sign in sign up
<<
Home , Broadfin shark, Daggernose shark, Houndshark, Lamiopsis, Pondicherry shark

69376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

propose to kill any of the listed through visual observation or Dated: November 14, 2013. being captured, but given the nature of electrofishing, electrofishing would be Angela Somma, the capture methods, some individuals discontinued. Surveyors would proceed Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office would likely be killed. upstream until a change in habitat of Protected Resources, National Marine parameters is encountered, where Service. Permit 18194 electrofishing would be continued. The [FR Doc. 2013–27658 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is researchers do not propose to kill any of BILLING CODE 3510–22–P seeking a five-year permit to annually the listed salmonids being captured, but take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and a small number may die as an juvenile and adult PS steelhead. The unintended result of the activities. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE sampling would take place in selected stream channels and floodplain areas Permit 18405 National Oceanic and Atmospheric throughout the Stillaguamish River The Oregon State University (OSU) is Administration watershed in Washington State. The seeking a two-year permit to annually purpose of the study is to classify by take juvenile LCR, PS, and UCR [Docket No. 130926840–3840–01] water type approximately 25 miles of Chinook salmon; CR chum salmon; LCR RIN 0648–XC898 stream channel in selected sub-basins coho salmon; and LCR, MCR, PS, SRB, and floodplain areas of the and UCR steelhead. The OSU research Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Stillaguamish River with the intent of may also cause them to take adult S 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 19 verifying and updating Washington eulachon—a species for which there are Species and 3 Subpopulations of Department of Natural Resources, currently no ESA take prohibitions. The as Threatened or Endangered Snohomish County, and United States sampling would take place in multiple Under the Endangered Species Act Forest Service stream classifications and locations in the Puget Sound hydrological layers. This research (Stillaguamish, Skykomish, Duwamish, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries would benefit the affected species by and Nisqually watersheds), Washington Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and improving regulatory protection of coast (Sol Duc, Queets, Quinault, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sensitive aquatic habitats for ESA listed Chehalis, and Willapa watersheds), and Department of Commerce. Chinook and steelhead, improving our Columbia River basin (Cowlitz, ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition knowledge of Chinook habitat use (and Klickitat, Yakima, Wenatchee, Spokane, finding, request for information. thereby informing various recovery and Palouse watersheds). The purpose strategies), and identifying significant of the study is to determine the SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a habitat restoration opportunities. The taxonomic status of Pacific Northwest 90-day finding on a petition to list 19 WFC proposes to capture fish using coastal populations of Speckled Dace species and 3 subpopulations of sharks beach seines, fyke nets, and minnow based on genetic and morphological as threatened or endangered under the traps. Fish would be anesthetized, data. The genetic sequence data would Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find identified to species, measured to size be used to better understand the that the petition presents substantial class, have a tissue sample taken, and historical biogeography of coastal scientific or commercial information released. The researchers do not Speckled Dace, improve the indicating that the petitioned action propose to kill any of the listed understanding of how coastal streams may be warranted for 9 species: salmonids being captured, but a small contribute to local species diversity and harrissoni, Isogomphodon number may die as an unintended result endemism, and to compare coastal to oxyrhynchus, Mustelus fasciatus, of the activities. inland Speckled Dace populations. The Mustelus schmitti, Squatina aculeata, research would benefit the listed species Squatina argentina, Squatina Permit 18331 by providing information on their guggenheim, Squatina oculata, and The WFC is seeking a five-year permit distribution, but the main benefactor of Squatina squatina. Therefore, we will to annually take juvenile PS Chinook this research would be speckled dace by conduct a status review of the nine salmon and PS steelhead in selected providing taxonomical and species to determine if the petitioned stream channels and floodplain areas distributional data for that species. The action is warranted. To ensure that the throughout the Kitsap and Snoqualmie OSU proposes to capture fish using status review is comprehensive, we are sub-basins in Washington State. The small seine nets, dip nets, and minnow soliciting scientific and commercial purpose of the study is to classify traps. All non-target species and listed information pertaining to these existing channels by water type and salmon and steelhead would petitioned species from any interested thereby validate and update Washington immediately be released after capture. party. We find that the petition does not Department of Natural Resources, and The researchers do not propose to kill present substantial scientific or affected county and city, stream any of the listed salmonids being commercial information indicating that classifications and hydrological layers. captured, but a small number may die the petitioned action may be warranted This research would benefit the affected as an unintended result of the activities. for 10 species and 3 subpopulations: species by filling data gaps regarding This notice is provided pursuant to borneensis, Carcharhinus fish passage impediments (tidegates, section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will hemiodon, taurus culverts, etc.) and providing fish species evaluate the applications, associated (Southwest Atlantic subpopulation), composition and distribution— documents, and comments submitted to Cetorhinus maximus (North Pacific information needed to identify, determine whether the applications subpopulation), Cetorhinus maximus prioritize, and implement restoration meet the requirements of section 10(a) (Northeast Atlantic subpopulation), projects. The WFC proposes to capture of the ESA and Federal regulations. The Haploblepharus kistnasamyi, fish using backpack electrofishing. Fish final permit decisions will not be made leucoperiptera, would be identified to species, have a until after the end of the 30-day Holohalaelurus favus, Holohalaelurus tissue sample taken (only steelhead in comment period. NMFS will publish punctatus, temmincki, the Kitsap sub-basin), and released. notice of its final action in the Federal Squatina formosa, Squatina punctata, Once fish presence is established, either Register. and acutipinna.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69377

DATES: Information and comments on considered in this finding are: endangered within the foreseeable the subject action must be received by Carcharhinus borneensis, Carcharhinus future throughout all or a significant January 21, 2014. hemiodon, Carcharias taurus portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, (Southwest Atlantic Subpopulation), and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. information, or data on this document, Centrophorus harrissoni, Cetorhinus 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA identified by the code NOAA–NMFS– maximus (North Pacific Subpopulation), and our implementing regulations, we 2013–0519, by any of the following Cetorhinus maximus (Northeast Atlantic determine whether species are methods: Subpopulation), Haploblepharus threatened or endangered based on any • Electronic Submissions: Submit all kistnasamyi, Hemitriakis one or a combination of the following electronic comments via the Federal leucoperiptera, Holohalaelurus favus, five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present eRulemaking Portal. Go to Holohalaelurus punctatus, or threatened destruction, modification, www.regulations.gov/ Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Lamiopsis or curtailment of habitat or range; #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- temmincki, Mustelus fasciatus, Mustelus overutilization for commercial, 0159, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, schmitti, Squatina aculeata, Squatina recreational, scientific, or educational complete the required fields, and enter argentina, Squatina formosa, Squatina purposes; disease or ; or attach your comments. guggenheim, Squatina oculata, Squatina inadequacy of existing regulatory • Mail: Submit written comments to punctata, Squatina squatina, and mechanisms; and any other natural or Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, Triakis acutipinna. manmade factors affecting the species’ 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR MD 20910. as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 424.11(c)). Instructions: Comments sent by any requires, to the maximum extent ESA-implementing regulations issued other method, to any other address or practicable, that within 90 days of jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR individual, or received after the end of receipt of a petition to list a species as 424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial the comment period, may not be threatened or endangered, the Secretary information’’ in the context of reviewing considered by NMFS. All comments of Commerce make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a received are a part of the public record that petition presents substantial species as the amount of information and will generally be posted for public scientific or commercial information that would lead a reasonable person to viewing on www.regulations.gov indicating that the petitioned action believe that the measure proposed in the without change. All personal identifying may be warranted, and to promptly petition may be warranted. When information (e.g., name, address, etc.), publish the finding in the Federal evaluating whether substantial confidential business information, or Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When information is contained in a petition, otherwise sensitive information we find that substantial scientific or we must consider whether the petition: submitted voluntarily by the sender will commercial information in a petition (1) Clearly indicates the administrative be publicly accessible. NMFS will indicates the petitioned action may be measure recommended and gives the accept anonymous comments (enter warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), scientific and any common name of the ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish we are required to promptly commence species involved; (2) contains detailed to remain anonymous), although a review of the status of the species narrative justification for the submitting comments anonymously will concerned, which includes conducting a recommended measure, describing, prevent NMFS from contacting you if comprehensive review of the best based on available information, past and NMFS has difficulty retrieving your available scientific and commercial present numbers and distribution of the submission. Attachments to electronic information. Within 12 months of species involved and any threats faced comments will be accepted in Microsoft receiving the petition, we must by the species; (3) provides information Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats conclude the review with a finding as to regarding the status of the species over only. whether, in fact, the petitioned action is all or a significant portion of its range; Copies of the petition and related warranted. Because the finding at the and (4) is accompanied by the materials are available upon request 12-month stage is based on a appropriate supporting documentation from the Director, Office of Protected significantly more thorough review of in the form of bibliographic references, Resources, 1315 East West Highway, the available information, a ‘‘may be reprints of pertinent publications, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: warranted’’ finding at the 90-day stage copies of reports or letters from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ does not prejudge the outcome of the authorities, and maps (50 CFR petition81.htm. status review. 424.14(b)(2)). Under the ESA, a listing At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determination may address a species, petitioner’s request based upon the Maggie Miller, Office of Protected which is defined to also include information in the petition including its Resources, 301–427–8403. subspecies and, for any vertebrate references, and the information readily SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species, any DPS that interbreeds when available in our files. We do not conduct mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint additional research, and we do not Background NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service solicit information from parties outside On July 15, 2013, we received a (USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy the agency to help us in evaluating the petition from the WildEarth Guardians (DPS Policy) clarifies the agencies’ petition. We will accept the petitioner’s to list 81 marine species as threatened interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct sources and characterizations of the or endangered under the ESA and to population segment’’ for the purposes of information presented, if they appear to designate critical habitat under the ESA. listing, delisting, and reclassifying a be based on accepted scientific Copies of this petition are available from species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; principles, unless we have specific us (see ADDRESSES). This finding February 7, 1996). A species, information in our files that indicates addresses the 19 species and 3 subspecies, or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it the petition’s information is incorrect, subpopulations of sharks identified as is in danger of throughout all unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise part of this petition. The 19 or a significant portion of its range, and irrelevant to the requested action. species and 3 subpopulations ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become Information that is susceptible to more

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

than one interpretation or that is fashion; then we assess the potential trawling and human population growth, contradicted by other available significance of that negative response. loss of coral reef habitat, overutilization information will not be dismissed at the Many petitions identify risk by fisheries, disease, lack of adequate 90-day finding stage, so long as it is classifications made by non- existing regulatory mechanisms, reliable and a reasonable person would governmental organizations, such as the biological characteristics that increase conclude that it supports the International Union for Conservation of susceptibility to threats, restricted petitioner’s assertions. Conclusive Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries ranges, climate change, and synergistic information indicating the species may Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of effects. The species-specific information meet the ESA’s requirements for listing extinction risk for a species. Risk section follows and provides is not required to make a positive 90- classifications by other organizations or information largely from the IUCN day finding. We will not conclude that made under other Federal or state assessment for each species. This a lack of specific information alone statutes may be informative, but such section includes fewer than three pages negates a positive 90-day finding, if a classification alone may not provide the of unique material for over half of the reasonable person would conclude that rationale for a positive 90-day finding petitioned species and provides the unknown information itself suggests under the ESA. For example, as information on the species’ Convention an extinction risk of concern for the explained by NatureServe, their on International Trade in Endangered species at issue. assessments of a species’ conservation Species (CITES) and IUCN status, range, To make a 90-day finding on a status do ‘‘not constitute a and habitat information. Entries for only petition to list a species, we evaluate recommendation by NatureServe for a few species provide species-specific whether the petition presents listing under the U.S. Endangered population status or trend information. substantial scientific or commercial Species Act’’ because NatureServe We consider this information separately information indicating the subject assessments ‘‘have different criteria, in the ‘‘Species-specific information’’ species may be either threatened or evidence requirements, purposes and section below. taxonomic coverage than government endangered, as defined by the ESA. General Information First, we evaluate whether the lists of endangered and threatened The petition clearly indicates the information presented in the petition, species, and therefore these two types of administrative measure recommended along with the information readily lists should not be expected to and gives the scientific and any available in our files, indicates that the coincide’’ (http://www.natureserve.org/ prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). common name of the species involved. petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ Thus, when a petition cites such The petition also contains a narrative eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, classifications, we will evaluate the justification for the recommended we evaluate whether the information source of information that the measure and provides limited indicates that the species at issue faces classification is based upon in light of information on the species’ and extinction risk that is cause for concern; the standards on extinction risk and subpopulations’ geographic distribution, this may be indicated in information impacts or threats discussed above. habitat use, and threats. For a number expressly discussing the species’ status In this petition the petitioner relies of the species and subpopulations, the and trends, or in information describing almost exclusively on the risk petitioner fails to provide any impacts and threats to the species. We classifications of the IUCN as the source information on past and present evaluate any information on specific of information on the status of each numbers or population status. A demographic factors pertinent to petitioned species. All of the petitioned synopsis of our analysis of the evaluating extinction risk for the species species are listed as ‘‘endangered’’ or information provided in the petition at issue (e.g., population abundance and ‘‘critically endangered’’ on the IUCN and readily available in our files is trends, productivity, spatial structure, Redlist and the petitioner notes this as provided below. age structure, sex ratio, diversity, an explicit consideration in offering Based on the information presented in current and historical range, habitat petitions on these species. However, as the petition, along with the information integrity or fragmentation), and the mentioned above, species classifications readily available in our files, we find potential contribution of identified under IUCN and the ESA are not that 20 of the 21 petitioned shark demographic risks to extinction risk for equivalent, and data standards, criteria species constitute taxonomically valid the species. We then evaluate the used to evaluate species, and treatment species eligible for listing under the potential links between these of uncertainty are also not necessarily ESA. demographic risks and the causative the same. Thus, we instead consider the The introductory threats discussion is impacts and threats identified in section information on threats identified by the general, with only occasional references 4(a)(1). petitioners, as well as the data on which to specific petitioned species and Information presented on impacts or they are based, as they pertain to each subpopulations with the threats later threats should be specific to the species petitioned species. repeated in the species-specific section and should reasonably suggest that one (discussed below). Some of the general or more of these factors may be Analysis of the Petition threats discussion are not clearly or operative threats that act or have acted With the exception of the North causally linked to the petitioned species on the species to the point that it may Pacific subpopulation of basking shark (e.g., discussion of dead zones yet no warrant protection under the ESA. (Cetorhinus maximus), the petitioned identification that these occur in the Broad statements about generalized shark species and subpopulations are petitioned species’ ranges; discussion of threats to the species, or identification found exclusively in foreign waters. The the threat of climate change with a focus of factors that could negatively impact introductory part of the shark section of on coral reef habitat loss when only one a species, do not constitute substantial the petition provides a general petitioned species was identified as information that listing may be description of threats following the five found on coral reef habitats warranted. We look for information ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors and is meant (Haploblepharus kistnasamyi)). The indicating that not only is the particular to apply to all of the petitioned species. petition also references worldwide species exposed to a factor, but that the This section discusses the following human population growth as a threat for species may be responding in a negative threats: Habitat destruction from all of the petitioned species. However,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69379

a rising human population by itself may dolphins, California sea lions and 2003). With no information in our files, not necessarily be a threat to a species, harbor seals’’ (Dewar et al., 2013). or provided by the petitioner, on if, for instance, human activities are Ultimately, we concluded that the baseline concentrations or rate of managed such that habitat is preserved impacts of pollution and disease are not accumulation of pollutants in the or species are not over-exploited. significant threats to the Northeastern petitioned shark species, or even Similarly, human-mediated threats can Pacific DPS of white sharks. As these conclusive evidence of negative effects occur at a level that renders a species in white sharks, which likely have some of of accumulation in terms of survival or danger of extinction in the absence of a the highest levels of contaminants reproductive capacity of the shark growing human population. Thus, compared to sharks found elsewhere in species from the referenced studies, we information that the population is the world, were not found to be find that the petitioner has not provided growing, on its own, does not indicate threatened or endangered due to substantial information that would lead that the growing human population is a pollutants, it is reasonable to conclude a reasonable person to conclude that the threat. that the petitioned species, which are threat of disease from pollutants (Hg, The petition provides a discussion of not found in the SCB and thus likely to persistent organic compounds, heavy disease as a threat, presenting it in terms have lower levels of contaminants, are metals, and other pollutants) is of accumulations of mercury, persistent not at risk of extinction from these contributing to the petitioned shark organic compounds, heavy metals and pollutants. species’ risk of extinction. other pollutants in sharks. However, the Likewise, the petitioner cites Lyle In the regulatory mechanisms (1984; 1986) as evidence of threats to discussion, the petitioner argues that studies that the petition references as the petitioned species based on the there are no adequate regulatory support are based primarily on non- accumulation of Hg; however, the paper mechanisms because the species are petitioned shark species in locations examined shark species that utilize listed as endangered or critically outside of the petitioned shark species’ waters of the Northern Territory of endangered by IUCN, and none of the ranges. For example, in their discussion Australia. None of the petitioned shark populations have increasing or even of the threat of mercury (Hg) species are found in these waters. In stable population trends. However, accumulation, the petitioners cite Mull addition, the Lyle papers made no generalized evidence of declining et al. (2012). This study focused solely mention of the effects of populations per se is neither evidence of on white sharks found in the Southern bioaccumulation on the survival or declines large enough to infer extinction California Bight (SCB). The authors reproductive capacity of the examined risk that may meet the definition of concluded that geographic location is a shark species. Instead, the papers either threatened or endangered under primary driver of the level of observed simply discuss the rate and level of Hg the ESA, nor evidence of inadequate concentrations of contaminants in and selenium concentrations in sharks, regulatory mechanisms, since sharks, with those sharks found in with a focus on human consumption, sustainable management regimes can contamination hot spots (such as the not survival of shark species. have periods of declining populations. SCB and Mediterranean Sea) likely to Finally, the petitioners reference The petition notes that only one have higher tissue concentrations of Storelli et al. (2003) for evidence of species, with two petitioned contaminants. According to the authors, threats to the petitioned species based subpopulations (Cetorhinus maximus), ‘‘Sharks from the SCB exhibited on accumulations of PCBs and arsenic. is listed on CITES Appendix II and elevated muscle levels of total Hg, The Storelli et al. (2003) paper references the limitations inherent in second only to adult Smooth examined species CITES listings from the coral section of Hammerheads, Gulper Sharks (none of which were petitioned) in the the petition. According to Article II of (Centrophorus granulosus), Longnose Ionian Sea. The Ionian Sea, as CITES, species listed on Appendix II are Spurdog (Squalus blainvilii), and Kitefin mentioned above, is recognized as a those that are ‘‘not necessarily now Sharks (Dalatias licha) from the Ionian geographical location with threatened with extinction but may Sea.’’ Sharks from the SCB also exceptionally high levels of Hg become so unless trade in specimens of exhibited concentrations of contamination due to urban, industrial, such species is subject to strict dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and natural source inputs (Storelli et al., regulation in order to avoid utilization and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 2003; Mull et al., 2012). Only three of incompatible with their survival.’’ much higher than those found the petitioned species (Squatina Based on the CITES definitions and elsewhere in the world. However, aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina) standards for listing species on according to Mull et al. (2012), it is may have current ranges that extend Appendix II, the species’ actual listing unclear if the high levels of into the Mediterranean Sea. However, on Appendix II is not itself an inherent contaminants in the white sharks are Storelli et al. (2003), state ‘‘[i]t is indication that these species may now causing deleterious physiological effects hypothesed [sic] that the large size of warrant threatened or endangered status or affecting survival or reproduction elasmobranch liver provides a greater under the ESA. Species classifications rates. We recently conducted an ESA ability to eliminate organic toxicants under CITES and the ESA are not status review of the Northeastern Pacific than in other fishes.’’ While the paper equivalent, and criteria used to evaluate DPS of white sharks, and in our mentions that ‘‘the presence of PCBs species are not the same. The petitioner evaluation of threats from pollutants, we and methylmercury, coupled with their also makes generalized statements about noted that no hepatic lesions or other synergistic activity, may make these shark finning bans and other measures visible effects have been observed in the organisms susceptible to long-term toxic of protections in this section, but does DPS (Dewar et al., 2013). Additionally, effects’’, it also states that in marine not provide any details or references. the status review report notes that mammals selenium has a detoxifying We do not consider these general and ‘‘[i]ndications that high tissue effect against Hg intoxication when the unsubstantiated statements as contaminant levels are not causing molar ratio between the two metals is substantial information that listing may problems at a population level are the close to one, and the authors observed be warranted due to an inadequacy of apparent increase in other predators that similar ratios in shark liver ‘‘indicating regulatory mechanisms for all of the have similarly high contaminant levels that this particular mechanism may also petitioned species. Where the petition including the coastal stock of bottlenose be valid for sharks’’ (Storelli et al., provides species-specific information on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69380 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

this threat, that information is and neither the petitioner nor the IUCN borneensis is primarily landed in considered in the individual species assessment provides any information on coastal gillnets. In terms of fisheries sections below. Likewise, biological catch statistics or operations of regulations, Malaysia has a number of characteristics, such as slow growth and fisheries. Instead, the assertion that fishing gear, method, and area reproductive rates, and/or range fishing activities have detrimentally restrictions that have been in place to restrictions, do not automatically pose affected the species seems based solely control the exploitation of threats to all of the petitioned species. on the species’ rarity in historical resources. For example, there is These biological and ecological factors records. However, there could be a currently a complete ban on fishing are examined on a species-specific basis number of other reasons for the species’ methods that are destructive to fish below, if information is available. absence in fishing records, such as: The resources and their environment, such While the information in this species’ range does not coincide with as dynamite, pair trawling, and push introductory section is otherwise largely fishery operations or survey areas; the nets (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, accurate and suggests concern for the fishing gear employed is not effective at 2006). The pukat pari, a drift gill net status of sharks in general, the broad catching the species; the species may with a mesh size larger than 25.4 cm statements and generalizations of threats have been caught but was released if it that was used to catch large sized sharks for all petitioned shark species and was not of commercial value; its life and rays, has been banned since 1990 subpopulations do not constitute history is unknown, so it is possible that (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, substantial information that listing may this species may migrate to other areas 2006). As the Malaysia NPOA notes, be warranted for any of the petitioned during fishing seasons; etc. In other these nationwide bans on fishing gear species or subpopulations. There is little words, a species that is persistently rare and methods have helped reduce the information in this introductory section in the historical records does not exploitation of adult shark and ray indicating that particular petitioned necessarily mean that it has declined or species and provided some conservation species may be responding in a negative is in danger of extinction. In fact, in this benefits to the breeding stocks. fashion to any of the discussed threats. case, recent surveys in the region have Little information is known about the The few instances in the introductory actually found the species in life history and biology of C. borneensis. section which specifically link threats to ‘‘substantial numbers’’ near Mukah in It was previously considered to be a rare a particular petitioned species or Sarawak (White et al., 2010). The 2006 species, with the assumption that its subpopulation will be considered in our Malaysia National Plan of Action absence in records was due to historical discussion of threats to that particular (NPOA) for sharks supports this finding, overutilization of the species; however, species or subpopulation. noting that C. borneensis was the third recent information suggests otherwise. The next part of the petition consists most abundant species landed in In fact, the species is substantially more of individual species accounts for each Mukah, comprising around 9 percent of abundant than previously thought, of the 22 petitioned sharks. For many of the shark landings (Department of indicating that it is either experiencing the species and subpopulations, the Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). This new an increasing population trend or that information is extracted directly from information from our files, not prior sampling of the species was the IUCN assessment, with the considered in the IUCN assessment inadequate. The species is now petitioner providing the assessment as (which relied on information prior to commonly landed in part of its range. an accompanying exhibit and a list of 2006), suggests that the Borneo shark is We, therefore, find no evidence that references cited by the IUCN would suggest that the threat of more common than previously thought. assessment. Below we analyze this overutilization or inadequate regulatory species-specific information in light of The petitioner also contends that measures is putting this species at an the standards of the ESA and our there is a complete lack of protections increased extinction risk and conclude policies as described above. for the species. We do not necessarily that the species-specific information consider a lack of species-specific presented in the petition does not Species Descriptions and Information protections as a threat to the species or constitute substantial information that Carcharhinus borneensis, commonly even problematic in all cases. For listing may be warranted for C. referred to as the Borneo shark, is an example, management measures that borneensis. inshore coastal shark that appears to be regulate other species or fisheries Carcharhinus hemiodon, commonly found exclusively off Sarawak, Malaysia operations may indirectly help to referred to as the , is on Borneo. It is a small shark, with an minimize threats to the petitioned a rarely observed shark thought to occur observed maximum size of 87 cm species and may be adequate to prevent inshore on continental and insular (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, it from being at risk of extinction. Again, shelves (Compagno et al., 2003). The 2006). Prior to 1937, it was only known we look for substantial information petitioner, citing the IUCN assessment from five confirmed specimens (four of indicating that not only is the particular (Compagno et al., 2003), notes that the which were collected from Borneo, and species exposed to a factor, but that the species could possibly be extinct, as the one from China) (Compagno, 2009; species may be responding in a negative last record of the shark was in 1979 in White et al., 2010). As such, the life fashion; then we assess the potential India ‘‘despite detailed surveys in history and ecology of this species is significance of that negative response. Borneo, Philippines, and Indonesia.’’ largely unknown (Compagno, 2009; According to the Malaysia NPOA, However, more recent surveys in India’s White et al., 2010). sharks are not targeted by fishermen but economic exclusive zone (EEZ), The petition states that the species is are caught as with other conducted from 1984–2006, have very rare, and specifically identifies commercially important species identified the species as being present commercial overutilization as a threat (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, in these waters. The petition also states based solely on the general statement in 2006). In fact, shark and ray landings that the species is represented by ‘‘fewer the IUCN assessment that identifies constitute only around 2.2 percent of than twenty specimens in museum Borneo as an area heavily exploited by the total marine landings of the collections, most of which were artisanal and commercial fisheries demersal fishery that operates within captured before 1900.’’ However, it was (Compagno, 2009). No references were Malaysian waters (Department of also recorded for the first time in included as support for this statement, Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). In Mukah, C. Malaysian waters during shark surveys

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69381

conducted from 1999 to 2004 that this species may exhibit migratory NSW. Results showed that 13 of the 15 (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, behavior and may not be limited to examined shark species or species 2006), suggesting the range of the shark certain locations. In conclusion, we find groups saw substantial declines, may be wider than previously assumed. that the species-specific information including Harrison’s dogfish (Graham et Prior to 1990, C. hemiodon was reported presented in the petition does not al., 2001). In three of the 1976 surveys, as common in the Guandong Province constitute substantial information that Harrisson’s dogfish were lumped with and Fujian Province in China, but was listing may be warranted for C. little gulper sharks (C. uyato) and so not recorded during market and hemiodon. were analyzed as a group. These species interview surveys conducted in these Centrophorus harrissoni, commonly were fairly abundant across all depths shark-fishing provinces from 2006 to referred to as Harrison’s dogfish, is a on all grounds, with an average catch 2008 (Lam and de Mitcheson, 2010). demersal shark found on the upper to rate estimated at 126 kg/h (Graham et Similar to C. borneensis, the petition middle continental slope off eastern al., 2001). These species also attributes the rarity of this species to Australia, and on seamounts and ridges represented around 9, 18, and 32 commercial overutilization, although it north of New Zealand (Pogonoski and percent of the total fish catches in the acknowledges that the population trend, Pollard, 2003). The petitioner relies on NSW trawl areas off Sydney, Ulladulla, past and present abundance of the the IUCN assessment (Pogonoski and and Eden, respectively. By 1996–1997, species, and the basic biology and life Pollard, 2003) for its information, noting the two species represented less than 1 history of the species are unknown. As that the population size of this species percent of the total catch weight from mentioned previously, rarity does not is unknown but the trend is decreasing. these areas, with an average catch rate necessarily mean that a species is The IUCN assessment states that the of 0.4 kg/h. This translates to a decline threatened or in danger of extinction. major threats to the species are from of more than 99 percent between 1976– The condition of being rare is an demersal trawling (by Australia’s South 77 and 1996–1997 (Graham et al., 2001). important factor to consider when East Trawl Fishery (SETF)) and Given that the 1976–77 survey was evaluating a species’ risk of extinction; droplining (by the New South Wales conducted when the demersal trawl however, it does not by itself indicate fisheries) along the continental slope. fishery was just beginning, Graham et al. the likelihood of extinction of that (2001) attributes the subsequent decline The shark is commercially valuable and species, nor does the condition of being in Harrison’s dogfish primarily to the sold for its flesh and liver oil (Graham rare constitute substantial information fishing activities of the SETF. The et al., 2001; Pogonoski and Pollard, that listing under the ESA may be authors, and the petitioner, also note 2003). The petition contends that warranted. We look for information that the species’ low fecundity (thought overutilization for commercial purposes indicating that the species is exposed to to produce only one to two pups every has contributed to the decline of the a threat, but also that the species may 1 to 2 years) and assumed late maturity species and currently remains a threat to be responding in a negative fashion to have likely hindered its ability to its existence. According to Graham et al. that threat. While we acknowledge that recover from this decline. fishing has and is occurring in areas (2001), the demersal trawl-fishery on the In terms of current regulatory where this species has been upper continental slope off New South measures, the petition notes that there documented, the petitioner does not Wales (NSW) began in 1968 but rapidly have been some measures implemented provide any information indicating that expanded between 1975 and 1980 that limit the catch of C. harrissoni in this species was (or is) targeted or following exploratory trawling the SETF and require fishermen to land caught as bycatch in these fisheries in conducted by the NSW government’s Centrophorus carcasses with their numbers that would lead a reasonable fisheries research vessel, Kapala. By the livers, but argues that these regulations person to conclude that it has declined early 1980s, more than 100 trawlers are inadequate to protect the species or that listing may be warranted. In fact, were landing around 15,000 mt of fish from extinction. Instead, the petitioner the IUCN assessment even per year, with the majority of fish states that catch should be completely acknowledges that ‘‘market surveys caught on the upper continental slope. prohibited for a species that has have failed to locate it’’ (Compagno et Although sharks were never targeted, exhibited such drastic population al. 2003). In addition, the petition some species were fairly abundant, with declines. claims that there are no conservation the larger species, including the dogfish Based on the best available measures in place for the species, yet sharks, retained as bycatch. By the late information, we find that the threat of this species is currently listed under 1980s, there were substantial declines in overutilization by fisheries, inadequate Schedule I of India’s Wildlife Protection catch rates of certain fish species, and existing regulatory mechanisms, and Act (1972), which provides it absolute in 1992, total allowable catches and other natural factors may be impacting protection in India’s waters (John and transferrable quotas were introduced Harrison’s dogfish populations to a Varghese, 2009). The petitioner has into the fisheries operating in the degree that raises concerns of a risk of failed to provide any information that region. However, no such management extinction, with evidence of severe indicates current regulatory measures measures were created for sharks, which population declines throughout the are a threat to the species. Graham et al. (2001) attributes to their species’ observed range. We conclude Finally, the range of this shark species low abundance and economic value. In that the petition presents substantial is poorly known. As such, the rare an effort to determine the relative scientific information indicating that the occurrence of the shark in historical change in shark abundance, Graham et petitioned action of listing C. harrissoni records may simply be a reflection of al. (2001) examined the Kapala as threatened or endangered may be limited sampling efforts in the assumed exploratory trawl data from 1976–1977 warranted. range of the shark. As mentioned above, and data from stratified surveys from Haploblepharus kistnasamyi is a rare new survey data have in fact recorded 1996–1997 (conducted by the same shark species, known only from three the shark in waters where previously it vessel and gear using equivalent adult specimens, and is thought to be was not known to occur. The IUCN methodology). The surveys were endemic to South Africa (Human, assessment also notes that the species conducted on the upper continental 2009a). These known specimens have has been recorded from a number of slope trawl grounds, between 200 and all occurred inshore, from the intertidal ‘‘widely-separated’’ sites, suggesting 650 m depths, off central and southern zone to 30 m depth, and within a small

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69382 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

area (less than 100 km2) surrounding thought, and especially highlights the Given this available information, as well Durban, KwaZulu-Natal (Human, need for more sampling and data to as the previous discussion about the 2009a). The species was previously understand the species’ life history and deficiencies of the general threats assumed to be a form of Haploblepharus ecology. information, we conclude that the edwardsii, but in 2006 was named as a As stated previously, broad petition does not present substantial new species based on morphological statements about generalized threats or information indicating that H. differences (Human, 2009a). The identification of factors that could leucoperiptera may warrant listing as petition acknowledges that the negatively impact a species do not endangered or threatened under the population size, trend, and life history constitute substantial information that ESA. of the species are virtually unknown. listing may be warranted. In addition, Holohalaelurus favus, commonly The petition identifies habitat the condition of being rare is an referred to as the honeycomb izak or degradation, overutilization (as bycatch important factor to consider when natal izak, is found within a restricted in fisheries), and inadequacy of existing evaluating a species’ risk of extinction; range along the east African coast, from regulatory mechanisms as the main however, it does not by itself indicate Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa threats to the species’ continued the likelihood of extinction of that north to southern Mozambique. The existence, and relies primarily on the species, nor does the condition of being petitioner, citing the IUCN assessment information within the IUCN rare constitute substantial information (Human, 2009b) notes that very little assessment (Human, 2009a) for its that listing under the ESA may be information is known about the habitat, warranted. The fact that the species is ecology, population size and status of support. The petition, quoting the IUCN considered rare could also be an invalid the shark, nor is this information assessment, states that Durban is characterization of the species due to available in our files. In the late 1960s experiencing increasing limited sampling. Because of these and early 1970s, H. favus was industrialization and contends that the uncertainties, we look for substantial commonly caught and recorded from resultant industrial waste output, information within the petition and fishing trawls (Human, 2009b). pollution, and land development within our own files indicating that not However, by the mid-1970s, it had activities are degrading the only known only is the particular species exposed to seemingly disappeared; no longer habitat of H. kistnasamyi to the point a certain factor, but that the species may showing up in trawl catches (Human, where its continued existence is at risk. be responding in a negative fashion, and 2009b). The cause of the disappearance The petitioner also notes that the sharks’ then we assess the potential significance is unknown. Furthermore, a number of restricted range leaves it vulnerable to of that negative response. We had no extensive surveys that have been these localized activities and stochastic information on H. kistnasamyi or threats conducted in the known range of H. events. However, neither the IUCN to the species in our own files. After favus, including biodiversity research assessment nor the petition provides evaluation of the species-specific cruises in 2002 and 2003, a survey any supporting information (or information presented in the petition, cruise off Mozambique in 2007, and references) for these statements, such as we find that the petition does not other more recent biodiversity trawl information on the level of development present substantial scientific or surveys, have failed to capture any in the area, the amount of waste or commercial information indicating that specimens of the species (Human, pollutants entering the waters listing may be warranted for H. 2009b), indicating that the species may surrounding Durban (or water quality kistnasamyi. no longer be found in the wild. data), or evidence that the shark species Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, The purpose of the ESA is to conserve is responding in a negative fashion to commonly referred to as the whitefin species that are in danger of or this threat. Likewise, the petitioner topeshark, is an inshore tropical shark threatened with extinction. The states that bycatch is a threat to the from Philippine waters. It is known only definition of an endangered species is species and cites the IUCN assessment, from two free-swimming individuals ‘‘any species which is in danger of which notes that the area around and, as such, there is little to no extinction throughout all or a significant Durban is heavily fished, especially by information regarding its life history, portion of its range’’ (Section 3(6)). the prawn fisheries, but provides no range, or population numbers. No other Species that are already extinct are not additional information, references, or information is provided in the petition protected by the ESA. A review of the data on this fishery. Without further or available to us regarding past or best available scientific information information on these fisheries, such as present numbers or status of this provided by the petitioner suggests that their areas of operation, gear and species. Additionally, according to the H. favus may no longer exist in the wild methods, or data on catch and bycatch, IUCN assessment (Compagno, 2005), and may already be extinct. Given this it is unclear how the petitioner came to there have been no confirmed records of available information, as well as the the conclusion that these fisheries are the species’ occurrence in over 50 years, previous discussion about the negatively affecting the abundance of H. indicating that the species may no deficiencies of the general threats kistnasamyi, especially in light of the longer be found in the wild. The information, we conclude that the significant unknowns surrounding the purpose of the ESA is to conserve petition does not present substantial life history of H. kistnasamyi. In fact, species that are in danger of or information indicating that H. favus there have recently been questions threatened with extinction. The may warrant listing as endangered or regarding the exact range of this species, definition of an endangered species is threatened under the ESA. as the IUCN assessment states that ‘‘any species which is in danger of Holohalaelurus punctatus, commonly possible juveniles of the species have extinction throughout all or a significant referred to as the whitespotted izak or been recorded, but not yet verified, from portion of its range’’ (Section 3(6)). African spotted , is endemic to the Eastern Cape to west of Mossel Bay, Species that are already extinct are not the southwestern Indian Ocean. It may both also in South Africa. If these protected by the ESA. A review of the be found in depths of around 220–420 juveniles are identified as H. best available scientific information m off the coasts of KwaZulu-Natal, kistnasamyi, then this would provide provided by the petitioner suggests that South Africa, southern Mozambique, evidence that the species is not as H. leucoperiptera may no longer exist in and Madagascar. The petitioner, citing restricted in its range as previously the wild and may already be extinct. the IUCN assessment (Human, 2009c),

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69383

notes that very little information is population of H. punctatus found in of 71 kg/km/h for the species. known about the life history of the waters off Madagascar may possibly be Unfortunately, we were unable to species and the population status stable and protected, suggesting this review these studies, as they are not in throughout its range. Historically, the population is not currently at risk of our files and were not provided by the species was commonly caught by extinction. In addition, broad statements petitioner. commercial and research bottom trawls about generalized threats or The petitioner asserts that the off South Africa and Mozambique in the identification of factors that could ’s continued existence late 1960s and early 1970s. However, negatively impact a species do not is threatened by the synergistic effects of similar to H. favus, catch of the species constitute substantial information that habitat destruction, overutilization for abruptly declined. The cause of this listing may be warranted. Thus, after commercial purposes, inadequate decline in catch is unknown. Only a evaluation of the species-specific regulatory measures, and the species’ single specimen has been collected information presented in the petition, biological characteristics. In terms of since 1972, despite recent biodiversity we find that the petition does not threats to the species’ habitat, the trawl surveys that have been conducted present substantial scientific or petitioner notes that population growth off Mozambique (Human, 2009c). commercial information indicating that and subsequent coastal development However, the IUCN assessment notes listing may be warranted for H. within the range of the species is that the species also occurs off punctatus. degrading the species’ habitat and Madagascar and its population status Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, leading to increased pollutants in the and structure in this part of its range is commonly referred to as the daggernose coastal waters. The petitioner provides shark, is found in the western Atlantic, unknown (Human, 2009c). It also states general information about population ranging from the Caribbean (Trinidad, that given the species’ presumed depth density within Latin America and the , , and ) range, it may be protected from local growth of the global population. to northern and possibly in Madagascar fishermen, with the deep However, information that the waters off central Brazil (Lessa et al., waters off Madagascar thus serving as a population is growing, on its own, does 2006). The shark occurs in highly possible refuge for this species. not indicate that the growing human turbid, inshore waters, preferring However, due to a ‘‘complete lack of population is a threat to the species. The indented coasts with shallow banks, information from this part of its range’’ petition continues by discussing some muddy bottoms, and forests the IUCN assessment concluded that the potential negative effects from this (Lessa et al., 2006). It has been caught species could not be assessed in growth for coastal ecosystems, including Madagascar (Human, 2009c). Even with in depths of 4–40 m off northern Brazil and is thought to spend most of its life increased inputs of nutrients and this substantial lack of information on chemical wastes from run-off pollution, the species, including its basic life cycle within its range, as no long distance movements have been observed increased sedimentation, deforestation, history, population size, structure, and the physical destruction of coastal status, and likely range, the petitioner (Lessa et al., 2006). Annual rate of population increase, natural mortality, shorelines. While we acknowledge that contends that the species is in danger of these may be potential effects of a extinction from threats of inadequate average reproductive age, and longevity are unknown (Lessa et al., 2006). The growing human population, we look to regulatory measures (due to a lack of see if the species is directly exposed to conservation measures for the species) species is believed to reach maturity at 6–7 years for females, and 5–6 years for and responding in a negative fashion to and threats that have yet to be males, with maximum observed sizes of any of these factors. The petitioner does identified. 160 cm total length (TL) and 144 cm TL, not provide any information to indicate As stated previously, we do not respectively (Lessa et al., 2000). Average the species is exposed or negatively necessarily consider a lack of species- litter sizes range from 3 to 8 pups, with responding to any of the identified specific protections as a threat to the a gestation time of 12 months and an factors, nor do we have that information species. For example, management unknown but possible biennial in our files. For example, the petition measures that regulate other species or reproductive periodicity (Lessa et al., mentions the increasing number of dead fisheries operations may indirectly help 2006). zones worldwide but does not provide to minimize threats to the petitioned The shark is primarily caught as any evidence that these dead zones species and may be adequate to prevent bycatch in artisanal floating gillnet occur in areas within the daggernose its extinction. The petition has not fisheries in northern Brazil (Lessa et al., shark’s range, or information on the provided any information that would 2006). It is also taken in small numbers species’ likely response to hypoxic lead a reasonable person to assume the by artisanal fishermen in Venezuela, conditions. The petition provides no abrupt decline in catch was due to a Trinidad, Guyana, Suriname, and information on water quality within the lack of adequate regulatory measures, French Guiana; however, data are daggernose shark’s range, or the species’ nor do we have that information in our currently lacking for these areas (Lessa response to factors such as increased files. Additionally, the IUCN et al., 2006). According to a study sedimentation or nutrients. The petition assessment, cited by the petitioner, referenced by the IUCN assessment notes that the daggernose shark occurs highlights the uncertainty surrounding (Lessa et al., 2006), the population off in mangrove systems within its range, the cause of the observed reduction in northern Brazil is thought to be and cites the destruction of these catches of the shark off Mozambique decreasing at a rate of 18.4 percent per as a threat to the species. We when it states ‘‘[i]t is not known year, with substantial declines (>90 reviewed the citation that the petition whether the reduced population percent) over the past 10 years. From used as support for this statement (FAO, numbers are due to fisheries pressure, November 1983 to February 1985, a 2007) but found no evidence that would habitat loss, pollution, or an as yet survey conducted off northern Brazil suggest this is a significant threat to the unidentified threat.’’ The petition uses showed the species represented around species’ continued existence in its this statement as support that listing 10 percent of the floating gillnet range. The FAO (2007) study examined may be warranted for the entire species. elasmobranch catch (Lessa, 1986), while the status and trends of the world’s However, the information provided by a later survey (Stride et al., 1992) mangrove areas, including those likely the IUCN assessment indicates that the reported a catch per unit effort (CPUE) to be within the daggernose shark’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69384 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

range. For each country with mangrove considered a prime food fish,’’ and the and represents a significant threat. It is areas, the study provided the annual species’ fins are not valued in the unclear on what information the change in mangrove area for three time international fin trade (Lessa et al., petition (or the IUCN assessment) bases periods: 1980–1990, 1990–2000, and 2006). this assertion. Likewise, the petition 2000–2005. In Brazil, the study found However, given the substantial makes general assumptions regarding that the annual change in mangrove area declines that have been observed in the the species’ extinction risk from the was ¥0.3 percent, ¥0.1 percent, and 0 population (>90 percent) and ongoing other threats it identifies, such as its life percent for the three periods, but that declines off northern Brazil, the fact that history traits and the lack of species- the majority of this loss was along the the species is recorded in artisanal catch specific protections, but provides no southern coast, an area that is outside of throughout its restricted range and, evidence or information that shows the the daggernose shark range. For French although not targeted, does enter the species is responding in a negative Guiana, the change was 0 percent for all market, and coupled with its known life fashion to these threats. We do not three periods and the FAO (2007) notes history traits which increase its consider general assumptions and that ‘‘no serious threats seem to pressure susceptibility to depletion (such as low assertions made by the petitioner as the mangroves’’ there. For Trinidad, the reproductive rate), we find that the substantial information that listing may change was ¥0.4 percent, ¥0.2 percent, petition presents substantial scientific be warranted. As such, we find that the and 0 percent. For Guyana, the change or commercial information indicating petition does not present substantial was ¥1 percent, ¥0.3 percent, and 0 that I. oxyrhynchus may be threatened scientific or commercial information percent, with activities that include due to overutilization and that listing indicating that listing may be warranted afforestation and reforestation currently may be warranted. for L. temmincki. being undertaken (FAO, 2007). In Lamiopsis temmincki, commonly Mustelus fasciatus, commonly Suriname, the change was noted as ‘‘not referred to as the , is referred to as the striped smooth-hound, significant,’’ with mangroves protected known to occur in the Indian Ocean and is endemic to the Southwest Atlantic, in multiple-use management areas Western Pacific, off India, Pakistan, found on the inner continental shelf (FAO, 2007). Given the above Myanmar, Indonesia, eastern Malaysia, from south Brazil to Argentina information, which indicates very little and China. According to Compagno (estimated 1,500 km of coastline) loss of mangrove forests within the (1984b), it is unknown whether its (Hozbor et al., 2004). In southern Brazil, daggernose shark range, we do not find distribution is sporadic or continuous. It gravid females occur at depths greater the petitioner’s assertion of mangrove is a continental, inshore shark, and was than 20 m (up to 250 m deep) but destruction to be a significant threat to once common on the west coast of India migrate to shallower, inshore waters in the species’ continued existence. (Bombay region) but is now found only the spring to give birth (Hozbor et al., in low numbers throughout its range. 2004). Neonates and small juveniles will The petitioner also contends that However, according to the IUCN remain in these shallow waters, using overutilization for commercial purposes assessment (White et al., 2009), the them as nursery grounds. Little other is placing the species at an increased species ‘‘is taken regularly (but in low life history information is known for risk of extinction. Specifically, the numbers) by local fishermen in India this species. petitioner notes that the daggernose (Bombay), Pakistan (Karachi), Sarawak The petition identifies overutilization shark is caught as bycatch in artisanal and Kalimantan (Indonesia),’’ with its for commercial purposes and floating gillnets in northern Brazil, and meat used for human consumption, fins inadequate regulatory mechanisms as repeats the information about CPUE traded, and livers used for vitamin oil. threats to the species. According to the from the Stride et al. (1992) survey and Information from our own files also IUCN assessment (Hozbor et al., 2004), the observed decreases in the northern indicates that the species is commonly fishing is intense in the coastal nursery Brazil population as support that the taken in fisheries operating within its areas of southern Brazil, with evidence species is being overutilized. The range. In Mukah (Sarawak, Malaysia), L. the species is caught as bycatch in the petitioner provides general information temmincki was the 10th most landed shrimp and multi-species fisheries about bycatch and the dangers facing shark from July 2003 to August 2004 (Haimovici and Mendonca, 1996). These shark populations. The petition makes (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, fisheries, which operate using trawl, the assumption that fishing pressