risk biomass to approximately 5 percent of the lack of evidence for trans-Atlantic to the entire species. Additionally, there virgin levels and significant reductions migrations from the Mediterranean to is currently no evidence of female in mean body mass. Mean body mass other portions of the species’ range. philopatry, the species is highly mobile, (kg) also declined by nearly 30 percent Therefore, we conclude that there is no and there is little known about specific (from 17 kg to 12 kg). However, in evidence to suggest that the species is at migration routes. It is also unknown if addition to the fact that this study does a high risk of extinction throughout its there are source-sink dynamics at work not present data for any particular range, now or in the foreseeable future, that may affect population growth or thresher species, the ERA team due to environmental variation, species’ decline. Finally, there is no identified several caveats of this study, anthropogenic perturbations, or information on critical source

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18986 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

populations to suggest spatial structure The Present or Threatened Destruction, On the U.S. West Coast, common and/or loss of connectivity are presently Modification, or Curtailment of its thresher pups are found in near-shore posing demographic risks to the species. Habitat or Range waters of the Southern California Bight. Thus, based on the best available The ERA team did not identify habitat Essential fish habitat is described for information, the ERA team concluded, destruction as a potential threat to the three age classes in this area: Neonate/ and we agree, that there is insufficient common thresher shark. As described early juveniles, late juveniles/subadults, information to support the conclusion earlier (see Species Description— and adults. For neonate/early juveniles that spatial structure and connectivity Habitat Use and Movement section), the (<102 cm FL), EFH includes epipelagic, pose significant risks to this species’ common thresher shark is found neritic and oceanic waters off beaches, continued existence. worldwide, and resides in coastal in shallow bays, in near surface waters from the U.S.-Mexico EEZ border north Diversity temperate and tropical seas, with a noted tolerance for colder waters. to off Santa Cruz, over bottom depths of The ERA team concluded that the Common thresher sharks are both 6 to 400 fathoms (fm; 11–732 m), current level of information regarding coastal, ranging over continental and particularly in water less than 100 fm the common thresher’s diversity is insular shelves, and epipelagic, ranging (183 m) deep and to a lesser extent either unavailable or unknown, such far from land, though they are most farther offshore between 200–300 fm that the contribution of this factor to the abundant near land approximately 40– (366–549 m). For late juveniles/ extinction risk of the species cannot be 50 nautical miles (nmi; 74–93 km) from subadults (>101 cm FL and <167 cm determined at this time. There is no shore (Strasburg, 1958; Bedford, 1992). FL), EFH is described as epipelagic, evidence that the species is at risk due However, little else is known regarding neritic and oceanic waters off beaches to a substantial change or loss of specific habitat preferences or and open coast bays and offshore, in variation in genetic characteristics or characteristics. near-surface waters from the U.S.- gene flow among populations. This In the U.S. exclusive economic zone Mexico EEZ border north to off Pigeon species is found in a broad range of (EEZ), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Point, California, from the 6 to 1,400 fm habitats and appears to be well-adapted Conservation and Management Act (11–2,560 m) isobaths. For adults (>166 and opportunistic. Additionally, there (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) requires cm FL), EFH is described as epipelagic, are no restrictions to the species’ ability NMFS to identify and describe essential neritic and oceanic waters off beaches to disperse and contribute to gene flow fish habitat (EFH) in fishery and open coast bays, in near surface throughout its range, nor is there management plans (FMPs), minimize waters from the U.S.-Mexico EEZ border evidence of a substantial change or loss the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, north seasonally to Cape Flattery, WA, of variation in life-history traits, and identify actions to encourage the from the 40 fm (73 m) isobath westward population demography, morphology, conservation and enhancement of EFH. to approximately north of the behavior, or genetic characteristics. To that end, NMFS has funded two Mendocino Escarpment and from the 40 Based on this information, the ERA cooperative survey programs intended to 1,900 fm (73–3,474 m) isobaths south team concluded, and we agree, that to help delineate shark nursery habitats of the Mendocino Escarpment. In the there is insufficient information to in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Western Pacific, including Hawaii, support the conclusion that diversity Cooperative Atlantic States Shark American Samoa, Guam, and the poses significant risks to this species’ Pupping and Nursery Survey and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana continued existence. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico States Shark Islands, EFH for common thresher Pupping and Nursery Survey are sharks is broadly defined as the water Summary of Factors Affecting the column down to a depth of 1,000 m (547 Common Thresher Shark designed to assess the geographical and seasonal extent of shark nursery habitat, fm) from the shoreline to the outer limit As described above, section 4(a)(1) of determine which shark species use of the EEZ (WPFMC, 2009). the ESA and NMFS’ implementing these areas, and gauge the relative Common thresher shark habitat in regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that importance of these coastal habitats for other parts of its range is assumed to be we must determine whether a species is use in EFH determinations. For the similar to that in the Northwest Atlantic endangered or threatened because of common thresher, results from the and Gulf of Mexico, comprised of open any one or a combination of the surveys indicate the importance of ocean environments occurring over following factors: The present or coastal waters off the East Coast of the broad geographic ranges and threatened destruction, modification, or Atlantic, from Maine to the Florida characterized primarily by the water curtailment of its habitat or range; Keys, areas scattered in the Gulf of column attributes. As such, large-scale overutilization for commercial, Mexico from the southern coast of impacts, such as global climate change, recreational, scientific, or educational Florida to Texas, and areas south and that affect ocean temperatures, currents, purposes; disease or predation; the southwest of Puerto Rico (NMFS, 2009). and potentially food chain dynamics, inadequacy of existing regulatory As a side note, insufficient data are may pose a threat to this species. mechanisms; or other natural or available to differentiate EFH by size Studies on the impacts of climate manmade factors affecting its continued classes in the Atlantic; therefore, EFH is change specific to thresher sharks have existence. The ERA team evaluated the same for all life stages. Since not been conducted; however, there are whether and the extent to which each of common thresher shark EFH is defined a couple of studies on other pelagic the foregoing factors contributed to the as the water column or attributes of the shark species that occur in the range of overall extinction risk of the global water column, NMFS determined that the common thresher shark. For common thresher shark population. there are minimal or no cumulative example, Chin et al. (2010) conducted This section briefly summarizes the anticipated impacts to the EFH from an integrated risk assessment for climate ERA team’s findings and our gear used in U.S. Highly Migratory change to assess the vulnerability of conclusions regarding threats to the Species (HMS) and non-HMS fisheries, pelagic sharks, as well as a number of common thresher shark. More details basing its finding on an examination of other chondrichthyan species, to can be found in the status review report published literature and anecdotal climate change on the Great Barrier Reef (Young et al., 2015). evidence (NMFS, 2006). (GBR). The assessment examined

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18987

individual species but also lumped restricted. The ERA team noted that As noted previously in the Evaluation species together in ecological groups common threshers are not reliant on of Demographic Risks—Abundance (such as freshwater and estuarine, estuarine habitats, which are thought to section, there is very little information coastal and inshore, reef, shelf, etc.) to be one of the most vulnerable habitat on the historical abundance, catch, and determine which groups may be most types to climate change. Additionally, trends of common thresher sharks, with vulnerable to climate change. The common threshers are likely more the exception of U.S. data from the assessment took into account the in situ confined by temperature and prey Northeast Pacific and Northwest changes and effects that are predicted to distributions than a particular habitat Atlantic. The species is only occur over the next 100 years in the type. The highly migratory nature of the occasionally mentioned in fisheries GBR and assessed each species’ common thresher shark gives it the records from the Western and Central exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive ability to shift its range or distribution Pacific and Indian Oceans, and is capacity to a number of climate change to remain in an environment conducive considered rare in fisheries of the South factors including: water and air to its physiological and ecological Atlantic. Although more countries and temperature, ocean acidification, needs. Therefore, while effects from regional fisheries management freshwater input, ocean circulation, sea climate change have the potential to organizations (RFMOs) are working level rise, severe weather, light, and pose a threat to sharks in general, towards better reporting of fish catches ultraviolet radiation. Of the 133 GBR including habitat changes (e.g., changes down to species level, catches of shark and ray species, the assessment in currents and ocean circulation) and common threshers have gone and identified 30 as being moderately or potential impacts to prey species, continue to go unrecorded in many highly vulnerable to climate change. species-specific impacts to common countries. Additionally, many catch The pelagic shark species included in threshers and their habitat are currently records that do include thresher sharks the assessment, however, were not unknown, but likely minimal. Overall, it do not differentiate between the Alopias among these species. In fact, the pelagic is very unlikely that the loss or species or shark species in general, and shark group was ranked as having a low degradation of any particular habitat if they do, they are often plagued by overall vulnerability to climate change, type would have a substantial effect on species misidentifications. These with low vulnerability to each of the the common thresher population. Thus, numbers are also likely under-reported assessed climate change factors. In based on the best available information, in catch records, as many records do not another study on potential effects of we conclude that current evidence does account for discards (e.g., where the fins climate change to sharks, Hazen et al. not indicate that there exists a present are kept but the carcass is discarded) or (2012) used data derived from an or threatened destruction, modification, reflect dressed weights instead of live electronic tagging project (Tagging of or curtailment of the common thresher weights. Thus, the lack of catch data for Pacific Predators Project) and output shark’s habitat or range. common thresher sharks makes it from a climate change model to predict Overutilization for Commercial, difficult to estimate rates of fishing habitat and diversity shifts in top Recreational, Scientific, or Educational mortality or conduct detailed marine predators in the Pacific out to Purposes quantitative analyses of the effects of the year 2100. Results of the study fishing on common thresher The common thresher shark is showed significant differences in habitat populations. considered desirable for human change among species groups, which consumption and a highly prized game In the eastern North Pacific, common resulted in species-specific ‘‘winners’’ fish; thus, it is a valuable bycatch and thresher sharks were historically and ‘‘losers.’’ The shark guild as a whole target species, which increases its targeted and caught in the California had the greatest risk of pelagic habitat susceptibility to being overfished. The drift gillnet swordfish/pelagic shark loss. However, the model predictions in ERA team assessed three different fishery beginning in the late 1970s. The Hazen et al. (2012) and the vulnerability factors that may contribute to the California fishery for common threshers assessment in Chin et al. (2010) overutilization of the common thresher peaked in 1982 with estimated landings represent only two very broad analyses shark: Bycatch in commercial fisheries of approximately 1,800 mt, and then of how climate change may affect (including at-vessel and post-release sharply declined in 1986, when all pelagic sharks, and do not account for mortality rates), targeting in recreational subadults were virtually eliminated factors such as species interactions, food fisheries, and the global shark trade from the population due to overfishing web dynamics, and fine-scale habitat (including the trade of both common (Camhi et al., 2009; Goldman, 2009). As use patterns that need to be considered thresher fins and meat). Common a result, the common thresher to more comprehensively assess the thresher sharks are caught as bycatch in population experienced a significant effects of climate change on the pelagic many global fisheries, including bottom historical decline, with approximately ecosystem. Further, results of these and pelagic longline fisheries, purse 77 percent of the spawning potential studies are not specific to thresher seine fisheries, coastal gillnet fisheries, relative to the unfished stock removed sharks, and finally, the complexity of and artisanal fisheries. As a primarily by fishing during that period. Catch-per- ecosystem processes and interactions coastal and temperate species, the unit-effort (CPUE) also declined during complicate the interpretation of common thresher shark is relatively rare this time period. By 1990, the fishery modeled climate change predictions and in catches of tropical fisheries, shifted to a swordfish fishery primarily the potential impacts on populations. particularly in the Western and Central due to economic drivers, but also to Thus, the potential effects of climate Pacific and Indian Oceans. They are also protect pupping female thresher sharks change on common thresher sharks and rare in catches of fisheries operating in (PFMC, 2003), with a series of their habitat are highly uncertain. the South Atlantic. Though it is regulations restricting the time-areas Overall, the common thresher shark is generally not a target species in allowed for fishing, gear configurations, highly mobile throughout its range, and commercial fisheries, it is valued for and bycatch limitations. Commercial although very little information is both its meat and fins, and is therefore landings from the U.S. West Coast known on habitat use or pupping and valued as incidental catch for the swordfish/shark drift gillnet fishery nursery areas, there is no evidence to international shark trade (Clarke et al., declined from 1,800 mt in the early suggest its access to suitable habitat is 2006a; Dent and Clarke, 2015). 1980s to approximately 10 mt by 18

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18988 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

vessels in 2014. From 2004–2014, only 23 common thresher sharks were fishery sectors combined) (Young et al., annual U.S. commercial landings caught from 1999–2010 (Dapp et al., 2015). averaged around 115 mt (PFMC, 2015), 2013). Additionally, while both pelagic Further, in several analyses of which is below the current established and bigeye thresher sharks are listed as fisheries data from the Western and sustainable and precautionary harvest commonly caught species in Ecuadorian Central Pacific (based on data holdings level of 340 mt and well below the waters, the common thresher is not of the Secretariat of the Pacific current maximum sustainable yield listed, and pelagic threshers are the Community (SPC)) common thresher (MSY) of the species (i.e., 806 mt). dominant thresher species in thresher sharks were characterized as ‘‘rare’’ or Overall, the California drift gill net shark landings (Jacquet et al., 2008; ‘‘not frequently encountered’’ with the fishery serves as a well-documented Reardon et al., 2009; Martinez-Ortiz et exception of the more temperate waters case of marked population depletion of al., 2015). Thus, the common thresher of Australia and New Zealand. For a small, localized stock of common shark is seemingly rare in tropical example, in analyses of Japanese thresher shark over a short time period fisheries of the Eastern Pacific, likely longline data, where thresher sharks (less than a decade) followed by a comprise approximately 3.44 percent of due to its more temperate distribution. gradual recovery after the the total shark catch, the bigeye thresher implementation of regulatory measures. In the Western and Central Pacific was the dominant thresher species Based on the recent stock assessment Ocean, all three thresher shark species encountered. In order to determine the results of Teo et al. (in prep), the interact with longline fisheries, with stock status of key shark species in the common thresher stock along the West recent catch estimates from 1992–2009 Western and Central Pacific Ocean Coast of North America is not indicating that the genus Alopias (including thresher sharks) Clarke et al. considered overfished and overfishing is comprises approximately 3 percent of (2011) conducted an indicator analysis not occurring. In fact, the eastern North the total shark catch (Clarke, 2014). by examining data holdings from the Pacific stock of common thresher has However, most of the available fisheries Secretariat of the Pacific Community- recovered to approximately 94 percent data from the Western and Central Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC– of its pre-fished levels. Pacific are for the thresher complex (all OFP) for sharks taken in longline and In other areas of the Eastern Pacific, three Alopias spp.). While records of purse seine fisheries. In summary, the the level of utilization of common bigeye and pelagic threshers are indicator analysis showed that the three thresher is unclear. Common threshers recorded in the catches of fisheries thresher species have divergent, but not are taken in artisanal, pelagic longline operating in this region, albeit very necessarily distinct, distributions and and gillnet fisheries targeting pelagic under-reported, very little information interact with longline fisheries sharks off Mexico’s Pacific Coast (Sosa- is available on catches of common throughout the Western and Central Nishizaki et al., 2008); however, the thresher shark. Both historical Pacific Ocean. Threshers comprise a recent stock assessment for the eastern observations and the best available notable portion of the longline catch North Pacific stock of common thresher current information indicate that only in one particular region of the (described above) includes removals common threshers are relatively rare in Central Pacific (just south of Hawaii), from these Mexican fisheries, and this region, as they are not frequently and mainly in deep sets. While catch deemed these removal levels as encountered in tropical fisheries due to rate analysis produced no clear trends sustainable (Teo et al., in prep). Farther their distribution in more coastal and for the group as a whole, decreasing size south, the common thresher shark is temperate waters. This is evidenced by trends were identified in tropical reportedly caught in longline and gillnet the lack of catch and genetic records of regions; however, the authors fisheries in Peru and has been reported common thresher sharks in areas of high determined that these trends were most as the sixth most important commercial fishing effort, which is seemingly likely reflective of trends in bigeye shark species in Peruvian fisheries, concentrated in more tropical waters. thresher rather than common or pelagic representing 6 percent of total shark threshers. Finally, the most recent For example, in the Republic of the landings (Romero Camarena and analysis to date of standardized longline Marshall Islands (RMI), while both Bustamante Ruiz, 2007; Gonzalez- CPUE data shows a decline for the pelagic and bigeye threshers are two of Pestana et al., 2014). However, it is thresher shark complex in recent years only five species that comprise 80 highly likely that these records were in the region (Rice et al., 2015), and misidentified pelagic thresher sharks, as percent of the total annual shark catch, when combined with decreasing size a recent genetic study focused on the common thresher is observed in trends, likely indicates some level of landings of the small-scale Peruvian substantially lower numbers; only 87 population decline of the thresher shark fishery discovered a long-term common threshers were taken in RMI complex in this area. However, based on misidentification between common and longline fisheries from 2005–2009, catch data and the differing pelagic thresher sharks at landing points compared to 1,636 bigeye thresher distributions between the thresher (Velez-Zuazo et al., 2015). Although the sharks, and 1,353 pelagic thresher species, the ERA team concluded, and common thresher is the only species sharks (Bromhead et al., 2012). we agree, that it is more likely these listed in official Peruvian landing Likewise, common thresher occurrence trends largely reflect those of bigeye reports, all samples in the in Hawaiian pelagic longline fisheries in thresher rather than the common aforementioned study labeled as the Central Pacific is considered thresher. thresher shark corresponded to pelagic uncommon, while the bigeye thresher is As mentioned previously, common thresher shark (n = 12), indicating that considered the dominant thresher thresher sharks are more prevalent in landing reports in Peru may be pooled species encountered. For example, temperate waters, and are more for all Alopias species, (Velez-Zuazo et Hawaii observer data from 1995–2006 commonly encountered in Australian al., 2015) with the majority possibly indicated a low catch of common and New Zealand fisheries. Common comprised of pelagic threshers. Reports thresher sharks (only 7 individuals thresher sharks are caught in a number of common thresher shark landings are identified as A. vulpinus and 1,246 of fisheries operating off the eastern and uncommon in Costa Rica and Ecuador. individuals for the combined category of western coasts of Australia, including According to observer data recorded on A. vulpinus/A. pelagicus on 26,507 sets the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Costa Rican longline vessels, a total of total (4.7 percent of total sets), both (ETBF), Southern and Eastern Scale Fish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18989

and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the to increase; however, the stabilization of population of common threshers in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery thresher shark populations in the 1990s area, as well as affect recruitment into (WTBF). A number of risk assessments coincided with the first Federal Fishery the local population. However, landings have been conducted for these fisheries, Management Plan for Sharks in the of thresher shark reported to in which the common thresher received Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of International Commission for the various scores based on its productivity, Mexico, which includes regulations on Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) susceptibility, and encounterability. trip limits and quotas (see Factor D— by the European Union (EU) have However, although these risk Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory declined significantly in recent years, assessments are informative, without Mechanisms for more details). which may be the result of recent any corresponding catch and effort data, Therefore, under current management regulations enacted by Spain, a top it is difficult to discern what the status measures, the ERA team concluded that thresher catching country, that prohibit of the common thresher shark is in overutilization is not currently the retention and sale of all thresher Australian waters. In New Zealand, the occurring in this portion of the common species (including the common thresher common thresher is reported as bycatch thresher’s range to the point that it shark). As previously mentioned, in New Zealand’s surface longline significantly contributes to the species’ although the level of utilization and fishery. According to observer data, an global risk of extinction, now or in the potential population decline of common estimated 1,304 thresher sharks were foreseeable future. thresher shark in the Mediterranean is caught as bycatch in the New Zealand In the Northeast Atlantic and concerning, the ERA team concluded, longline fishery from 2006–2009. In Mediterranean, fisheries data for and we agree, that the Mediterranean is 2009, only 37.5 percent of threshers thresher shark landings are scarce and a small portion of the common thresher were retained, with the remaining 62.5 unreliable because they are reported shark’s global range and likely does not percent released alive. Additionally, a irregularly and variably, and it is likely affect the global population. In fact, large reduction in longline effort has that the two thresher species (A. despite the reported declines, the occurred since 2004. We could not find vulpinus and A. superciliosus) are common thresher is still considered one any additional information regarding mixed in the records (ICES, 2014). of the most common bycatch species in temporal abundance trends in this Though both adult and juvenile some fisheries operating in this region. fishery, but according to the New common threshers have been reported In the Southwest Atlantic, there is Zealand Fisheries Department, bycatch as bycatch in all fishing gears used in little information on the catch rates or numbers are considered stable at this the Mediterranean basin, including trends of thresher sharks. Some time (New Zealand Ministry of longline, purse seine, trawl, driftnet, countries still fail to collect shark data Fisheries, 2015). trammel net, gillnet, fish traps, and mid- while others collect it but fail to report In the Northwest Atlantic, common water fisheries, they are caught mainly (Fre´dou et al., 2015). Thresher sharks threshers are taken predominantly in in longline fisheries for tunas and are taken as bycatch in various fisheries, the U.S. pelagic longline (PLL) fishery. swordfish. The main landing nations of including Cuban, Brazilian, Uruguayan, Based on the best available data, the thresher sharks in the Northeast Atlantic Taiwanese, Japanese, Venezuelan, and common thresher population size has and Mediterranean are Portugal, Spain Portuguese longline fisheries. However, likely declined in this region due to and France. As discussed earlier in the based on the best available information, historical exploitation of the species Demographic Assessment—Abundance catches of common thresher sharks are (see Abundance section; Baum et al. section, only one study is available to relatively rare in the South Atlantic. For (2003), Corte´s (2007)). However, as suggest that common thresher sharks example, from 1994–2000, the common previously described, these data are have declined between an estimated 96 thresher shark represented only 1.6 largely based on fisheries logbooks and and 99 percent in abundance and percent of the total shark catch in the are not species-specific, with the bigeye biomass in the Mediterranean Sea over Venezuelan pelagic longline fishery. thresher representing the majority of the the past two centuries (Ferretti et al., Likewise, although the common catch. Since 2006 (the last year of the 2008). Data from this region suggest that thresher has been reported in catches of fisheries data from the Baum et al. both annual catches and mean weights Brazilian Santos longline fishery, the (2003) and Corte´s (2007) papers), the of common thresher shark have fallen species is characterized as ‘‘occasional,’’ trend is unclear, with some evidence significantly as a result of fishing with almost 100 percent of thresher that the population has actually mortality. For example, a significant catch in Brazil represented by the bigeye stabilized (Baum and Blanchard, 2010). population reduction has been observed thresher. In Uruguayan longline In order to discern abundance trends in Tunisian waters, with small-scale fisheries, common thresher CPUE was specific to the common thresher, the fisheries now targeting neonates. Recent low from 2001–2005 (ranging from 0.13 ERA team conducted a species-specific investigations also show common in 2002 to 0.004 in 2005); however, analysis using standardized abundance thresher sharks are being increasingly these low CPUE values were directly indices derived from U.S. PLL fishery targeted in the Alboran Sea by the related to the spatial distribution of observer data. Results of this analysis illegal large-scale swordfish driftnet effort in areas where the occurrence of show that the common thresher shark fleet based primarily in Morocco. Of common thresher is naturally lower population in this region has likely concern is the fact that the Alboran Sea (Berrondo et al., 2007). Additionally, no stabilized since 1990. Reported landings has been identified as a potential real trend could be discerned from this for common thresher in the Northwest nursery area for common threshers, as dataset. As such, the ERA team Atlantic have also remained stable in aggregations of gravid females have been concluded, and we agree, that the recent years at approximately 21 mt. observed in this area (Moreno and common thresher is likely naturally rare This indicates that current levels of Moron, 1992; Tudela et al., 2005). The in this portion of its range given its catch and bycatch and associated intensive fishing pressure and potential more temperate distribution and rarity mortality may be sustainable in this targeting of common thresher sharks by in catches of longline fisheries portion of the species’ range. There is the swordfish driftnet fleet in the operations in this region. Thus, we still uncertainty and the problem could Alboran Sea has the potential to conclude that overutilization as a result get worse if longline fishing effort were significantly impact the local of fishing mortality is not likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18990 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

occurring in the Southwest Atlantic high hooking mortality (Murua et al. In addition to overutilization in such that it places the species at an 2012; IOTC, 2014). However, results commercial fisheries, the ERA team also increased risk of extinction throughout from an Ecological Risk Assessment that assessed whether recreational fisheries its global range, now or in the examined the impact of longline could be a threat driving overutilization foreseeable future. fisheries of the Indian Ocean on sharks of the common thresher shark. Common In an effort to evaluate the indicate that common thresher sharks thresher sharks are highly prized game vulnerability of specific shark stocks to face a low risk; in fact, common fish in recreational fisheries due to their pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic threshers were ranked as the least large size and fighting abilities. Ocean, Corte´s et al. (2012) conducted an vulnerable out of a total of 16 pelagic Information regarding recreational Ecological Risk Assessment using shark species (based on their relatively fisheries data for common threshers is observer information collected from a high productivity and lower severely lacking, with the exception of number of fleets operating under ICCAT susceptibility scores) (Murua et al., the United States, where common (which is the RFMO responsible for the 2012). We could not find any studies on threshers are popular in both East and conservation of tunas and tuna-like the trends in abundance or catch rates West Coast recreational fisheries. In species in the Atlantic Ocean and its of common threshers in the Indian particular, the common thresher shark is adjacent seas). Ecological Risk Ocean, making it difficult to determine the focus of a popular southern Assessments are popular modeling tools California recreational fishery that that take into account a stock’s the level of exploitation of these species within the ocean basin. In fact, we could targets individuals using multiple biological productivity (evaluated based fishing gears and techniques. Of concern on life history characteristics) and only find one study from India that reported CPUE rates over time for sharks are the high post-release mortality rates susceptibility to a fishery (evaluated reported for common threshers after based on availability of the species in general. In the Andaman and Nicobar being foul-hooked in the tail and hauled within the fishery’s area of operation, region, where catch of common thresher in backwards. Because the common encounterability, post capture mortality is reportedly most prevalent, total shark thresher shark is an obligate ram- and selectivity of the gear) in order to CPUE declined sharply (approximately ventilator, which means it requires determine its overall vulnerability to 81 percent) from peak CPUE in years forward motion to ventilate the gills, the overexploitation (Corte´s et al., 2012). 1992–1993 to years 1996–1997 (John reduced ability to extract oxygen from Ecological Risk Assessment models are and Varghese, 2009). However, the lack the water during capture, as well as the useful because they can be conducted of species-specific CPUE information for stress induced from these capture on a qualitative, semi-quantitative, or common thresher sharks, or even genus- methods, may influence recovery quantitative level, depending on the level information for thresher sharks, type of data available for input. Results makes it difficult to evaluate the following release. In fact, results from from the Corte´s et al. (2012) Ecological potential changes in abundance for the Heberer (2010) revealed that large tail- hooked common thresher sharks with Risk Assessment indicate that common species in this region based on John and prolonged fight times (≥85 min) thresher sharks face a relatively low risk Varghese (2009) alone. In addition, experienced 100 percent mortality. in ICCAT fisheries. Out of the 20 given that common thresher sharks are However, the recent stock assessment assessed shark stocks, common thresher more commonly found in temperate for the eastern North Pacific common sharks ranked 9th in terms of their waters, and the prevalence of pelagic susceptibility to pelagic longline thresher population includes removals threshers in the catch of Indonesian from this recreational fishery, and fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. The fisheries fishing in nearby waters, the population’s estimated productivity shows that the current amount of reported A. vulpinus catch may be recreational fishing pressure and value (r = 0.121) ranked 8th; however, misidentified pelagic thresher sharks. this was based on older life history associated post-release mortality is Although the Indian Ocean Tuna sustainable. In the Northwest Atlantic, information and recent data suggest Commission (IOTC) reports that catches common thresher sharks are slightly less common thresher sharks have increased and associated mortality of thresher in popularity in U.S. shark fishing productive. Overall vulnerability sharks are high in the Indian Ocean, the ranking scores (using three different tournaments in recent years. For available data do not show extensive example, an estimated 17,834 common calculation methods, and ranked on a utilization of common thresher shark by scale of 1 to 20 where 1 = highest risk) thresher sharks were caught in the rod these fisheries relative to other shark ranged from 9 to 14, indicating that and reel fishery in the U.S. Northwest species, or even other thresher species. common thresher sharks have Atlantic from 2004–2013, with In fact, a recent working paper from the moderately low vulnerability and face a approximately 70 percent retained. In relatively low risk to overexploitation IOTC suggests that common threshers order to glean information on the by ICCAT pelagic longline fisheries may not even occur in the equatorial relative abundance of common thresher (Corte´s et al., 2012). and northern tropical Indian Ocean, and sharks in the Northwest Atlantic using There are currently no quantitative previous observations of this species are recreational fisheries data, the ERA team stock assessments or basic fishery likely misidentifications (Romanov, analyzed data collected by the NMFS indicators available for common 2015). Thus, we conclude that the Northeast Fisheries Science Center thresher sharks or even thresher sharks common thresher’s distribution likely (NEFSC) at five recreational fishing in general in the Indian Ocean. Thus, buffers it from significant impacts as a tournaments from 1978 through 2014. the level of common thresher shark result of fishing mortality in this part of These shark tournament data from the utilization in this region is highly its range, where fishing pressure and Northwest Atlantic (including several uncertain. Both common and bigeye inadequate regulatory measures may be tournaments in New York and New thresher sharks have been reported as more problematic. We noted that this Jersey), accounting for changes in effort, bycatch in Indian Ocean longline and threat may also be tempered by the show a fairly stable trend in relative gillnet fisheries, with thresher sharks as species’ relatively low vulnerability to abundance through the 1990s followed a genus comprising an estimated 16 high seas fisheries due to its wide range by an increasing trend through the end percent of the total shark catch in the and relatively high productivity for a of the time series. The ERA team Indian Ocean, and having reportedly pelagic shark species. acknowledged that due to the high

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18991

quality of the meat, the majority of threshers were both identified as to swim to survive). As a result, a common threshers caught in present). In yet another genetic change in market demand would not recreational fisheries are kept, but these barcoding study of fins from the United necessarily change the species’ numbers are likely minor, especially Arab Emirates, the fourth largest mortality rates in longline fisheries. compared to commercial catches. With exporter in the world of raw dried shark Further, in cases where the species is most species retained, high post-release fins to Hong Kong, the Alopiidae family alive upon capture, threshers are mortality rates seen in the southern represented 5.9 percent of the trade considered dangerous to handle California recreational fisheries are from Dubai (Jabado et al., 2015); onboard because of their large caudal irrelevant in the Northwest Atlantic. however, common threshers were once fin. In fact, some fishermen will even Further, fishing techniques between again not identified in the samples. In cut and release marketable sharks, southern California and the Northwest fact, we could only find one genetic including threshers, unless they are Atlantic are typically different, resulting study of fins, from Chile, in which dead or dying to minimize bodily injury in mostly mouth-hooked and higher common threshers were identified as during onboard handling (Gilman et al., survivorship of thresher sharks in the present in very small numbers. 2007; Clarke, 2011). Thus, based on the Atlantic, compared to mostly tail- Although it is uncertain whether these best available information, the ERA hooked thresher sharks and lower studies are representative of the entire team concluded, and we agree, that the survivorship in California (Pers. comm. market within each respective country, common thresher shark is likely not as NMFS Fisheries Statistics Division, results of these genetic tests provide prevalent in the shark fin trade relative 2015). some information (albeit limited) that to other shark species or even other Finally, the ERA team also assessed suggests the common thresher may not thresher species. Likewise, the shark whether the shark trade could be a be as utilized in the fin trade as other trade as a whole, including increasing threat driving overutilization of the shark species, or even its congeners, A. demand for shark meat, is not likely a common thresher shark. Based on Hong pelagicus and A. superciliosus. threat contributing to the overutilization Kong fin trade auction data from 1999– Additionally, it should be noted that of the species such that it faces a high 2001 and fin weights and genetic historically, thresher sharks were not risk of extinction throughout its global information, Clarke et al. (2006b) identified as ‘‘preferred’’ or ‘‘first range, now or in the foreseeable future. estimated that up to 4 million thresher choice’’ species for fins, with some sharks (all three Alopias spp.) (range: 2– traders considering thresher fins to be of Overall, based on the best available 4 million), with an equivalent biomass low quality and value (Rose, 1996; FAO, information, the ERA team concluded of around 60,000 mt, are traded 2002; Gilman et al., 2007; Clarke, pers. that overutilization is not likely annually. Thresher sharks as a genus comm., 2015). Furthermore, recent significantly contributing to the comprised approximately 2.3 percent of studies indicate that due to a waning common thresher’s risk of global the total fins traded annually in the interest in fins as well as increased extinction, now or in the foreseeable Hong Kong market (Clarke et al., 2006a). regulations to curb shark finning, the future. However, due to the paucity of The lack of estimates of the global, or shark fin market is declining. In fact, the available data, the ERA team even regional, population makes it trade in shark fins through China, Hong acknowledged that there are some difficult to put these numbers into Kong Special Administrative Region uncertainties in assessing the perspective. As a result, the effect at this (SAR), which has served as an indicator contribution of the threat of time of the removals (for the shark fin of the global trade for many years, rose overutilization to the extinction risk of trade) on the ability of the overall by 10 percent in 2011 but fell by 22 the common thresher shark. As results population to survive is unknown. percent in 2012. Additionally, current from the Corte´s et al. (2012) and Murua While the relative proportion of each indications are that the shark fin trade et al. (2012) Ecological Risk thresher shark species comprising the through Hong Kong SAR and China will Assessments demonstrated, the threat of shark fin trade is not available in this continue to contract (Dent and Clarke, overutilization of common thresher genus-level assessment by Clarke et al. 2015). In contrast, a surge in the trade sharks may be tempered by the species’ (2006a), genetic testing conducted in of shark meat has occurred in recent relatively low vulnerability to certain some fish markets provides some (albeit years. This could be the result of a fisheries, a likely condition of their limited) insight into the species-specific number of factors, but taking the shark wide range, rare presence on common prevalence of threshers in the shark fin fin and shark meat aggregate trends fishing grounds where fishing pressure trade. Genetic sampling was conducted together indicate that shark fin supplies is likely most concentrated, and their on shark fins collected from several fish are limited by the existing levels of relatively high productivity. Given the markets throughout Indonesia, and chondrichthyan capture production, but above analysis and best available revealed that five species (including shark meat is underutilized by information, we do not find evidence pelagic and bigeye threshers) international markets (Dent and Clarke, that overutilization is a threat that is represented more than 50 percent of the 2015). This suggests that historically currently placing the species in danger total fins sampled (n = 582). Pelagic and underutilized chondrichthyan species of extinction throughout its global bigeye threshers collectively will be increasingly utilized for their range, now or in the foreseeable future. represented nearly 15 percent of the meat. However, because the common The severity of the threat of total fins sampled; however, the thresher shark has historically been overutilization is dependent upon other common thresher was not detected in fully utilized for both its fins and meat risks and threats to the species, such as these samples (Sembiring et al., 2015). when captured, it is unlikely that this its abundance (as a demographic risk) as Likewise, in Taiwan, which has recently shift in the shark trade would create well as its level of protection from surpassed Hong Kong as the world’s new or increasing demand for the fishing mortality throughout its range. largest fin-trading center (Dent and species. Additionally, thresher sharks in However, at this time, there is no Clarke, 2015), common thresher sharks general tend to have relatively low evidence to suggest the species is at or were not identified in 548 genetically survival rates on longlines (the main near a level of abundance that places its tested meat samples from several gear type catching them) as they are current or future persistence in question markets (whereas pelagic and bigeye obligate ram ventilators (i.e., they have due to overutilization.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18992 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

Disease or Predation domestic and international management number of active participants in the The ERA team did not identify measures that may affect the common drift gillnet fishery declined by nearly disease or predation as potential threats thresher shark. More information on half, from 78 vessels in 2000 to 40 in to the common thresher shark, as they these domestic and international 2004, and has remained under 50 could not find any evidence to suggest management measures can be found in vessels since then. Although that either is presently contributing the status review report (Young et al., implemented for sea turtle protection, significantly to the species’ risk of 2015) and other recent status reviews of these closures help protect common extinction. Common thresher sharks other shark species (Miller et al., 2013 thresher sharks from fishing pressures likely carry a range of parasites, and 2014). related to gillnet fishing (PFMC, 2015). including copepods and cestodes (Love In the U.S. Pacific, HMS fishery The drift gillnet fishery is also managed and Moser, 1983). Specifically, nine management is the responsibility of by a limited entry permit system, with species of copepods, genus Nemesis, adjacent states and three regional mandatory gear standards. The permit is parasitize thresher sharks. These management councils that were linked to an individual fisherman, not a parasites attach themselves to gill established by the Magnuson-Stevens vessel, and is only transferable under filaments and can cause tissue damage, Act: The Pacific Fishery Management very restrictive conditions; thus, the which can then impair respiration in the Council (PFMC), the North Pacific value of the vessel does not become segments of the gills (Benz and Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), artificially inflated. To keep a permit Adamson, 1999); however, there are no and the Western Pacific Fishery active, current permittees are required existing data to suggest these parasites Management Council (WPFMC). On the to purchase a permit from one are affecting common thresher shark U.S. West Coast, common thresher consecutive year to the next; however, abundance levels. sharks are managed by the PFMC, under they are not required to make landings Predation is also not thought to be a the Pacific HMS FMP, as well as the using drift gillnet gear. In addition, a factor influencing common thresher states of California, Oregon, and general resident or non-resident numbers. The most significant predator Washington. As a result of declining commercial fishing license and a on thresher sharks is likely humans; abundance, and because common current vessel registration are required however, a study from New Zealand threshers are considered vulnerable to to catch and land fish caught in drift documented predation of A. vulpinus by overexploitation due to their low gillnet gear. A logbook is also required. killer whales (Visser, 2005). In a 12-year fecundity, long gestation periods, and The HMS FMP requires a Federal permit period that documented 108 encounters relatively high age at maturation, the with a drift gillnet gear endorsement for with New Zealand killer whales, only HMS FMP proposed a precautionary all U.S. vessels that fish for HMS within three individuals of A. vulpinus were annual harvest guideline of 340 mt for the West Coast EEZ and for U.S. vessels taken; thus, predation on A. vulpinus by common thresher sharks to prevent that pursue HMS on the high seas killer whales is likely opportunistic and localized depletion. This guideline was (seaward of the EEZ) and land their not a contributing factor to abundance implemented in 2004. Additionally, catch in California, Oregon, or levels of common threshers. It is likely specific measures implemented for the Washington. In Washington, drift gillnet that juvenile common thresher sharks California drift gillnet fishery for the fishing gear is prohibited and landings experience predation by adult sharks; as purposes of protecting other species also of thresher sharks are restricted under a result, juveniles spend approximately help to protect common thresher sharks. Washington Administrative Code 220– the first 3 years of life in nursery areas Both participation and fishing effort 44–050. As previously mentioned, the until they attain a large enough size to (measured by the number of sets) have recovery of the eastern North Pacific avoid predation. The rate of juvenile declined over the years, and industry stock of common thresher is largely predation and the subsequent impact on representatives attribute the decline in attributed to these regulatory the status of common thresher sharks is vessel participation and annual effort to mechanisms. unknown; however, because thresher regulations implemented to protect The WPFMC has jurisdiction over the sharks are born alive, and are already marine mammals, endangered sea EEZs of Hawaii, Territories of American about 150 cm TL at birth, predation turtles, and seabirds. For example, in Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the upon juvenile threshers is likely to be 2001, NMFS implemented two Pacific Northern Mariana Islands, and the minimal (Calliet and Bedford, 1983). sea turtle conservation areas on the Pacific Remote Island Areas, as well as Therefore, based on the best available West Coast with seasonal drift gillnet the domestic fisheries that occur on the information, the ERA team concluded, restrictions to protect endangered adjacent high seas. The WPFMC and we agree, that neither disease nor leatherback and loggerhead turtles. In developed the Pelagics Fishery predation is currently placing the the larger of the two closures (which Ecosystem Plan (FEP; formerly the species in danger of extinction spans the EEZ north of Point Fishery Management Plan for the throughout its global range, now or in Conception, California (34°27′ N. Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific the foreseeable future. latitude) to mid-Oregon (45° N. latitude) Region) in 1986 and NMFS, on behalf of and west to 129° W. longitude), drift the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory gillnet fishing is prohibited annually approved the Plan in 1987. Under the Mechanisms within this conservation area from FEP, thresher sharks are designated as The ERA team evaluated existing August 15 to November 15 to protect Pelagic Management Unit Species and regulatory mechanisms to determine leatherback sea turtles. The smaller are subject to regulations. These whether they may be inadequate to closure was implemented to protect regulations are intended to minimize address threats to the common thresher Pacific loggerhead turtles from drift impacts to targeted stocks as well as shark. Existing regulatory mechanisms gillnet gear during a forecasted or protected species. Fishery data are also may include Federal, state, and concurrent El Nin˜ o event and is located analyzed in annual reports and used to international regulations for commercial south of Point Conception, California amend the FEP as necessary. In Hawaii and recreational fisheries, as well as the and west of 120° W. longitude from June and American Samoa, thresher sharks shark trade. Below is a brief description 1 to August 31 (72 FR 31756). Since the are predominantly caught in longline and evaluation of current and relevant leatherback closure was enacted, the fisheries that operate under extensive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18993

regulatory measures, including gear, while onboard the vessel and all fins, This suggests that regulatory permit, logbook, vessel monitoring including the tail, must remain mechanisms are not adequate in this system, and protected species workshop naturally attached to the carcass through region to control for overutilization as a requirements. offloading. result of intensive fishing pressure. In the Northwest Atlantic, the U.S. In addition to Federal regulations, However, some recent regulations may Atlantic HMS Management Division individual state fishery management help to curb fishing pressure in the within NMFS develops regulations for agencies have authority for managing region. For example, in 2013, the Atlantic HMS fisheries, and primarily fishing activity in state waters, which European Parliament passed a coordinates the management of Atlantic usually extends from 0–3 nmi (5.6 km) regulation prohibiting the removal of HMS fisheries in Federal waters off the coast in most cases, and 0–9 nmi shark fins by all vessels in EU waters (domestic) and the high seas (16.7 km) off Texas and the Gulf coast and by all EU-registered vessels (international), while individual states of Florida. Federally permitted shark operating anywhere in the world. Many establish regulations for HMS in state fishermen along the Atlantic coast and individual European countries have also waters. The NMFS Atlantic HMS in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean are implemented measures to stop the Management Division currently required to follow Federal regulations in practice of finning and conserve shark manages 42 species of sharks (excluding all waters, including state waters. To aid populations. For example, in 2009, spiny dogfish) under the Consolidated in enforcement and reduce confusion Spain enacted national legislation HMS FMP (NMFS, 2006). The among fishermen, in 2010, the Atlantic (Orden ARM/2689/2009) that includes States Marine Fisheries Commission, management of these sharks is divided specific measures prohibiting Spanish which regulates fisheries in state waters into five species groups: Large coastal fishing vessels from catching, from Maine to Florida, implemented a sharks, small coastal sharks, pelagic transshipping, landing and marketing of Coastal Shark Fishery Management Plan sharks, smoothhound sharks, and sharks of the Family Alopiidae (all three that mostly mirrors the Federal prohibited sharks. Thresher sharks are Alopias spp.) in all fisheries. This regulations for sharks, including managed under the pelagic sharks includes territorial waters of Spain and common thresher sharks. group, which includes both common in other EU countries with which there Overall, regulations to control for is a fisheries agreement, and in areas and bigeye thresher sharks. One way overutilization of common threshers in that the HMS Management Division that can be accessed by private U.S. Atlantic commercial fisheries, agreement or contract lease of fishing controls and monitors this commercial including quotas and trip limits, are harvest is by requiring U.S. commercial vessels. This regulation went into effect seemingly adequate, as evidenced by in 2010. Given that Spain accounts for Atlantic HMS fishermen who fish for or stable CPUE trends for the species since sell common thresher sharks to have a approximately 7.3 percent of the global the 1990s, which corresponds with the shark catch (Lack and Sant, 2011) and Federal Atlantic Directed or Incidental implementation of management was the largest exporter of fins in 2008, shark limited access permit. These measures for pelagic sharks under the this prohibition has likely decreased permits are administered under a U.S. HMS FMP. From 2009 through total fishing mortality on the Atlantic limited access program, and the HMS 2014, commercial landings of common population of thresher sharks. This is Management Division is no longer thresher sharks have ranged from potentially evidenced by the fact that issuing new shark permits. As of approximately 15 mt dw to 53 mt dw, total EU catches of common threshers October 2015, 224 U.S. fishermen are and the population has seemingly dropped precipitously by approximately permitted to target sharks managed by stabilized under existing regulatory 65 percent from 2009 to 2010, and have the HMS Management Division in the mechanisms in this region. Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and In other parts of the common thresher continued to decline since. Thus, this an additional 275 fishermen are shark’s range, the ERA team noted that prohibition may be responsible for the permitted to land sharks incidentally effective international regulations significant decline in thresher landings (NMFS, 2015). Under a directed shark specific to common thresher sharks are by the EU reported to ICCAT since 2010, permit, there is no directed numeric lacking, particularly in the and may significantly reduce fishing retention limit for pelagic sharks, Mediterranean. Despite several laws and pressure on common thresher sharks. In subject to quota limitations. An regulatory mechanisms within the addition, the ERA team agreed that incidental permit allows fishers to keep region (e.g., EU Ban on driftnet fishing overutilization of the species in the up to a total of 16 pelagic or small in EU waters, ICCAT ban on driftnets for Mediterranean, which is a small portion coastal sharks (all species combined) large pelagics in the Mediterranean of the species’ global range, does not per vessel per trip. Authorized gear (Rec. 2003–04), and General Fisheries necessarily constitute a high risk of types include: Pelagic or bottom Commission of the Mediterranean extinction for the global population, longline, gillnet, rod and reel, handline, (GFCM) ban on use of driftnets in the now or in the foreseeable future. or bandit gear. There are no restrictions Mediterranean), recent investigations In Indian Ocean waters, the main on the types of hooks that may be used show common thresher sharks are being regulatory body is the IOTC, which has to catch common thresher sharks, and increasingly targeted in the Alboran Sea management measures in place there is no commercial minimum size by an illegal large-scale swordfish specifically for thresher sharks that limit. The annual quota for pelagic driftnet fleet based primarily in prohibit the landing of all Alopias sharks (other than blue sharks or Morocco. For example, Tudela et al. species. Specifically, in 2010, the IOTC porbeagle sharks) is currently 488 mt (2005) monitored 369 fishing operations passed recommendation 10–05 to dressed weight. In addition to made by the driftnet fleet between prohibit the retention, transshipment, permitting and trip limit requirements, December 2002 and September 2003 landing, storing, or offering for sale any logbook reporting or carrying an and estimated a total of 4,791 common part of carcass of thresher sharks of the observer onboard may be required for threshers caught over the 8-month family Alopiidae. The IOTC also selected commercial fishermen. The sampling period. When extrapolated to requires contracting parties (CPCs) to head may be removed and the shark 12-months, catches of common thresher annually report shark catch data and may be gutted and bled, but the shark sharks are estimated at about 7000–8000 provide statistics by species for a select cannot be filleted or cut into pieces individuals in the Alboran Sea alone. number of sharks, including thresher

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18994 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

sharks (Resolutions 05/05, 11/04, 08/04, shark catches were not causing largest sharks. Despite the increases in 10/03, 10/02). The IOTC also developed cumulative landings to exceed the popularity and targeting of common additional shark conservation and precautionary harvest guideline of 340 t. thresher sharks in recreational fisheries management measures that aim to Further, an analysis of bag limits in the Northeast United States, further reduce shark waste and showed that few anglers actually caught standardized tournament data that encourage the live release of sharks, and filled their legal limits. Finally, and account for changes in effort show especially juveniles or pregnant females, as previously described, a recent stock increasing relative abundance of caught incidentally (and not used for assessment (Teo et al., in prep) common thresher sharks in recent years. food or other purposes) in fisheries for confirmed that removal levels of This information, combined with a tunas and tuna-like species. However, it common thresher as a result of stable CPUE trend from commercial is unclear how effective these measures recreational fisheries are presently fisheries, indicates that the population have been. For example, in a recent sustainable and not contributing to the is stable and removals via recreational status report, the IOTC’s Working Party overutilization of the species. Thus, it fisheries are likely sustainable. on Ecosystems and Bycatch noted that appears that recreational fisheries In addition to commercial and the International Plan of Action for management of the U.S. West Coast recreational fishing regulations, the sharks was adopted in 2000, which population of thresher shark is United States has implemented a couple requires each CPC to develop a National precautionary, and ensures that of significant laws for the conservation Plan of Action (NPOA) for sharks; cumulative catches (recreational + and management of sharks: the Shark however, despite the time that has commercial) do not exceed the harvest Finning Prohibition Act and the Shark elapsed since then, very few CPCs have guideline (i.e., 340 mt) nor the Conservation Act. The Shark Finning developed NPOAs for sharks, or even maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (i.e., Prohibition Act was enacted in carried out assessments to determine 806 mt) for the species. December 2000 and implemented by final rule on February 11, 2002 (67 FR whether the development of a plan is In the U.S. Atlantic, an HMS permit 6194), and prohibited any person under prudent. Currently, only 12 of the 35 (either Angling or Charter/Headboat) is U.S. jurisdiction from: (i) Engaging in CPCs have developed NPOAs for sharks required for recreational fishing for the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing (IOTC, 2014). Additionally, although the sharks in Federal waters. Common shark fins aboard a fishing vessel IOTC is the only RFMO that has specific thresher sharks may be retained without the corresponding carcass; and regulations for all thresher species, the recreationally using authorized fishing IOTC itself acknowledges that species (iii) landing shark fins without the gear, including rod and reel and corresponding carcass. It also retention bans may not be adequate for handline. There are no restrictions on species that have high bycatch-related implemented a five percent fin to the types of hooks that may be used to carcass ratio, creating a rebuttable mortality rates. Overall, however, catch Atlantic sharks on these gear common threshers in particular do not presumption that fins landed from a types. Common thresher sharks that are fishing vessel or found on board a appear to be caught in large numbers by kept must have a minimum size of 54 fisheries in the Indian Ocean, likely a fishing vessel were taken, held, or inches (4.5 feet; 137 cm) FL. Sharks that landed in violation of the Act if the total result of the species’ more coastal, are under the minimum size must be temperate distribution in areas where weight of fins landed or found on board released, and only one shark, which the vessel exceeded five percent of the high seas longline fisheries operations could be a common thresher shark, may total weight of carcasses landed or are not as concentrated. In fact, it is be kept per vessel per trip (note, there found on board the vessel. The Shark quite possible that common thresher are exceptions to the retention limit and Conservation Act was signed into law sharks do not occur in equatorial or size limit for Atlantic sharpnose, on January 4, 2011, and, with a limited tropical waters of the Indian Ocean at bonnethead, and smoothhound sharks). exception for smooth dogfish (Mustelus all (Romanov, 2015). Thus, while Since 2008, recreational fishermen have canis), prohibits any person from regulatory mechanisms to control been required to land all sharks with removing shark fins at sea, or overutilization may be problematic for their head, fins, and tail naturally possessing, transferring, or landing more prevalent bycatch species in this attached. Thus, there are some shark fins unless they are naturally region, inadequate regulations in the management measures in place to attached to the corresponding carcass. Indian Ocean are potentially less regulate recreational catches of common After the passage of the Shark Finning problematic for the common thresher thresher sharks, including bag and size Prohibition Act, U.S. exports of dried shark. limits. As described previously, an shark fins significantly dropped, which On the U.S. West Coast, recreational estimated 17,834 common thresher was expected. In 2011, with the passage fisheries primarily occur in non-federal sharks were caught in the rod and reef of the U.S. Shark Conservation Act, waters (0–3 nmi off the coast) and are fishery in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic exports of dried shark fins dropped managed by the states of Washington, from 2004–2013, with approximately 70 again, by 58 percent, to 15 mt, the Oregon, and California, with inter-state percent retained. Additionally, size second lowest export amount since coordination facilitated through the limits for common thresher sharks 2001. This is in contrast to the price per Pacific States Marine Fisheries imposed by the various states under the kg of shark fin, which was at its highest Commission. Common thresher sharks ASMFC may not be helpful for reducing price of ∼$100/kg, and suggests that may be retained recreationally, except recreational fishing pressure because the existing regulations have likely been in Washington State, where any fishing size limit (137 cm FL) is significantly effective at discouraging fishing for for Alopias spp. is prohibited. California lower than the reported size of maturity sharks solely for the purpose of the fin recreational regulations impose a two- in the Northwest Atlantic, and thus, trade. Thus, although the international fish bag limit on thresher sharks. This allows for sexually immature juveniles shark fin trade is likely a driving force is cumulative for multi-day trips and to be caught and landed. However, behind the overutilization of many most anglers seldom fill bag limits. recreational fisheries, and in particular global shark species, the U.S. Upon a thorough review of recent tournaments, may have their own size participation in this trade appears to be California Recreational Fishery Survey limits that are larger than 137 cm FL diminishing. In 2012, the value of fins data, estimates of recreational thresher because they typically tend to target the also decreased, suggesting that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18995

worldwide demand for fins may be on in fisheries, and request the submission in Indonesia and a decline of 19 percent a decline. For example, a decrease in of data related to catches of sharks, since 2002–2003 in Central Maluku, U.S. fin prices coincided with the down to the species level where Southeastern Maluku and East Nusa implementation of fin bans in various possible. Tenggara; and of 20 Beijing restaurant U.S. states in 2012 and 2013, and U.S. While the ERA team initially representatives interviewed, 19 reported shark fin exports have continued on a expressed some concern regarding a significant decline in shark fin declining trend. However, it should be finning of common thresher sharks for consumption. Thus, given that thresher noted that the continued decline is also the international shark fin trade, they fins are not among the most prized in likely a result of the waning global noted that the situation appears to be the international shark fin trade (and, in demand for shark fins altogether. improving due to current regulations fact, are considered of low value to Similarly, many U.S. states, especially (e.g., increasing number of finning bans) some traders), combined with a lack of on the West Coast, and U.S. Flag Pacific and trends (e.g., waning demand for evidence of common thresher fins in Island Territories have also passed fin shark fins), and may not be as severe a several prominent markets, the extent of bans and trade regulations, threat to common thresher sharks utilization on common thresher sharks subsequently decreasing the United compared to other species, as some for this trade was not viewed as States’ contribution to the fin trade. For evidence suggests that thresher shark significant enough to decrease the example, after the State of Hawaii fins are not preferred or ‘‘first choice’’ species’ abundance to the point where prohibited finning in its waters and among some traders (Rose, 1996; FAO, it may be at risk of extinction due to required shark fins to be landed with 2002; Gilman et al., 2007; Clarke pers. environmental variation, anthropogenic their corresponding carcasses in the comm. 2015). Additionally, unlike perturbations, or depensatory processes. state in 2000, the shark fin exports from bigeye and pelagic thresher shark fins, Additionally, as the supply of shark fins the United States into Hong Kong common thresher shark fins have been continues to decline (as demonstrated declined significantly in 2001 (54 rarely identified as present in several by the increase in finning bans and percent decrease, from 374 to 171 t) as genetic tests of fins throughout various other regulations) and demand for shark Hawaii could therefore no longer be portions of the species’ range. Also, as fins also continues to decline (as used as a fin trading center for the discussed above (with further details in demonstrated by decreases in prices of international fisheries operating and Young et al., 2015), finning bans have shark fin food products), so should the finning in the Central Pacific (Clarke et been implemented by a number of threat of finning and illegal harvest. al., 2007). As described previously, countries, as well as by nine RFMOs. Finally, and as previously discussed landings of thresher sharks declined These finning bans range from requiring (refer back to the Overutilization for since 2000 in both American Samoa and fins remain attached to the body to commercial, recreational, scientific, or Hawaii, presumably due to the allowing fishermen to remove shark fins educational purposes section), although implementation of shark finning provided that the weight of the fins does there has been a recent shift in demand regulations. Thus, these regulations are not exceed five percent of the total from shark fins to shark meat, we have likely conferring a conservation benefit weight of shark carcasses landed or no evidence to suggest that the species for thresher sharks. found onboard. These regulations are is experiencing increased mortality in aimed at stopping the practice of killing Internationally, the RFMOs that cover fisheries as a result of this shift in the and disposing of shark carcasses at sea international market. the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, and only retaining the fins. Although including ICCAT, IOTC, the Western they do not prohibit shark fishing, they Based on the above review of and Central Pacific Fisheries work to decrease the number of sharks regulatory measures (in addition to the Commission (WCPFC), and the Inter- killed solely for the international shark regulations described in Young et al., American Tropical Tuna Commission fin trade, with some more effective than 2015), the ERA team concluded that (IATTC), require the full utilization of others. these existing regulations are not any retained catches of sharks, with a In addition to these finning bans, inadequate such that they contribute regulation that onboard fins cannot there has been a recent push to decrease significantly to the species’ risk of weigh more than five percent of the the demand of shark fins, especially for extinction throughout its global range. weight of the sharks (i.e., the five shark fin soup. For example, in a recent In fact, the team noted that some areas percent fin to carcass ratio). These report from WildAid, Whitcraft et al. of the species’ range do have adequate regulations are aimed at curbing the (2014) reported the following regarding measures in place to prevent practice of shark finning, but do not the declining demand for shark fins: An overutilization, such as in the Northeast prohibit the fishing of sharks. In 82 percent decline in sales reported by Pacific and Northwest Atlantic, where addition, these regulations may not be shark fin vendors in Guangzhou, China U.S. fishery management measures are as effective in stopping finning of sharks and a decrease in prices (47 percent helping to monitor the catch of common compared to those that require fins to be retail and 57 percent wholesale) over thresher and prevent any further naturally attached, as a recent study the past 2 years; 85 percent of Chinese population declines. Thus, these U.S. found many shark species, including the consumers surveyed online said they conservation and management measures common thresher shark, to have an gave up shark fin soup within the past (as previously summarized with average wet-fin-to-round-mass ratio of 3 years, and two-thirds of these additional details in Young et al., 2015) less than five percent (Biery and Pauly, respondents cited awareness campaigns are adequate and do not contribute to 2012). In other words, fishing vessels as a reason for ending their shark fin the extinction risk of the common operating in these RFMO convention consumption; 43 percent of consumers thresher shark by increasing areas may be able to land more shark responded that much of the shark fin in demographic risks (e.g., further fins than bodies and still pass the market is fake; 24 airlines, 3 abundance declines) or the threat of inspection. However, these RFMOs do shipping lines, and 5 hotel groups have overutilization (e.g., unsustainable catch encourage the release of live sharks, banned shark fin from their operations; rates) currently and in the foreseeable especially juveniles and pregnant there has been an 80 percent decline future. Although regulations specific to females that are caught incidentally and from 2007 levels in prices paid to common thresher sharks are lacking in are not used for food and/or subsistence fishermen in Tanjung Luar and Lombok other parts of its range, fishery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18996 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

interactions are rare (with the exception Moderate Risk (14.5/70), High Risk (3/ that the species has been fished to near of the Mediterranean) and thus the 70). The ERA team reiterated that in extinction). effects of the current regulatory most areas (with the exception of the The available information indicates measures do not appear to be Mediterranean), common thresher that most of the observed declines significantly increasing the species’ risk abundance trends are stable, increasing, occurred in the 1980s, before any of extinction. This species appears to be or not discernable. There is also no significant management regulations. naturally rare in many fisheries evidence to suggest depensatory Since then, current regulatory measures throughout its global range, and processes are currently at work. The in some parts of the common thresher overutilization of the species is not species is found globally, throughout its shark’s range are minimizing the threat considered a significant threat (see historical range, appears to be well- of overutilization. For example, the Overutilization for Commercial, adapted, and is not limited by habitat. recovery of the common thresher Recreational, Scientific or Educational The team noted that the only available population on the U.S. West Coast is Purpose section discussed earlier in this stock assessment of common thresher is largely attributed to the conservative notice). Therefore, based on the best from the eastern North Pacific. The management regulations implemented available information, we find that the stock assessment (Teo et al., in prep) for the California swordfish/shark threat of inadequate regulatory shows that although common threshers gillnet fishery. Additionally, the mechanisms is not likely contributing to experienced a significant historical comprehensive science-based the species’ risk of extinction decline in the 1980s, the species has management and enforceable and throughout its global range; however, recovered to more than 90 percent of effective regulatory structure within the we recognize that improvements are virgin, pre-fished levels. As discussed U.S. Northwest Atlantic will help needed in the monitoring and reporting previously, there were flaws in the other monitor and prevent further declines of of fishery interactions of this species. studies cited within the status review common thresher sharks while in these Other Natural or Manmade Factors report, including the fact that most of waters, and the implementation of Affecting Its Continued Existence these studies are not species-specific, as Spain’s regulation on the prohibition of As previously described, the ERA well as questionable species landing or selling all Alopias spp. will team assessed the effects of climate identification within the datasets (as provide increased protection for change as a potential threat to common only recently has more attention been common thresher sharks throughout the thresher sharks; however, since most of paid to accurately identifying thresher entire Atlantic Ocean into the the studied impacts from climate change sharks down to species). Some of these foreseeable future. In the rest of the are habitat-focused, the threat of climate studies have also been criticized for a species’ range, rare fisheries interactions change is addressed in the Present or number of other issues, including seem to imply that the species’ more Threatened Destruction, Modification, relying on fisheries logbook data, coastal and temperate distribution may or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range variation in locations between surveys buffer the species from exposure to section of this finding. Other threats that and differences in data sources (e.g., intensive fishing pressure by industrial fall under Factor E (ESA section fishery-independent data vs. fishery- high seas fisheries, which concentrate 4(a)(1)(E)), including pollution and dependent data), and not accounting for the majority of fishing effort in more potential threats to important prey other various factors that may have tropical waters. In addition, existing species, are addressed in the status affected the outcomes. After considering management measures (such as RFMO review report (Young et al., 2015), but the flaws within the datasets, as well as recommendations, national shark were not identified as threats that rose conducting separate analyses of fishing measures, and shark fin bans) to the level of increasing the species’ available and arguably more reliable may be effective at minimizing risk of extinction. observer data, the ERA team found the overutilization of the species, with results do not demonstrate that the trends that are moving toward more Overall Risk Summary common thresher shark is at risk of restrictive trade and decreased demand Guided by the results from the extinction due to its current abundance. in shark fin products, which indicate a demographic risk analysis and threats Throughout the species’ range, decreased likelihood of extinction of the assessment, the ERA team members observations of its abundance are global population in the foreseeable used their informed professional variable, with reports of increasing, future. Thus, given the best available judgment to make an overall extinction decreasing, and stable or no trends. The information, the ERA concluded that risk determination for the common species is also rare in fisheries data in over the next 30 years, it is unlikely that thresher shark now and in the a large portion of its range (Western and the common thresher shark will have a foreseeable future. The ERA team Central Pacific, Indian, and South high risk of extinction throughout its concluded that the common thresher Atlantic Oceans), either due to lack of global range, due to trends in its shark currently has a low risk of reporting or because the species is abundance, productivity, spatial extinction. However, due to the lack of simply not present in common fishing structure, or diversity or influenced by abundance trends and catch data for a grounds (or not susceptible to fishing stochastic or depensatory processes. large portion of the species’ range (e.g., gear, see Ecological Risk Assessment Significant Portion of Its Range Western and Central Pacific and Indian results). As the main threat that the ERA Oceans), as well as potentially team identified was overutilization due If we find that the common thresher significant declines observed in a small to fisheries (with references to historical shark is not in danger of extinction now portion of the range (e.g., overutilization), the absence of the or in the foreseeable future throughout Mediterranean), the ERA team species in fisheries data in a large its range, under the Significant Portion expressed some uncertainty by placing portion of its range suggests that this of its Range (SPR) Policy, we must go on some likelihood points in the ‘‘moderate threat is either being minimized by to evaluate whether the species is in risk’’ and ‘‘high risk’’ categories as well. existing regulations or is not danger of extinction, or likely to become Likelihood points attributed to the significantly contributing to the so in the foreseeable future, in a overall level of extinction risk categories extinction risk of the species at this time ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (79 FR were as follows: Low Risk (52.5/70), (as the abundance data do not indicate 37578; July 1, 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18997

The SPR Policy explains that it is species is so important that, without the would result in the remaining necessary to fully evaluate a particular members in that portion, the species population lacking enough genetic portion for potential listing under the would be in danger of extinction, or diversity to allow for adaptations to ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ likely to become so in the foreseeable changing environmental conditions. authority only if substantial information future, throughout all of its range’’ (79 Although there is preliminary evidence indicates that the members of the FR 37578, at 37609). For purposes of the of possible genetic partitioning between species in a particular area are likely SPR Policy, ‘‘[t]he range of a species is ocean basins, this was based on one both to meet the test for biological considered to be the general study with a limited sample size (see significance and to be currently geographical area within which that Trejo, 2005_ENREF_224). Since endangered or threatened in that area. species can be found at the time FWS common thresher sharks are globally Making this preliminary determination or NMFS makes any particular status distributed and highly mobile, we did triggers a need for further review, but determination. This range includes not find that the loss of the does not prejudge whether the portion those areas used throughout all or part Mediterranean portion would severely actually meets these standards such that of the species’ life cycle, even if they are fragment and isolate the common the species should be listed. To identify not used regularly (e.g., seasonal thresher population to the point where only those portions that warrant further habitats). Lost historical range is individuals would be precluded from consideration, we will determine relevant to the analysis of the status of moving to suitable habitats or have an whether there is substantial information the species, but it cannot constitute a increased vulnerability to threats. Areas indicating that (1) the portions may be significant portion of a species’ range’’ exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which significant and (2) the species may be in Id. could affect the survival of the species, danger of extinction in those portions or Applying the SPR policy to the were not evident in any part of the likely to become so within the common thresher shark, we first common thresher shark range. There is foreseeable future. We emphasize that evaluated whether there is substantial also no evidence that the Mediterranean answering these questions in the information indicating that the species portion of the range encompasses affirmative is not a determination that may be threatened or endangered in any aspects that are important to specific life history events that other portions do the species is endangered or threatened portion of its range. After a review of the throughout a significant portion of its not, where loss of the former portion best available information, the ERA range—rather, it is a step in determining would severely impact the growth, team concluded, and we agree, that the whether a more detailed analysis of the reproduction, or survival of the entire Mediterranean region likely has more issue is required (79 FR 37578, at 37586; species. There is also little to no concentrated threats than other regions July 1, 2014). information regarding nursery grounds of the common thresher’s range, placing Thus, the preliminary determination or other important habitats utilized by the species at an increased risk of that a portion may be both significant the species that could be considered extinction within this portion. However, and endangered or threatened merely limiting factors for the species’ survival. in determining whether this portion of requires NMFS to engage in a more In fact, we found evidence that there are detailed analysis to determine whether the species’ range also meets the likely reproductive grounds and nursery the standards are actually met (79 FR ‘‘significance’’ test under the SPR areas in all three major ocean basins. In 37578, at 37587). Unless both standards Policy, the ERA team concluded that the other words, the viability of the species are met, listing is not warranted. The Mediterranean represents a small does not appear to depend on the SPR policy further explains that, portion of the global range of the productivity of the population or the depending on the particular facts of common thresher shark, and the loss of environmental characteristics in the each situation, NMFS may find it is that portion would not result in the Mediterranean portion of the range. more efficient to address the remainder of the species being Overall, we did not find any evidence significance issue first, but in other endangered or threatened, particularly to suggest that this specific portion of cases it will make more sense to given the fact that there is no evidence the species’ range has increased examine the status of the species in the to suggest the species makes trans- importance over any other with respect potentially significant portions first. Atlantic migrations, and thus that other to the species’ survival. As such, the Whichever question is asked first, an portions of the species’ global Mediterranean region does not meet the affirmative answer is required to population would be at risk from threats significance criteria under the SPR proceed to the second question. Id. ‘‘[I]f in the Mediterranean region. In policy. We could not identify any other we determine that a portion of the range particular, we did not find substantial portions of the common thresher shark is not ‘significant,’ we will not need to evidence to indicate that the loss of this range in which the species is in danger determine whether the species is portion would result in a level of of extinction, or likely to become so in endangered or threatened there; if we abundance for the remainder of the the foreseeable future, and thus our SPR determine that the species is not species to be so low or variable, that it analysis ends. endangered or threatened in a portion of would cause the species to be at a its range, we will not need to determine moderate or high risk of extinction due Final Determination if that portion is ‘significant’ ’’ Id. Thus, to environmental variation, Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires if the answer to the first question is anthropogenic perturbations, or that NMFS make listing determinations negative—whether that regards the depensatory processes. We also could based solely on the best scientific and significance question or the status not find any substantial evidence to commercial data available after question—then the analysis concludes suggest that the loss of the conducting a review of the status of the and listing is not warranted. Mediterranean portion of its range species and taking into account those As defined in the SPR Policy, a would isolate the species to the point efforts, if any, being made by any state portion of a species’ range is where the remaining populations would or foreign nation, or political ‘‘significant’’ ‘‘if the species is not be at risk of extinction from subdivisions thereof, to protect and currently endangered or threatened demographic processes. We also found conserve the species. We have throughout its range, but the portion’s no evidence to suggest that the loss of independently reviewed the best contribution to the viability of the genetic diversity from this portion available scientific and commercial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18998 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

information, including the petition, maintain population viability into the other thresher shark species, diagnostic public comments submitted on the 90- foreseeable future; (6) the main threat to features separating this species from the day finding (80 FR 11379; March 3, the species is fishery-related mortality other two thresher shark species 2015), the status review report (Young et from global fisheries; however, (common and pelagic thresher) are their al., 2015), and other published and information on harvest rates is extremely large eyes, which extend onto unpublished information, and we have inconclusive due to poor species the dorsal surface of the head, and the consulted with species experts and discrimination and significant prominent notches that run dorso-lateral individuals familiar with common uncertainties in the data, with the best from behind the eyes to behind the gills. thresher sharks. We considered each of available information indicating low The body can be purplish grey or grey- the Section 4(a)(1) factors to determine utilization of the species (rare in brown on the upper surface and sides, whether it contributed significantly to tropical fisheries records in both the with grey to white coloring on its the extinction risk of the species on its Western and Central Pacific and Indian underside; however, unlike the common own. We also considered the Oceans as well as the South Atlantic, thresher, the light color of the abdomen combination of those factors to and rarely identified as present in does not extend over the pectoral fins determine whether they collectively several genetic tests of shark fins from and there is no white dot on the upper contributed significantly to the markets throughout its range); (7) there pectoral fin tips like those often seen in extinction risk of the species. As is no evidence that disease or predation common threshers (Compagno, 2001). previously explained, we could not is contributing to increasing the risk of Current Distribution identify any portion of the species’ extinction of the species; (8) existing range that met both criteria of the SPR regulatory mechanisms throughout a The bigeye thresher shark is a large, policy. Although the Mediterranean large portion of the species’ range highly migratory oceanic and coastal region was identified as a portion of the appear effective in addressing the most species of shark found throughout the range in which the common thresher important threats to the species world in tropical and temperate seas. In has a higher risk of extinction due to (harvest); (9) there is no evidence that the western Atlantic (including the Gulf concentrated threats, we could not other natural or manmade factors are of Mexico), bigeye threshers can be identify this portion as ‘‘significant.’’ contributing to increasing the risk of found off the Atlantic coast of the Additionally, we could not identify any extinction of the species; and, (10) while United States (from New York to Florida), and in the Gulf of Mexico off other portion of the species’ range in the global population has likely Florida, Mississippi and Texas. They which the species is currently in danger declined from historical numbers, there can also be found in Mexico (from of extinction or likely to become so in is no evidence that the species is Veracruz to Yucatan), Bahamas, Cuba, the foreseeable future. Therefore, our currently suffering from depensatory Venezuela, as well as central and determination set forth below is based processes (such as reduced likelihood of southern Brazil. In the eastern Atlantic, on a synthesis and integration of the finding a mate or mate choice or bigeye threshers are found from Portugal foregoing information, factors and diminished fertilization and recruitment to the Western Cape of South Africa, considerations, and their effects on the success) or is at risk of extinction due including the western and central status of the species throughout its to environmental variation or Mediterranean Sea. In the Indian Ocean, anthropogenic perturbations. Finally, entire range. bigeye threshers are found in South We conclude that the common and as previously described in the SPR Africa (Eastern Cape and KwaZulu- thresher shark is not presently in danger analysis above, we determined that the Natal), Madagascar, Arabian Sea of extinction, nor is it likely to become species is not threatened or endangered (Somalia), Gulf of Aden, Maldives, and so in the foreseeable future, throughout in a significant portion of its range. Sri Lanka. In the Pacific Ocean, from Based on these findings, we conclude all of its range. We summarize the west to east, bigeye threshers are known that the common thresher shark is not factors supporting this conclusion as from southern Japan (including currently in danger of extinction follows: (1) The species is broadly Okinawa), Taiwan (Province of China), throughout all or a significant portion of distributed over a large geographic Vietnam, between the Northern Mariana its range, nor is it likely to become so range, with no barrier to dispersal; (2) Islands and Wake Island, down to the within the foreseeable future. there is no evidence of a range northwestern coast of Australia and Accordingly, the common thresher contraction and there is no evidence of New Zealand, as well as American shark does not meet the definition of a habitat loss or destruction; (3) while the Samoa. Moving to the Central Pacific, threatened or endangered species, and species possesses life history bigeye threshers are known from the thus, the common thresher shark does characteristics that increase its waters surrounding Wake, Marshall, not warrant listing as threatened or vulnerability to harvest, it has been Howland and Baker, Palmyra, Johnston, endangered at this time. found to be less susceptible to pelagic Hawaiian Islands, Line Islands, and longline fisheries compared to other Bigeye Thresher Shark (Alopias between Marquesas and Galapagos shark species (based on results from superciliosus) Islands. Finally, in the Eastern Pacific, Ecological Risk Assessments), bigeye threshers occur from Canada to Species Description decreasing the chance of substantial Mexico (Gulf of California) and west of fishing mortality from this fishery that The bigeye thresher shark (Alopias Galapagos Islands (Ecuador). They are operates throughout its range; (4) the superciliosus) has a broad head, also possibly found off Peru and best available information indicates that moderately long and bulbous snout, northern Chile (Compagno, 2001; Ebert abundance is variable across the curved yet broad-tipped pectoral fins, et al., 2014). species’ range, with reports of localized distinctive grooves on the head above population declines but also evidence of the gills, and large teeth. The first Habitat Use and Movement stable and/or increasing abundance dorsal-fin midbase is closer to the Bigeye thresher sharks are found in a estimates; (5) based on the ERA team’s pelvic-fin bases than to the pectoral-fin diverse spectrum of locations, including assessment, while the current bases. The caudal tip is broad with a in coastal waters over continental population size has likely declined from wide terminal lobe. While some of the shelves, on the high seas in the historical numbers, it is sufficient to above characteristics may be shared by epipelagic zone far from land, in deep

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 18999

waters near the bottom on continental extending onto the dorsal surface of the al. (2015) hypothesize that such an area slopes, and sometimes in shallow head, suggest that this species has a not only exists, but possibly extends inshore waters. They are an epipelagic, dorsal/vertical binocular field of vision farther south, into the tropical Northeast neritic, and epibenthic shark, ranging (unlike other threshers), which may be Atlantic and equatorial waters closer to from the surface and in the intertidal to related to fixating on prey and striking the African continent. This may be at least 500 m deep, and have even been them with its tail from below (FAO, validated by the fact that smaller and recorded as deep as 723 m (Nakano et 2015). Based on a study at the NMFS mainly juvenile specimens tended to be al., 2003), but mostly occur in depths SWFSC, the top five prey species, in captured in the tropical Northeast and below 100 m (Compagno, 2001). Bigeye order, are barracudinas, Pacific hake, equatorial waters, as well as pregnant threshers are known to endure colder Pacific saury, Pacific mackerel, and females both in mid- and late-term water and remain longer in deeper northern anchovy. At least eight stages. Another cluster of pregnant waters than many other pelagic sharks cephalopod species were also observed, females was recorded in the Southwest (Gruber and Compagno, 1981; although most species were found in Atlantic, some close to the Rio Grande Fernandez-Carvalho et al., 2015). Like only a few stomachs (Preti et al., 2008). Rise and a few inside the Uruguayan common threshers, bigeye thresher EEZ, suggesting these areas may also be Reproduction sharks are also known to make daily nurseries for this species in the South diel vertical migrations, spending most The bigeye thresher has the slowest Atlantic. This was previously suggested of their day below the thermocline, and growth rate and is the least productive in a study by Amorim et al. (1998), who most of the night in the mixed layer and compared to the other Alopias species. also reported the presence of pregnant upper thermocline (Nakano et al., 2003; It reaches maturity at a later age than the females in this area. In contrast, a Weng and Block, 2004; Kohin et al., common thresher, about 10 years for different reproduction and birth 2006; Stevens et al., 2009; Musyl et al., males and 13 years for females. In terms seasonality may exist in the Pacific 2011). In the Marshall Islands, Cao et al. of size, females attain maturity generally Ocean, where Matsunaga and Yokawa (2011) identified a preferred optimum around 332–355 cm TL while males (2013) reported that neonates (<80 cm swimming depth of 240–360 m, water reach maturity at smaller sizes pre-caudal length) were caught mainly temperature of 10–16 °C, salinity of (generally around 270–288 cm TL) (see during winter and spring in an area 34.5–34.7 ppt and dissolved oxygen Table 2 in Young et al., 2015). Like between 10 and 15 °N. range of 3.0–4.0 ml/l for bigeye other thresher species, the reproductive Size and Growth threshers. Nakano et al. (2003) recorded mode of bigeye thresher is aplacental the deepest dive to date in the Eastern viviparity with oophagy; however, Bigeye threshers have a maximum Tropical Pacific, extending the known bigeye threshers usually bear only two estimated age of about 20 years, and can depth distribution for bigeye thresher to pups per litter—one per uterus grow to a maximum total length of 504 723 m. (although cases of up to four embryos cm (TL) depending on sex and In the Atlantic, mark/recapture data may occur), resulting in an extremely geographic location. Growth rates are (number tagged = 400 and number low fecundity. The gestation period may also different depending on geographic recaptured = 12) from the NMFS CSTP be 12 months long, but remains location. Male bigeye thresher sharks between 1963 and 2013 showed that the uncertain due to a lack of birthing are thought to grow slightly faster than range of movement for the bigeye seasonality data (Liu et al., 1998). females (with a growth coefficient, k, of thresher was much larger than for the However, there have been some 0.088/year for males and 0.092/year for common thresher (Kohler, 1998; Kohler observations and hypotheses regarding females in the Northwest Pacific and and Turner, 2001; NMFS, unpublished potential birthing seasons and nursery 0.18/year for males and 0.06/year for data), with a maximum straight-line areas of bigeye thresher sharks from females in the eastern Atlantic) but distance travelled of 2,067 nmi (3,828 various parts of its range, including reach a smaller asymptotic size (206 cm km; NMFS, unpublished data). This summer, fall, and winter in the Florida FL for males versus 293 cm FL for transatlantic movement was from a Straits. Another nursery for this species females) (Liu et al., 1998; Fernandez- shark tagged in 1984 by a NMFS shark may exist in nearshore Cuban waters, as Carvalho et al., 2011). Using life history biologist 565 nmi (1046 km) southwest many small juveniles and females with parameters from the eastern central of the Cape Verde Islands off the west full-term litters have been observed Atlantic, Corte´s et al. (2012) estimated coast of Africa and recaptured in 1994 there (Guitart, 1975 cited in Camhi et productivity of the bigeye thresher by a commercial longliner 19 nmi (35 al., 2008). Moreno and Moro´n (1992) shark, determined as intrinsic rate of km) off the Venezuelan coast (NMFS, concluded that birth occurs over a population increase (r), to be 0.009 per unpublished data), confirming that this protracted period from autumn to year (median). Overall, the best species is highly migratory. winter in the Strait of Gibraltar. More available data indicate that the bigeye recently, Fernandez-Carvalho et al. thresher shark is a long-lived species (at Diet (2015) observed the presence of large least 20 years) and can be characterized Bigeye threshers have larger teeth embryos (closer to the size at birth) in as having low productivity (based on than common threshers and feed on a October/November in the northeast the Food and Agriculture Organization wider variety of prey, including small to Atlantic and in March in the Southwest of the United Nations (FAO) medium sized pelagic fishes (e.g., Atlantic, which seems to suggest that productivity indices for exploited fish lancetfishes, herring, mackerel and birth may be taking place during late species, where r < 0.14 is considered small billfishes), bottom fishes (e.g., summer and autumn in both low productivity), making them hake) and cephalopods (e.g., squids). hemispheres. This corroborates what generally vulnerable to depletion and Thus, the bigeye thresher appears to be has been previously suggested for both potentially slow to recover from an opportunistic feeder, foraging on regions, particularly by Moreno and overexploitation. diverse species covering a broad range Moro´n (1992) for the Northeast, that a of habitats, whereas niche separation is nursery area for this species exists off Current Status more apparent for common threshers the southwestern Iberian Peninsula Bigeye thresher sharks can be found (Preti et al. 2008). The arrangement of based on the records of several pregnant worldwide, with no present indication the eyes, with keyhole-shaped orbits females. In fact, Fernandez-Carvalho et of a range contraction. Although they

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

are generally not targeted, they are petition did not otherwise provide Assessment of Extinction Risk caught as bycatch in many global support to identify any DPSs of bigeye Please refer back to the Assessment of fisheries, including bottom and pelagic thresher shark. As previously noted, to Extinction Risk section for the common longline tuna and swordfish fisheries, meet the definition of a DPS, a thresher for statutory definitions and purse seine fisheries, coastal gillnet population must be both discrete from methods of the extinction risk fisheries, and artisanal fisheries. Bigeye other populations of the species and assessment. In terms of determining a thresher sharks are more commonly significant to the species as a whole (61 reasonable foreseeable future timeframe utilized for their meat than fins, as they FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petition for the bigeye thresher, the ERA team are a preferred species for human did not provide biological evidence to first considered the life history of the consumption (although not as preferred support the existence of any species. Longevity of the bigeye thresher as the common thresher); however, they ‘‘subpopulations’’ nor did the petition is estimated to be about 25 years. are also valuable as incidental catch for propose any boundaries for DPSs. Generation time, which is defined as the the international shark fin trade. Additionally, the petition did not time it takes, on average, for a sexually In 2009, the IUCN considered the describe in any detail the ways in which mature female bigeye thresher shark to bigeye thresher shark to be Vulnerable different management relating to be replaced by offspring with the same globally, based on an assessment by international governmental boundaries spawning capacity, is estimated to be Amorim et al. (2009) and its own may delineate the species into approximately 17.8 years. As a late- criteria (A2bd), and placed the species boundaries aligning with the suggested maturing species (like the common on its ‘‘Red List.’’ As noted previously, regions/populations. Specific gaps in thresher), with relatively slow growth under criteria A2bd, a species may be management or intergovernmental rates and low productivity, it would classified as Vulnerable when its boundaries were not described as they likely take more than a generation time ‘‘observed, estimated, inferred or relate to any of the suggested regions/ for any conservative management action suspected’’ population size is reduced populations. In our review of the best to be realized and reflected in by 30 percent or more over the last 10 available data, we were also unable to population abundance indices. As years, or over a 3-generation period, find information to define any DPSs as previously described, this is supported whichever is the longer, and where the discrete on biological grounds. We by the fact that we have a well- causes of the reduction may not have found only two preliminary studies to documented example of how these ceased or may not be understood or may suggest population structure of the species respond to intense fishing not be reversible, based on an index of bigeye thresher shark. Trejo (2005) pressure, and the time required for the abundance appropriate to the taxon initial implementation of regulatory and/or the actual or potential levels of examined mitochondrial control region DNA, which demonstrated significant measures to be reflected in population exploitation. The IUCN justification for abundance indices (refer back to the the categorization is based on the bigeye population structure between most pairwise comparisons, but the sample common thresher Assessment of thresher’s suspected declining Extinction Risk section for more details). populations as result of a combination sizes were extremely low, and thus the results could not be interpreted with Thus, given that the bigeye thresher has of slow life history characteristics lower productivity than the common (hence low capacity to recover from confidence. The data results support shallow population structure between thresher, the ERA team assumed that the moderate levels of exploitation), and time required to observe changes in high levels of largely unmanaged and Indo-Pacific and Atlantic populations, but not among populations spanning the abundance indices would be longer, and unreported mortality in target and would also similarly comport with 3 bycatch fisheries. As a note, the IUCN entire Indo-Pacific Ocean (Trejo, 2005). In a genetic analysis by Naylor et al. generation times (i.e., 50 years). The classification for the bigeye thresher ERA team then discussed whether they shark alone does not provide the (2012), little difference was seen among nine specimens spanning much of the could confidently predict the impact of rationale for a listing recommendation threats on the species out to 50 years under the ESA, but the classification global distribution of the species. Based on the preliminary nature of these data, and agreed that since the main threats and the sources of information that the to the species were likely fisheries and classification is based upon are and low sample size throughout the studies, these results cannot be relied the regulatory measures that manage evaluated in light of the standards on these fisheries, they had the background extinction risk and impacts or threats to upon to divide the bigeye thresher shark knowledge and expertise to confidently the species. into any discrete populations. In our review of the best available data, we predict the impact of these threats on Distinct Population Segment Analysis were also unable to find information to the biological status of the species The petition to list the bigeye thresher define any DPSs as discrete based on within this timeframe. For the foregoing shark requested NMFS to list it any other physical, physiological, reasons, the ERA team concluded, and throughout its range, or alternatively, as ecological, or behavioral factors or based we agree, that a biologically reasonable DPSs should NMFS find they exist. The on differences in control of exploitation, foreseeable future timeframe would be ERA team was asked to examine the best management of habitat, conservation 50 years for the bigeye thresher. available data to determine whether status, or regulatory mechanisms across Evaluation of Demographic Risks DPSs may exist for this species. The any international governmental petition, itself, did not provide any boundaries that would be significant in Abundance information regarding potential DPSs of light of potential threats to the species. Currently, there is a lack of reliable bigeye thresher shark, aside from Thus, we concluded that the best species-specific global population size requesting that NMFS consider using available information does not indicate estimates, population assessments, and the regions/populations as outlined and that any population segment of the trends in abundance for the bigeye delimited in the petition (i.e., Northwest bigeye thresher shark would qualify as thresher shark. As previously noted, and Western Central Atlantic, a DPS under the DPS policy. As such, using a thresher complex or other Southwest Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea we conducted the extinction risk thresher species as a proxy for bigeye and Eastern Atlantic, Indo-West Pacific, analysis on the global bigeye thresher thresher abundance could be erroneous and Eastern Central Pacific). The shark population. because of the differences in the species’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19001

distributions as well as the proportions the population has likely stabilized decline of 83 percent was inferred for they make up in commercial catches. In since 1990. the Indian Ocean based on a study most areas showing overall declines in In the Western and Central Pacific, conducted in the Eastern and Central Alopiids, it is uncertain which thresher where bigeye threshers are most Pacific (Ward and Myers, 2005), because species the declines are more likely commonly observed and likely most there is currently no confirmed stock attributable to, although most declines abundant, trends in abundance are separation between the Indian and are likely attributable to either the variable. As described earlier in the Pacific Ocean stocks of the species. bigeye or pelagic thresher rather than common thresher Abundance section, However, as previously described in common threshers, with the exception much of the fisheries data from this this finding, the ERA team identified of the Mediterranean. Additionally, region are for the thresher complex (all several caveats regarding the Ward and there are also long-term three Alopias spp.), thus making it Myers (2005) study, including misidentification issues between difficult to discern abundance trends for differences in survey locations as well thresher sharks, which means historical any one species in particular. In order as data types used (e.g., fishery- data regarding thresher catch is likely to glean species-specific abundance independent vs. fishery-dependent) and not entirely accurate. The ERA team trends for bigeye thresher, the ERA team seriously questioned the conclusions expressed some concern regarding the conducted an analysis of species- regarding the magnitude of decline for bigeye thresher shark’s global specific observer data from the Hawaii- the thresher complex in this region. abundance, particularly given that the based pelagic longline fishery, which However, given the high fishing species likely experienced localized indicates that abundance of bigeye pressure in the Indian Ocean, coupled population declines over the past few thresher has been relatively stable since with the species’ high bycatch-related decades. Given the lack of data, and the 1994, and even potentially increasing in mortality rates and low productivity fact that most of the available recent years. In contrast, fisheries data (IOTC, 2014), the ERA team concluded information is not specific to bigeye from the rest of the Western and Central that it is likely the species is thresher, the extent of the declines and Pacific region suggest thresher experiencing some level of population current status of the global population abundance may be on a decline, decline in this region that may be are unclear. However, some particularly in the last few years (Rice similar to declines in other portions of information, including species-specific et al., 2015). However, the latter data the species’ range; nevertheless, we do analyses of standardized observer data from the rest of the Western and Central not have enough information to from the Northwest Atlantic and Pacific is not specific to bigeye thresher, determine the magnitude of this decline Hawaii, provide some insight into the and rather analyzes the thresher and whether this decline is significantly current abundance levels of the species. complex (all three Alopias spp.). As contributing to the extinction risk of the such, interpreting these data is difficult, global population. Bigeye thresher shark populations particularly since the second most In the South Atlantic, standardized have likely exhibited historical declines common species reported is the general CPUE data indicate that bigeye thresher in abundance relative to virgin biomass ‘‘thresher shark’’ category. Given that abundance may have declined only levels, but information regarding the the bigeye thresher is typically the slightly from 1978 to 2006 (Mourato et magnitude of these declines is poor. In dominant thresher species in catch al., 2008); however, the available CPUE areas where more recent indicators of records from this region combined with time series ended in 2006 and best abundance for bigeye thresher are its more tropical distribution, the ERA available information indicates that the available (i.e., standardized CPUE team made the assumption that the main fishery catching bigeye threshers trends), abundance trends are highly trends from the Western and Central (the Brazilian Santos longline fishery) variable. In the Northwest Atlantic, it is Pacific are likely reflective of bigeye underwent several operational changes, likely that the bigeye thresher thresher. However, even given this including a shift in effort to more population suffered a significant assumption, the ERA team determined, temperate waters, which may have historical decline (refer back to the and we agree, that the potential reduced fishing pressure on bigeye discussion of Baum et al. (2003) and population decline in this region in the thresher in this portion of its range. We Corte´s (2007) in the common thresher last few years, combined with a stable could not find any other reliable Demographic Risk Assessment— and potentially increasing abundance abundance indices that indicate bigeye Abundance section); however, the ERA trend of bigeye thresher in the Central thresher has experienced a significant team questioned the magnitude of these Pacific since 1994, indicates that the population decline in the Southwest declines, noting several issues with the potential population decline of bigeye Atlantic region. available information, including the thresher is not Pacific-wide. Thus, the Overall, there is no evidence to following: The data used were not best available information indicates that suggest that present abundance levels species-specific, the time series ended the species’ current level of abundance are so low, such that depensatory in 2006, and the data were based on in the Western and Central Pacific is processes are at work. As previously fisheries logbooks rather than observer spatially variable, but not likely so low noted, although it is likely that the data. The ERA team determined that such that it places the species at a high bigeye thresher shark has experienced observer data is likely more risk of extinction throughout its global declines of varying magnitudes representative for bycatch species; thus, range, now or in the foreseeable future. throughout its range due to fishing in order to determine species-specific Abundance information from other mortality, recent relative abundance abundance trends of bigeye thresher in portions of the species’ range is data included in the status review report the Northwest Atlantic, the ERA team relatively poor and unreliable or lacking (Young et al., 2015) suggest that analyzed the available species-specific altogether. In areas where data are abundance trends are highly variable observer data from the U.S. Northwest lacking (e.g., South Atlantic, Indian throughout the species’ global range, Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery from Ocean) it was difficult to discern if the with populations increasing, stable, 1992–2013. From this analysis, the ERA population is stable or in decline. In a slightly declining, or showing no clear team determined that although the recent proposal developed by Sri Lanka trend. We noted that bigeye threshers population of bigeye thresher shark in to list all three thresher species under are still captured regularly throughout this area suffered a historical decline, CITES Appendix II, a population their range and the range does not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19002 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

appear to have contracted. Thus, based Diversity below 100 m (Compagno, 2001); on the best available information, we Similar to the common thresher, the however, little else is known regarding conclude that the current abundance of ERA team concluded, and we agree, that specific habitat preferences or bigeye thresher throughout its range is the current level of information characteristics. As previously described, the MSA not contributing significantly to the regarding the bigeye thresher shark’s requires NMFS to identify and describe species’ risk of extinction, such that the diversity is either unavailable or EFH in FMPs, minimize the adverse species has a high risk of extinction unknown, such that the contribution of effects of fishing on EFH, and identify throughout its global range, now or in this factor to the extinction risk of the the foreseeable future. actions to encourage the conservation species cannot be determined at this and enhancement of EFH in the U.S. Growth Rate/Productivity time. Currently, there is no evidence to EEZ. Results from the two previously suggest the species is at risk due to a described NMFS-funded cooperative Similar to abundance, the ERA team substantial change or loss of variation in survey programs indicate the expressed some concern regarding the genetic characteristics or gene flow importance of coastal waters off the effect of the bigeye thresher shark’s among populations. Atlantic east coast, from Maine to the growth rate and productivity on its risk Summary of Factors Affecting the Florida Keys, central Gulf of Mexico and of extinction. Bigeye thresher sharks Bigeye Thresher Shark localized areas off of Puerto Rico and exhibit life-history traits and population the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS, 2009). parameters that are on the low end of As described previously, section As a side note, insufficient data are the spectrum among other shark species. 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS available to differentiate EFH by size The estimated growth coefficients implementing regulations (50 CFR classes in the Atlantic for the bigeye confirm that the bigeye thresher is 424.11(c)) state that we must determine thresher shark; therefore, EFH is the generally a slow-growing species. whether a species is endangered or same for all life stages. Since bigeye Relative to other thresher species, the threatened because of any one or a thresher shark EFH is defined as the bigeye thresher shark is the least fecund combination of the following factors: water column or attributes of the water and productive, with a low intrinsic rate The present or threatened destruction, column, NMFS determined that there ¥ of population increase (r = 0.009 year 1; modification, or curtailment of its are minimal or no cumulative Corte´s et al., 2012). These demographic habitat or range; overutilization for anticipated impacts to the EFH from parameters place bigeye thresher shark commercial, recreational, scientific, or gear used in U.S. HMS and non-HMS towards the slower growing sharks educational purposes; disease or fisheries, basing its finding on an along the ‘‘fast-slow’’ continuum of predation; the inadequacy of existing examination of published literature and population parameters calculated for 38 regulatory mechanisms; or other natural anecdotal evidence (NMFS, 2006). species of sharks (see Appendix 2 of or manmade factors affecting its The bigeye thresher population off Corte´s (2002)), which means this species continued existence. The ERA team California and Oregon appears to be generally has a low potential to recover evaluated whether and the extent to predominantly adult males (71 percent from exploitation. In addition, based on which each of the foregoing factors of observed catches are mature males), several Ecological Risk Assessments, contributed to the overall extinction risk which range north to Oregon, and bigeye threshers have been found to be of the global bigeye thresher shark immature females, which primarily the most susceptible to pelagic longline population. This section briefly occur south of Monterey Bay and in the fisheries in the Atlantic and Indian summarizes the ERA team’s findings Southern California Bight. Essential Oceans when compared to other shark and our conclusions regarding threats to Fish Habitat is described for two age species. Based on the best available the common thresher shark. More classes: Late juveniles/subadults and ∼ information, including the fact that most details can be found in the status review adults. Neonates/early juveniles ( 90 to species of elasmobranchs require many report (Young et al., 2015). 115 cm FL, 0 to 2 and 3 year olds) are years to mature and have relatively low The Present or Threatened Destruction, not known to occur in the U.S. West fecundity compared to teleosts, these Modification, or Curtailment of Its Coast EEZ, thus EFH is not defined for life history characteristics could pose a Habitat or Range this size class. For late juveniles/ risk to this species in combination with subadults (>115 cm FL and <155 cm FL The ERA team did not identify habitat threats that reduce its abundance, such males and <189 cm FL females), EFH is destruction as a potential threat to the as overutilization. described as coastal and oceanic waters bigeye thresher shark. As described in epi- and mesopelagic zones from the Spatial Structure/Connectivity earlier (see Species Description— U.S.-Mexico border north to 37° N. Movement and Habitat Use section) the latitude off Davenport, California, South Like the common thresher, habitat bigeye thresher shark is a large, highly of 34° N. latitude from the 100 fm (183 characteristics that are important to the migratory oceanic and coastal species of m) isobath to the 2,000 fm (3,568 m) bigeye thresher are unknown, as are shark found throughout the world in isobaths and north of 34° N. from the nursery areas. There is currently no tropical and temperate seas (Compagno, 800 fm (1,463 m) isobath out to the evidence of female philopatry, the 1984). Bigeye thresher sharks are found 2,200 fm (4,023 m) isobath. For adults species is highly mobile, and there is in a diverse spectrum of locations, (>154 cm FL males and >188 cm FL little known about specific migration including in coastal waters over females) EFH is described as coastal and routes. It is also unknown if there are continental shelves, on the high seas in oceanic waters in epi-and mesopelagic source-sink dynamics at work that may the epipelagic zone far from land, in zones from the U.S.-Mexico border affect population growth or species’ deep waters near the bottom on north to 45° N. latitude off Cascade decline. Thus, based on the best continental slopes, and sometimes in Head, Oregon. In southern California available information, there is shallow inshore waters. They range EFH is south of 34° N. latitude from the insufficient information to support the from the surface and in the intertidal to 100 fm (183 m) isobath out to the 2,000 conclusion that spatial structure and at least 500 m deep, and have even been fm (3,568 m) isobath and North of 34° connectivity pose significant risks to recorded as deep as 723 m (Nakano et N. latitude from the 800 fm (1,463 m) this species. al., 2003), but mostly occur in depths isobath out to the outer EEZ boundary.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19003

In the U.S. Western Pacific, including curtailment of the bigeye thresher estimate rates of fishing mortality or Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and shark’s habitat or range. conduct detailed quantitative analyses of the effects of fishing on bigeye the Commonwealth of the Northern Overutilization for Commercial, Mariana Islands, EFH for bigeye thresher populations. Recreational, Scientific or Educational On the U.S. West Coast, utilization of thresher is described identically to Purposes common thresher (refer back to the bigeye thresher shark is likely minimal. common thresher The Present or Like the common thresher, the bigeye Bigeye threshers sometimes co-occur Threatened Destruction, Modification, thresher is also considered a valuable with common threshers as incidental or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range bycatch species, which, when combined catch, but they are generally more with its high at-vessel mortality rates section of this finding). prevalent offshore, especially north of and low productivity, makes this Point Conception. The first reported Likewise, bigeye thresher shark species more susceptible to catch within the U.S. West Coast EEZ habitat in other parts of its range is overutilization. The ERA team assessed occurred in 1963 when a bigeye thresher assumed to be similar to that in the three different factors that may was taken in a set gillnet in southern Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, contribute to the overutilization of the California. Although it is now a regular comprised of open ocean environments bigeye thresher shark: Bycatch in incidental species in the drift net fishery occurring over broad geographic ranges commercial fisheries (including at- (NMFS, 2009), it is estimated that bigeye and characterized primarily by the vessel and post-release mortality rates), threshers comprise approximately only water column attributes. As such, large- recreational fisheries, and the global nine percent of the total thresher catch. scale impacts, such as global climate shark trade (including the trade of both Overall, bigeye thresher represents a change, that affect ocean temperatures, bigeye thresher fins and meat). Similar minor component of U.S. West Coast currents, and potentially food chain to common thresher sharks, bigeye fisheries; individuals taken within the dynamics, may pose a threat to this thresher sharks are caught as bycatch in management area are thought to be on species. Studies on the impacts of many global fisheries, including bottom the edges of their habitat ranges, and climate change specific to thresher and pelagic longline fisheries, purse they are presumably not overexploited, sharks have not been conducted; seine fisheries, coastal gillnet fisheries, at least locally (PFMC, 2003). however, there are a couple of studies and artisanal fisheries; however, as a Additionally, regulations to control for on other pelagic shark species that occur primarily pelagic and tropical species overutilization of common threshers in in the range of the bigeye thresher shark (in contrast to the common thresher’s this region (described previously) would (refer back to the common thresher The more coastal and temperate also confer benefits to the bigeye Present or Threatened Destruction, distribution), the bigeye thresher shark thresher shark, which is evidenced by Modification, or Curtailment of Its is relatively common in the catches of the similar trajectories of West Coast Habitat or Range section for a summary tropical fisheries, particularly in the commercial landings of both species. of relevant climate change studies in Western and Central Pacific and Indian Farther south in the Eastern Pacific, which pelagic sharks have variable Oceans. It is also relatively common in the level of utilization of bigeye thresher vulnerability to the effects of climate catches of fisheries operating in the is unclear, as there is currently very change). However, like the common Northwest and South Atlantic. Though little information regarding the status of thresher, the bigeye thresher shark is it is generally not a target species in bigeye thresher in the Eastern Pacific. commercial fisheries, the bigeye highly mobile throughout its range; and, Bigeye threshers are known bycatch in thresher shark is valued for both its purse-seine and longline fisheries although there is very little information meat and fins, and is therefore valued as operating in this region. In 2005, bigeye on habitat use and pupping and nursery incidental catch for the international thresher represented the most areas, there is no evidence to suggest its shark trade (Clarke et al., 2006a; Dent incidentally caught shark species in the access to suitable habitat is restricted. and Clarke, 2015). Korean longline fishery operating in the Additionally, bigeye threshers are likely As noted previously in the Evaluation Eastern Pacific (between 1°48′ S. ∼7°00′ more confined by temperature and prey of Demographic Risks—Abundance S. and 142°00′ ∼149°13′ W.), comprising distributions than a particular habitat section, there is very little information 12.8 percent of the total shark catch type. The highly migratory nature of on the historical abundance, catch, and (Kim et al., 2006). The bigeye thresher bigeye threshers gives them the ability trends of bigeye thresher sharks, with is also the most prevalent thresher to shift their range or distribution to the exception of U.S. data from the species caught as bycatch in purse-seine remain in an environment conducive to Northwest Atlantic and Central Pacific fisheries operating in the Eastern their physiological and ecological (i.e., Hawaii). As described previously, Pacific. As previously described, needs. Thus, it is very unlikely that the although more countries and RFMOs are thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) loss or degradation of any particular working towards better reporting of fish collectively represented approximately habitat type would have a substantial catches down to species level, catches of three percent of the species observed effect on the global bigeye thresher bigeye threshers have gone and continue during the Shark Characteristics population. Further, there is currently to go unrecorded in many countries. Sampling Program, with bigeye no evidence to suggest a range Additionally, many catch records that threshers comprising one percent of the contraction based on habitat do include thresher sharks do not catch, and unidentified threshers degradation for the bigeye thresher differentiate between the Alopias representing 0.7 percent. Thresher shark. As a result, the ERA team species or shark species in general, and bycatch in this fishery increased from 9 concluded, and we agree, that the effect if they do, they are often plagued by mt in 2010 to 17 mt in 2011, and has that habitat destruction, modification, or species misidentifications. These remained stable between 10–11 mt curtailment is having on the species’ numbers are also likely under-reported since. extinction risk is low. Therefore, based in catch records, as many records do not Bigeye threshers are also reported in on the best available information, we account for discards or they reflect fisheries records from the principal port conclude that current evidence does not dressed weights instead of live weights. of Manta, Ecuador; however, they indicate that there exists a present or Thus, the lack of catch data for bigeye comprise a minor portion of the total threatened destruction, modification, or thresher sharks makes it difficult to shark catch and even the total thresher

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19004 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

catch. In fact, the pelagic thresher is the Based on this information, the ERA focused predominantly in tropical areas dominant thresher species landed in team concluded, and we agree, that the where all life stages of bigeye thresher Ecuador, comprising up to 92 percent of bigeye thresher shark population would likely occur (including potential thresher shark landings (Reardon et al., appears relatively stable in this region of nursery areas), recent available 2009), and representing 36 percent of the Central Pacific Ocean. abundance indices have not shown any the total shark catch. In contrast, the The bigeye thresher shark appears to significant or ongoing population bigeye thresher comprises be an important species in other decline that would be cause for concern. approximately 3 percent of the total longline fisheries of the Western and Based on this information, the ERA shark catch in Ecuador (Amorim et al., Central Pacific as well. Some reliable team did not deem the declining trend 2009). Thus, while Carr et al. (2013) fisheries data from Japanese longline in the last 3 years to be so significant to reported that bigeye threshers and blue observer data indicate that bigeye conclude that overutilization is sharks comprised 87 percent of shark thresher was the second most occurring throughout the entirety of the fins in a seizure of illegal fins from the commonly caught shark species from Western and Central Pacific. The ERA Galapagos Marine Reserve, given that 64 1992–2006, comprising 10.9 percent of team emphasized, and we agree, that the percent of the thresher sharks from this the total shark catch (Matsunaga and present level of fishing pressure on catch had their heads removed, and Yokawa, 2013). Catch estimates indicate bigeye thresher in this region is highly genetic testing was not conducted to that removals have been stable over the variable, both spatially and temporally, identify to species, there is some last decade, and some analyses indicate as evidenced by increasing trends in uncertainty as to whether all of the slight increases in catch rates of thresher Hawaiian fisheries compared to slightly sharks were actually bigeye thresher. It sharks in certain areas, although no declining trends for the rest of the is possible that some of the thresher clear temporal trend was detected Western and Central Pacific. Thus, sharks illegally taken were misidentified (Clarke, 2011; Lawson, 2011). The based on the best available information, pelagic threshers. Thus, while bigeye bigeye thresher is also an important current levels of bigeye thresher thresher sharks are somewhat prevalent species in Taiwanese longline fisheries mortality in commercial fisheries are as bycatch in various fisheries in the targeting tuna, comprising not likely contributing to overutilization Eastern Pacific Ocean, they seemingly approximately five percent of the total of the species throughout the entirety of comprise a relatively small portion of shark catch (Liu and Tsai, 2011). the Western and Central Pacific, such the total shark catch in several areas. Although catches of bigeye threshers that the species has a high risk of Therefore, we conclude that have increased over time in Taiwanese extinction throughout its global range, overutilization is not likely occurring in longline fisheries, information regarding now or in the foreseeable future. corresponding effort is not available to this portion of the species’ range, such In the Northwest Atlantic, the bigeye that the species is experiencing an discern abundance trends. As previously discussed, bigeye thresher thresher is a common bycatch species in increased risk of extinction throughout the U.S. pelagic longline fishery, with its global range. appears to be a common bycatch species in RMI longline fisheries, with 1,636 relatively high post-capture mortality In the Western and Central Pacific, bigeye thresher sharks caught from rates. As previously discussed (see the bigeye threshers are regularly caught as 2005–2009 (Bromhead et al. 2012); common thresher Overutilization bycatch in longline fisheries throughout however, we could not discern any section), fisheries data from the the region. Longline fishing effort in this abundance trends from these data. Northwest Atlantic show a significant region has steadily increased since 1995 As described previously in the historical decline in the thresher primarily in the South Pacific, and common thresher Overutilization for population (common and bigeye nearly half the effort occurs in tropical Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or threshers combined), likely due to and equatorial waters where bigeye Educational Purposes section, the most exploitation of the species. While these threshers have shown the highest recent standardized CPUE data from data are not species-specific, the bigeye CPUEs (Matsunaga & Yokawa, 2013; 2002–2014 for the Western and Central thresher is thought to be the more Rice et al., 2015). Several analyses of Pacific based on data holdings of the common of the two species. For fisheries data are available from the SPC, show a decreasing trend for the example, observer data from 1992–2005 Western and Central Pacific; however, thresher complex from 2011–2013 (Rice recorded 627 bigeye threshers, as previously mentioned, most of the et al., 2015). While the last 3 years of representing 81 percent of the identified information available is for the thresher both the standardized and nominal thresher catch (in contrast to only 148 complex, with the exception of observer thresher CPUEs show a decline, the common thresher sharks recorded over data from the Hawaii-based pelagic standardized CPUE from the thresher the same time period, representing 19 longline fishery. Bigeye thresher sharks complex is difficult to interpret, as the percent of the identified thresher catch). are the third most frequently caught second most commonly reported This does not include the 1,067 thresher elasmobranch in Hawaii tuna fisheries thresher species is the general ‘‘thresher sharks that were not identified to and the most commonly encountered shark’’ category. Additionally, while it species level (Baum and Blanchard, thresher species in the observer data. appears the thresher shark complex is 2010). Nonetheless, despite the The Hawaii-based longline fishery has declining sharply at the last data point, historical decline of thresher sharks in observed an increase in the number of this is based on relatively few data, the Northwest Atlantic, the ERA team bigeye threshers caught as bycatch on which may not be robust and likely conducted a species-specific analysis tuna targeted trips. While participation, exaggerates the trend in the last year. In using observer data from 1992–2013 and number of hooks, and number of tuna terms of biological indicators, the found no obvious change in the targeted trips have been slowly majority of observed thresher sharks population trend over time for the increasing since 2010 (PIFSC, 2014), occurred in a region of the Central bigeye thresher shark. This analysis standardized CPUE derived from Pacific just south of Hawaii, where the indicates that the population in this observer data indicates that abundance lengths of both male and female sharks region has likely stabilized since 1990. of bigeye thresher has been relatively were relatively stable throughout the While we acknowledge that fishing stable since 1994, with a potentially time period. Overall, despite increasing pressure on thresher sharks began over substantial increase in recent years. fishing pressure over the past 20 years, two decades prior to the start of this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19005

time series (i.e., estimated historical percent of the total shark catch in the combined low fecundity and declines are not from virgin biomass Venezuelan pelagic longline fishery; productivity, moderate age of maturity and the stabilization of the bigeye however, without corresponding effort ranking, and low mean survival rate thresher population is therefore at a data, discernable temporal trends are when caught (around 48 percent). diminished abundance), existing unavailable. Similarly, low CPUE rates However, despite the species’ regulations in this portion of the were observed in Uruguayan longline vulnerability to pelagic longline species’ range appear to be minimizing fisheries despite high fishing pressure fisheries in the Atlantic, there is no this threat (see Inadequacy of Existing from 2001 to 2005; however, with such evidence to suggest that the Atlantic Regulatory Mechanisms section below a short time series, temporal trends were bigeye thresher population has declined for more details). Therefore, the ERA also not discernable from this fishery. so significantly such that the species’ team concluded, and we agree, that The only fishery for which a temporal global persistence is presently in overutilization in this portion of the trend is available is from the prominent question. species’ range is not likely significantly Brazilian Santos and Guaruja tuna The bigeye thresher shark has been contributing to a high risk of extinction longline fishery that operates in the reported in the catches of several for the species throughout its global Southwest Atlantic. Standardized CPUE fisheries operating in the Indian Ocean. range, now or in the foreseeable future. of bigeye thresher from this fishery While there are no abundance trends for As previously noted, fisheries data for showed a slight decline from 1978 to bigeye thresher in the Indian Ocean, the thresher sharks in the Northeast Atlantic 2006, with bigeye threshers IOTC acknowledges, and the ERA team and Mediterranean are scarce and disappearing from the catch altogether agreed, that bycatch rates and associated unreliable due to the mixing of both in 2006. However, a shift in the mortality of bigeye thresher shark are thresher species in the records. The distribution of fishing effort also likely high in Indian Ocean longline bigeye thresher has been poorly occurred in 2006, moving from the fisheries. Landings data reported to the documented in the Mediterranean and equatorial Atlantic between 7° N. and 5° IOTC are reported for the thresher is considered scarce or rare (Amorim et S. to around 20° S. Thus, the complex and not identified to species, al., 2009); most of the available disappearance of bigeye threshers from thus it is difficult to interpret this information from this region is for the Brazilian longline catch can likely be information with respect to bigeye common thresher. In fact, the bigeye attributed to the shift of fishing effort thresher. However, given the bigeye thresher is often referred to as ‘‘False into more temperate waters, where the thresher’s high hooking mortality rate, Thresher’’ in this region as a result of a species is less prevalent. Given the high the intensive fishing pressure in this perceived low local value (Cavanagh fishing pressure in this portion of the region may be contributing to the and Gibson, 2007). Although available range, with evidence of high bycatch- overutilization of the species in the data on catch trends for this species are related mortality and slight declines in Indian Ocean. We note that this threat lacking in the region, an increasing CPUE, overutilization is potentially may also be exacerbated by the species’ number of new records in recent years negatively affecting the species in this relatively high vulnerability to fisheries from the eastern Mediterranean part of its range. However, with only a due to its slow growth and low (sometimes multiple captures) slight decline in CPUE over the past productivity. Thus, in the absence of demonstrate that this species is widely several decades, and a geographical shift any trend data, we concluded distributed to the east of Malta, in effort of the Brazilian longline fleet to conservatively that overutilization in the form of bycatch-related fishing occurring in the waters off Israel more temperate latitudes, fishing (Levantine basin), in the Aegean Sea off mortality is likely contributing to pressure on bigeye thresher may be on Turkey and southern Greece, and off population declines and increasing this a decline in this part of its range and is southern Crete. Evidence from offshore species’ risk of extinction in the Indian likely not contributing to overutilization pelagic fisheries in southern Sicily and Ocean in the foreseeable future, of the species such that it places the Malta indicate that bigeye thresher is although there are significant species at a high risk of extinction caught in unknown numbers each year, uncertainties. However, it should also throughout its global range, now or in but routinely discarded at sea (Cavanagh be noted that longline fishing effort in the foreseeable future. and Gibson, 2007). However, due to the the Indian Ocean appears to be lack of information regarding bigeye Overall, according to an ERA declining as well as shifting to more thresher catch trends, it is difficult to conducted in 2008 by the ICCAT temperate waters (Ardill et al., 2011) determine the status of bigeye thresher Standing Committee on Research and where bigeye threshers are less in the Mediterranean, and whether the Statistics for shark and ray species prevalent, which could potentially species’ scarce abundance in this region typically taken in Atlantic pelagic reduce fishing pressure on the species. is a result of population declines due to longline fisheries, Atlantic bigeye Overall, based on the best available fishing pressure or its natural rarity, or thresher sharks were identified as one of information, the ERA team agreed that both. the least productive and most overutilization of bigeye thresher in the In the South Atlantic, bigeye thresher vulnerable sharks of the species form of indirect and direct fishing sharks are caught as bycatch in various examined. In addition, other more pressure is likely occurring in the longline fisheries, including those of recent ERAs also found that the bigeye Indian Ocean, but also noted that Brazil, Uruguay, Taiwan, Japan, thresher’s combination of low overutilization of the species in one Venezuela, and Portugal, where they productivity and high susceptibility to particular region does not necessarily have shown to have high bycatch- pelagic longline gear places the species equate to a high risk of extinction to the related mortality rates. However, as at a high risk of overexploitation (Corte´s global population, now or in the previously noted, there is little et al. 2010; Corte´s et al., 2012). The foreseeable future. information on the catch rates or trends bigeye thresher’s vulnerability to The ERA team did not identify in abundance of thresher sharks in the Atlantic fisheries is further confirmed recreational fisheries as a threat to the South Atlantic, with some countries still by Gallagher et al. (2014) who found bigeye thresher shark throughout its failing to collect or report shark data. bigeye thresher emerged as one of the range. Although common threshers Based on observer data from 1994–2000, most vulnerable to longline bycatch comprise an important aspect of the bigeye thresher represented only 2.2 mortality, as a result of the species’ recreational fishery in southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19006 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

California, it is not known whether comprised approximately 7 percent of segments of the gills (Benz and bigeye threshers enter the California fins in numerous markets across Adamson, 1999). The known parasite recreational fishery on any regular basis, Indonesia, which is one of the largest fauna of the bigeye thresher and but presumably only few are taken. shark catching nations in the world. associated references are reviewed in Further, there are no records of bigeye However, overall, the ERA team Gruber and Compagno (1981) and threshers from the recreational fishery concluded that thresher sharks as a detailed in the status review report (see off Oregon or Washington (NMFS, whole represent a relatively small Young et al., 2015); however, the 2007), and in fact, a strict prohibition on portion of the fin trade, and the magnitude of impact these parasites recreational fishing of all thresher situation regarding the fin trade may be may have on the health of bigeye species was implemented in improving, as evidenced by a decline in thresher shark is unknown, but likely Washington State in 2013. Farther west both price and demand for fins. In fact, minimal. in Hawaii, there were no catch records landings of thresher sharks in particular Predation is also not thought to be a of bigeye thresher in the Hawaii have declined in both Hawaii and factor influencing bigeye thresher recreational survey from 2003–2014 American Samoa, which has been numbers, as the bigeye thresher is a (Pers. comm. with NMFS Fisheries attributed to regulations prohibiting large shark with limited numbers of Statistics Division, October 14, 2015). In shark finning in the United States. predators during all life stages. While the Northwest Atlantic, data are Additionally, and as previously noted, they may be preyed upon by mako generally extremely sparse for this thresher sharks were not historically sharks, white sharks, killer whales, and species in U.S. recreational fisheries. identified as ‘‘preferred’’ or ‘‘first even large sea lions, there is no Since prohibition of this species was choice’’ species for fins, with some information to suggest that this level of implemented in 1999, there has been no traders considering thresher fins to be of opportunistic predation is affecting observed recreational harvest of this low quality and value (Rose, 1996; FAO, bigeye thresher populations. Therefore, species, with the exception of years 2002; Clarke, pers. comm. 2015). based on the best available information, 2002 and 2006, in which expanded Furthermore, recent studies suggest that the ERA team concluded, and we agree, survey estimates (which are highly due to a waning interest in fins, the that neither disease nor predation is unreliable due to large associated shark fin market is declining, and a currently placing the species in danger variances) estimated that 65 and 42 surge in the trade of shark meat has of extinction throughout its global bigeye thresher sharks were caught and occurred in recent years (Dent and range, now or in the foreseeable future. harvested, respectively (NMFS 2012; Clarke, 2015; Eriksson and Clarke, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 2014). In fact, in most years of 2015). However, as previously discussed Mechanisms recreational data, dating back to 1981 in the common thresher Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific The ERA team evaluated existing and combining information from the regulatory mechanisms to determine Large Pelagics Survey and general or Educational Purposes section, it is unlikely that this shift in the shark trade whether they may be inadequate to Marine Recreational Information address threats to the bigeye thresher Program survey, bigeye threshers are would create new markets or increased demand for thresher species. This is shark. Existing regulatory mechanisms typically not observed, with only 5 may include Federal, state, and years showing bigeye threshers either particularly true for the bigeye thresher because it is not as highly regarded for international regulations for commercial landed or released alive throughout the and recreational fisheries, as well as the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico human consumption due to the lower quality of the meat (Vannuccini, 1999). international shark trade. Below is a (Pers. comm. from NMFS, Fisheries brief description and evaluation of Statistics Division, October 14, 2015). Therefore, based on the best available information, the ERA team concluded, current and relevant domestic and We could not find any additional international management measures that information on bigeye thresher in and we agree, that although the bigeye thresher shark is likely more prevalent may affect the bigeye thresher shark. recreational fisheries outside of the Since many of the broader regulatory United States. Thus, based on the best in the shark fin trade relative to the common thresher, finning for the shark mechanisms that may affect sharks in available information, we conclude that fin trade is not a threat contributing to general were already discussed in the recreational fisheries are not currently a the overutilization of the species to the common thresher Inadequacy of threat to the bigeye thresher shark, such point that it significantly increases the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section that it places the species at an increased species’ risk of extinction throughout its of this finding (e.g., U.S. regulations to risk of extinction throughout its global global range, now or in the foreseeable conserve and manage shark species), the range. future. following will only cover the existing Finally, the ERA team assessed the regulatory mechanisms specific to threat of the shark trade to the global Disease or Predation bigeye thresher, and in the regions extinction risk of the bigeye thresher. As The ERA team did not identify where overutilization was deemed a previously described, the thresher disease or predation as potential threats potential threat to the species or in complex has been reported as to the bigeye thresher shark, as they did regions that were not addressed in the comprising approximately 2.3 percent of not find evidence to suggest that either common thresher assessment (e.g., the shark fin trade; however, the is presently contributing significantly to Caribbean). More information on these proportion of bigeye thresher in the fin the species’ risk of extinction. Like domestic and international management trade is unknown. As discussed common thresher sharks, bigeye measures can be found in the status previously in the common thresher thresher sharks likely carry a range of review report (Young et al., 2015) and assessment, based on genetic analyses of parasites, including external copepods other recent status reviews of other fins in markets of major shark fin and cestodes. As previously described, shark species (Miller et al., 2013; 2014). exporting countries throughout the nine species of copepods, genus In the Northwest Atlantic, in addition range of the species, including Taiwan, Nemesis, parasitize thresher sharks. to all of the previously described Indonesia, and UAE, bigeye thresher These parasites attach themselves to gill regulatory mechanisms regarding U.S. fins have commonly been identified as filaments, and can cause tissue damage HMS fisheries for pelagic sharks, the present. In fact, bigeye thresher fins which can then impair respiration in the U.S. FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19007

and Sharks implemented a specific the U.S. Caribbean HMS fisheries and be a reflection of the efficacy of measure in 1999 that effectively the HMS fisheries that occur off the Recommendation 09–07 for reducing prohibited retention of bigeye thresher mainland of the United States the number of landed bigeye thresher sharks, among several other pelagic (including permit possession, vessel sharks, as well as the previously shark species. The designation of bigeye size, availability of processing and cold described regulation implemented by thresher shark as a prohibited species storage facilities, trip lengths, profit Spain, a main thresher catching country was a precautionary measure to ensure margins, and local consumption of in the Atlantic, that prohibits the that directed fisheries and/or markets catches), the HMS Management Division landing and sale of any thresher species. did not develop. However, we recognize implemented measures to better manage Although these retention bans do not that bigeye threshers are still the traditional small-scale commercial address bycatch-related mortality, they incidentally caught as bycatch on HMS fishing fleet in the U.S. Caribbean likely provide some benefit to the bigeye pelagic longlines and in gillnets in the Region. Among other things, this rule thresher shark, particularly given that Northwest Atlantic, and have relatively created an HMS Commercial Caribbean the species was historically retained as high bycatch-related mortality rates. For Small Boat (CCSB) permit, which: bycatch in ICCAT fisheries. Therefore, example, since the prohibition on Allows fishing for and sales of big-eye, although the bigeye thresher has bigeye threshers came into effect in albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas, relatively high vulnerability 2000, approximately 1,493 lb, dressed Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic sharks (susceptibility and productivity) to weight (677 kg) of bigeye thresher were within local U.S. Caribbean market; ICCAT fisheries, regulations prohibiting landed in the Atlantic (NMFS, 2012; collects HMS landings data through the retention of bigeye thresher sharks 2014) despite its prohibited status, cooperation with NMFS and existing help to minimize the threat of although this equates to few sharks territorial government programs; overutilization of this species within the based on average weight. Further, the authorizes specific gears; is restricted to Atlantic Ocean. United States reported that bigeye vessels less than or equal to 45 feet (13.7 In the Western and Central Pacific, thresher represented one of the largest m) length overall; and may not be held the Western and Central Pacific amounts of dead discards in the Atlantic in combination with any other Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is the commercial fleet, reporting a total of 46 HMS vessel permits. However, at this main regulatory body for the mt in 2009 and 27 mt in 2010 (NOAA, time, fishermen who hold the CCSB management of sharks. Unlike ICCAT 2010 and 2011 Reports to ICCAT). permit are prohibited from retaining and IOTC, the WCPFC has no regulatory However, in the most recent available Atlantic sharks, and are restricted to measures specific for the conservation report to ICCAT, bigeye thresher sharks fishing with only rod and reel, handline, of thresher sharks. However, thresher were not listed among the largest and bandit gear under the permit. Both sharks are designated as ‘‘key shark amounts of dead discards. In fact, in the CCSB and Atlantic HMS regulations species’’ in the WCPFC area, which 2012 and 2013, NMFS reported will help protect bigeye thresher sharks means they are nominated for the prohibited shark interactions of bigeye while in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, purposes of either data provision and/or thresher to ICCAT, with a total of 38 and Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. assessment. Thresher sharks were 33 mt of bigeye threshers caught as In addition to U.S. regulatory nominated for assessment and are thus bycatch, respectively, with more than mechanisms, there are also international included in the WCPFC’s Shark half released alive (NMFS, 2013; 2014). regulatory mechanisms specific to Research Plan. Additionally, the Therefore, these bycatch numbers are bigeye thresher in the Atlantic Ocean. In WCPFC has implemented a number of down significantly from earlier reports 2009, ICCAT adopted Recommendation conservation management measures of hundreds of thresher sharks caught as 09–07, which prohibits the retention of (CMMs), that, although have variable bycatch in the late 1980s and early bigeye threshers caught in association implementation rates by the WCPFC 1990s (NMFS 2009 Report to ICCAT), with ICCAT-managed fisheries. Each members (CCMs), likely confer some which was prior to management Contracting Party to ICCAT is conservation benefits for bigeye regulations. Although we recognize that responsible for implementing this thresher, including reporting bigeye threshers are still caught and recommendation, and currently there requirements and a five percent fin to discarded in these fisheries, the ERA are approximately 47 contracting parties carcass ratio (CMM 2010–07). As team determined that current levels may (including the United States, the EU, previously discussed in the common be sustainable, as evidenced by a Brazil, Venezuela, Senegal, Mauritania, thresher Inadequacy of Existing continuing stable CPUE trend based on and many other Central American and Regulatory Mechanisms section of this observer data, which accounts for West African countries). The ICCAT finding, we note a number of issues bycatch-related mortality. In fact, as Recommendation 09–07 includes a regarding the five percent fin to carcass previously discussed, recent special exception for a Mexican small- ratio. However, in a recent study of standardized CPUE data for the bigeye scale coastal fishery with a catch of less longline fisheries (Rice et al. 2015), the thresher shark suggest the population than 110 fish. Based on the nominal percentage of key shark species that has stabilized since the 1990s, which catch data from ICCAT, it appears that were finned reduced from 2010 to 2013, corresponds to the advent of pelagic catches of bigeye thresher sharks by with the last year of the study showing shark species management as well as ICCAT vessels have been on a decline an increase in finning and a decrease in species-specific management measures since the implementation of this the number of sharks retained. The for the bigeye thresher. measure. Prior to Recommendation 09– decrease in finning from 2010 to 2013 In addition, the HMS Management 07, average reported bigeye thresher corresponded with an increase in Division recently published an catch was approximately 82 mt per year retention, which would be the amendment to the Consolidated HMS (range: 0 to 185 mt; 1993–2009). In expectation if fishers were beginning to FMP that specifically addresses Atlantic 2014, only fleets operating under U.S., retain the carcass to adhere to CMM HMS fishery management measures in Brazil, and Trinidad and Tobago flags 2010–07 (the five percent fin to carcass the U.S. Caribbean territories (77 FR reported catches of bigeye thresher rule) (Rice et al. 2015). However, this 59842; Oct. 1, 2012). Due to substantial sharks (total = 25 mt). These declining could also be due to the growing differences between some segments of numbers reported by ICCAT vessels may demand for shark meat and a waning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19008 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

interest in shark fins, as discussed WCPFC, the IOTC also prohibits fins was reported in Hawaii and American earlier (see Dent and Clarke (2015) and onboard that weigh more than five Samoa, which has been attributed to Eriksson and Clarke (2015) for more percent of the weight of sharks to curb regulations that prohibit shark finning details). Despite the increase in finning the practice of shark finning. As in the United States, and may also be of key shark species in the last year of previously noted, these regulations do indicative of the efficacy of these the Rice et al. (2015) study, the fate of not prohibit the fishing of sharks and regulations. Further, several RFMOs, thresher sharks in longline gear shows there are a number of issues related to countries and local governments have a declining trend in the number of the five percent fin to carcass ratio. enacted both shark finning and species- threshers finned since 2007 in the However, unlike the WCPFC, we have specific retention bans that likely confer Western and Central Pacific Ocean. This no information regarding the trend of some benefit to bigeye thresher sharks may be indicative of the efficacy of finning of thresher sharks to determine by reducing the number of sharks conservation measures in this region, whether these regulations have had any retained solely for their fins. We note although this remains uncertain. More effect on the fate of thresher sharks in these retention and finning bans may recently, however, the WCPFC also Indian Ocean longline fisheries. Thus, not be effective in some areas, such as adopted CMM 2014–05 (effective July the ERA team concluded, and we agree, the Indian Ocean; however, they may be 2015) that requires each national fleet to that regulatory mechanisms are likely more effective in other portions of the ban the use of wire trace as branch lines inadequate to control for potential species’ range. For example, the fate of or leaders and shark lines, which has overutilization of bigeye thresher shark thresher sharks as ‘‘finned’’ in the been shown to significantly reduce in the Indian Ocean. However, as Western and Central Pacific has been on shark bycatch in the first place. previously noted, due to a lack of a decline since 2007. Additionally, As previously noted, inadequate abundance estimates and catch records since the implementation of ICCAT regulatory mechanisms to control for for bigeye thresher in this region, the Recommendation 09–07 on the overutilization of thresher species were magnitude of population decline in the conservation of thresher sharks, as well noted as problematic throughout the Indian Ocean could not be determined. as Spain’s national retention ban for all Indian Ocean. The IOTC is the only Further, the ERA team also concluded thresher species, reported landings of RFMO that has specific regulations for that overutilization and inadequate bigeye thresher to ICCAT have all three thresher species. In 2010, the existing regulatory mechanisms in one significantly declined. This indicates IOTC implemented Resolution 12/09 on portion of the species’ range does not that at least in some portions of the the conservation of thresher species, automatically place the species at a high species’ range, regulations may be which prohibits retaining on board, risk of extinction globally, now or in the adequate in their intended purpose. transhipping, landing, storing, selling or foreseeable future. Overall, although bigeye thresher shark offering for sale any part or whole Although inadequate regulations to fins are somewhat prevalent in the shark carcass of thresher sharks of all the control for overutilization via the shark fin trade, the effect of the shark fin trade species of the family Alopiidae. fin trade were an initial concern to the (from both legal and illegal harvest) on However, despite the prohibition on ERA team, as the bigeye thresher was their extinction risk was not viewed as landings of Alopias spp., reported identified to species in several genetic a significant threat. Additionally, as landings of unidentified thresher tests of fins in various portions of its both the supply and demand for shark species have continued through 2012, range, and seemed to comprise a large fins continue to decrease (as indicating that regulations in the Indian portion of fins in markets across demonstrated by the increase in finning Ocean may not be fully implemented or Indonesia (one of the largest shark regulations and decrease in shark fin enforced. In fact, thresher sharks were catching countries in the world), we consumption and price, respectively), so marketed in local markets up until at note that overall, thresher fins do not should the threat of finning and illegal least early 2011 despite IOTC make up a large portion of the shark fin harvest. While an increase in the Resolution 12/09. However, the IOTC trade (∼2.3 percent) relative to other demand for shark meat is apparent in reported 0 mt of bigeye thresher in their species, such as blue, mako, and recent years, we have no evidence to most recent catch estimates for 2013 and hammerhead sharks. Additionally, the suggest that the bigeye thresher will 2014 (IOTC, 2015), which may indicate reported 2.3 percent is for the thresher experience new or increased demand as that CPCs are beginning to adhere to the complex and likely includes a large a result of this shift in the market (refer retention ban. Nevertheless, the IOTC number of pelagic thresher sharks, given back to the common thresher itself acknowledges that its own their range and distribution overlaps Overutilization for Commercial, retention ban for thresher sharks may with bigeye thresher, they comprise a Recreational, Scientific, or Educational not be adequate for the bigeye thresher significant component of thresher fins Purposes section for more details), shark due to its high bycatch-related identified in the aforementioned genetic particularly since bigeye thresher meat mortality rates, low productivity, as studies, and they comprise the majority is not highly regarded as food due to its well as high rates of illegal fishing and of thresher catches in some areas. As lower quality. the reluctance of CPCs to adequately noted previously, thresher shark fins are Based on the above review of report discards in the Indian Ocean. also not considered highly valued or regulatory measures (in addition to the However, as of 2015, the IOTC ‘‘first choice’’ among some traders. regulations described in Young et al., recommended that the retention ban Finally, and as previously discussed, 2015), the ERA team concluded that remain in place, as it likely confers the situation regarding the fin trade these existing regulations are adequate some conservation benefit (albeit appears to be improving in some areas and do not contribute to the species’ limited) to bigeye thresher. Thus, due to (refer back to common thresher— extinction risk throughout its range, the high fishing pressure in this region, Overutilization for Commercial, now or in the foreseeable future. The combined with likely ineffective Recreational, Scientific, and team noted that some areas of the implementation and enforcement of Educational Purposes section), with an species’ range do have adequate regulations, the IOTC’s main regulation overall decline in the global fin trade measures in place to prevent to conserve thresher species may be occurring in recent years. For example, overutilization, such as in the ineffective (IOTC, 2014). Like the a decrease in landings of thresher sharks Northwest Atlantic where U.S. fishery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19009

management measures are helping to section of this finding. Other threats that impact of this potential threat on its monitor the catch of bigeye threshers, fall under Factor E (ESA section contribution to the extinction risk of the preventing any further population 4(a)(1)(E)), including pollution and species) and is present in several genetic declines. These U.S. conservation and potential threats to important prey tests of shark fins throughout its range, management measures (as previously species are addressed in the status indicating that the species is utilized to summarized) are viewed as adequate in review report (Young et al., 2015), but some degree in the shark fin trade. We decreasing the extinction risk to the were not identified as threats that rose recognize that the bigeye thresher may bigeye thresher shark in this portion of to the level of increasing the species’ be experiencing some degree of its range by minimizing demographic risk of extinction. population decline in the Western and risks (preventing further abundance Central Pacific and Indian Oceans; Overall Risk Summary declines) and the threat of however, the magnitude of decline in overutilization (strictly prohibiting Guided by the results from the the Western and Central Pacific was bigeye threshers in both commercial and demographic risk analysis and threats considered to be ‘‘slight’’ in recent recreational fisheries) currently and in assessment, the ERA team members years, with a conservative assumption the foreseeable future. Likewise, U.S. used their informed professional that the available CPUE and landings management regulations for the Hawaii- judgment to make an overall extinction data (which are reported for the thresher based pelagic longline fishery are also risk determination for the bigeye complex (all three Alopias spp.)) are likely adequate in reducing impacts to thresher shark now and in the indeed reflective of trends in bigeye the bigeye thresher, as evidenced by a foreseeable future. The ERA team thresher. Additionally, the potential stable and possibly increasing concluded that the bigeye thresher shark decline in the Indian Ocean is abundance trend of the species in this is currently at a low risk of extinction. considered to be highly uncertain given region of the Central Pacific. Although However, due to a lack of abundance that fisheries data (including nominal regulations specific to bigeye thresher trends and catch data for a large portion and standardized CPUE trends) are sharks are lacking in other parts of its of the species’ range, the ERA team largely lacking from this portion of the range, it is unclear whether expressed uncertainty by spreading species’ range, with landings data also overutilization presents a significant their likelihood points across all pooled for all thresher species. threat to the species in these regions categories. Likelihood points attributed However, the ERA team agreed that the (see Overutilization for Commercial, to the overall level of extinction risk potential declines of bigeye thresher in Recreational, Scientific or Educational categories were as follows: Low Risk these portions of its range are not likely Purposes section discussed earlier in (34.5/70), Moderate Risk (30.5/70), High to be so severe such that they place the this notice), and thus it is difficult to Risk (5/70). The ERA team reiterated species at a high risk of extinction determine whether the inadequacy of that across the species’ range, regional throughout its global range, now or in current regulatory measures is placing abundance trends are highly variable, the foreseeable future. the species at an increased risk of with no clear trend for the global The available information indicates extinction throughout its global range. population. There is also no evidence to that most of the observed declines Overall, implementation and suggest depensatory processes are occurred historically, before any enforcement of regulatory mechanisms currently at work. The species is found significant management regulations is variable throughout the range of the globally, throughout its historical range, were in place. Since then, current bigeye thresher. We recognize the mere appears to be well-adapted, and is not regulatory measures in some parts of the existence of regulatory mechanisms limited by habitat. Although the global bigeye thresher range are reducing the does not necessarily equate to their abundance of bigeye thresher shark is threat of overutilization, and likely effectiveness in achieving their intended highly uncertain, none of the available preventing further abundance declines purpose. Issues related to community regional studies that reported recent in these portions in the foreseeable awareness, compliance, enforcement, standardized CPUEs (Northwest future. Therefore, the ERA team regional priorities, and complex Atlantic, South Atlantic, Hawaii, concluded that at least some political climates within many countries Western and Central Pacific), and give populations are not suffering from in which thresher sharks occur can limit some insight into the species’ current overutilization and are well managed, the effectiveness of well-intended abundance, show a significant or thus decreasing the likelihood of statutes and legislation. However, based continuing decline such that extinction of the global population. The on the best available information, we demographic risks are significantly ERA team acknowledged that given the find that although improvements are contributing to the species’ risk of species’ low productivity and high needed in the monitoring and reporting extinction. Based on most recent bycatch-related mortality rates, it is of fishery interactions of this species, fisheries data, the ERA team concluded generally more vulnerable to the threat of inadequate existing that at least some populations of bigeye unsustainable levels of exploitation. regulatory mechanisms is not likely thresher are not overutilized and current However, given the best available causing the species to have a high risk fishing pressure and associated information, the ERA team concluded of extinction throughout its global mortality on these populations may be that over the next 50 years, it is unlikely range, now or in the foreseeable future. sustainable. We recognize that the that the bigeye thresher shark has a high bigeye thresher’s tropical distribution risk of extinction throughout its global Other Natural or Manmade Threats may increase the species’ exposure to range, now or in the foreseeable future, As previously described, the ERA many high seas industrial fisheries due to current trends in its abundance, team assessed the effects of climate operations throughout its range, productivity, spatial structure, or change as a potential threat to bigeye particularly where fishing pressure is diversity or influenced by depensatory thresher sharks; however, since most of likely highest within the Indo-Pacific. processes, effects of environmental the studied impacts from climate change This is evidenced by the fact that the stochasticity, or catastrophic events. are habitat-focused, the threat of climate species is commonly observed or caught change is addressed in the Present or throughout this portion of its range Significant Portion of Its Range Threatened Destruction, Modification, (including where regulations may be If we find that the bigeye thresher is or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range inadequate—which may increase the not in danger of extinction now or in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19010 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices

foreseeable future throughout all of its some reason the species could not individuals familiar with bigeye range, we must go on to evaluate repopulate the lost portion, it would thresher sharks. We considered each of whether the species is in danger of still not constitute a significant risk of the ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors to extinction, or likely to become so in the extinction to the remaining populations. determine whether it presented an foreseeable future, in a ‘‘significant We did not find substantial evidence to extinction risk to the species on its own. portion of its range’’ (79 FR 37578; July indicate that the loss of genetic diversity We also considered the combination of 1, 2014). Please refer back to the from one portion (such as loss of the those factors to determine whether they common thresher Significant Portion of Indian Ocean population) would result collectively contributed to the Its Range section of this finding for in the remaining population lacking extinction of the species. As previously detailed information regarding the SPR enough genetic diversity to allow for explained, no portion of the species’ Policy and process. adaptations to changing environmental range is considered significant, so we Applying the SPR policy to the bigeye conditions. Additionally, areas concluded that the species is not thresher shark, we first evaluated exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which threatened or endangered in a whether there is substantial information could affect the survival of the species, significant portion of its range. indicating that the species may be were not evident in any part of the Therefore, our determination set forth threatened or endangered in any portion bigeye thresher shark range. There is below is based on a synthesis and of its range. After a review of the best also no evidence of a portion that integration of the foregoing information, available information, the ERA team encompasses aspects that are important factors and considerations, and their concluded, and we agree, that the to specific life history events but effects on the status of the species Indian Ocean likely has more another portion that does not, where throughout its entire range. concentrated threats than other portions loss of the former portion would We conclude that the bigeye thresher of the bigeye thresher’s range due to the severely impact the growth, shark is not presently in danger of intensive fishing pressure in this region, reproduction, or survival of the entire extinction, nor is it likely to become so combined with the species’ high rates of species. There is also limited in the foreseeable future, throughout all bycatch-related mortality and low information regarding nursery grounds of its range. We summarize the factors or other important habitats utilized by productivity. However, with virtually supporting this conclusion as follows: the species that could be considered no information regarding abundance (1) The species is broadly distributed limiting factors for the species’ survival. trends or catch data of bigeye thresher over a large geographic range, with no In fact, we found evidence that there are from this region, we cannot conclude barrier to dispersal; (2) its current range likely reproductive grounds and nursery that the species is in danger of is indistinguishable from its historical areas in all three major ocean basins. In extinction or likely to become so in the range and there is no evidence of habitat other words, the viability of the species foreseeable future in this portion of its loss or destruction; (3) while the species does not appear to depend on the range. Even if the bigeye thresher was in possesses life history characteristics that productivity of the population or the danger of extinction in the Indian Ocean increase its vulnerability to harvest, and environmental characteristics in any has been found to be more susceptible (or likely to become so in the one portion. Overall, we did not find foreseeable future), the ERA team any evidence to suggest that any specific to pelagic longline fisheries compared to concluded that the loss of the Indian portion of the species’ range had other shark species (based on results Ocean population of bigeye thresher increased importance over any other from Ecological Risk Assessments), the would not result in the remainder of the with respect to the species’ survival. As species is still regularly encountered in species being endangered or threatened. such, we did not identify any portions fisheries and appears sustainable in In particular, we did not find substantial of the bigeye thresher range, including some portions of its range despite evidence to indicate that the loss of this the Indian Ocean, that meet both criteria decades of fishing pressure; (4) the best portion would result in a level of under the SPR Policy (i.e., the portion available information indicates that abundance for the remainder of the is biologically significant and the abundance is variable across the species to be so low or variable, that it species may be in danger of extinction species’ range, with reports of localized would cause the species to be at a in that portion, or likely to become so population declines but also evidence of moderate or high risk of extinction due within the foreseeable). stable and/or increasing abundance to environmental variation, estimates; (5) based on the ERA team’s anthropogenic perturbations, or Final Determination assessment, while the current depensatory processes. Bigeye thresher Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires population size has likely declined from sharks are highly mobile, globally that NMFS make listing determinations historical numbers, it is sufficient to distributed, and have no known barriers based solely on the best scientific and maintain population viability into the to migration. Although there is commercial data available after foreseeable future; (6) there is no preliminary evidence of possible genetic conducting a review of the status of the evidence that disease or predation is partitioning between ocean basins, this species and taking into account those contributing to an increased risk of was based on one study with a limited efforts, if any, being made by any state extinction of the species; (7) existing sample size (see Trejo, 2005_ENREF_ or foreign nation, or political regulatory mechanisms to address the 224). Thus, there is no substantial subdivisions thereof, to protect and most important threats to the species evidence to suggest that the loss of the conserve the species. We have (harvest) are not inadequate throughout Indian Ocean portion of its range would independently reviewed the best its range, such that they contribute severely fragment and isolate the available scientific and commercial significantly to the species’ risk of species to the point where the information, including the petition, extinction globally; (8) there is no remaining populations would be at risk public comments submitted on the 90- evidence that other natural or manmade of extinction from demographic day finding (80 FR 48061; August 11, factors are contributing to an increased processes. In fact, we found no 2015), the status review report (Young et risk of extinction of the species; and (9) information that would suggest that the al., 2015), and other published and while the global population has likely remaining populations could not unpublished information, and have declined from historical numbers, there repopulate the lost portion, and, if for consulted with species experts and is no evidence that the species is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices 19011

currently suffering from depensatory within the foreseeable future. Authority processes (such as reduced likelihood of Accordingly, the bigeye thresher shark finding a mate or mate choice or does not meet the definition of a The authority for this action is the diminished fertilization and recruitment threatened or endangered species, and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as success) or is at risk of extinction due thus, the bigeye thresher shark does not amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). to environmental variation or warrant listing as threatened or Dated: March 28, 2016. anthropogenic perturbations. endangered at this time. Samuel D. Rauch III, Based on these findings, we conclude References Deputy Assistant Administrator for that the bigeye thresher shark is not Regulatory Programs, National Marine currently in danger of extinction A complete list of all references cited Fisheries Service. throughout all or a significant portion of herein is available upon request (see FOR [FR Doc. 2016–07440 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] its range, nor is it likely to become so FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01APN2.SGM 01APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES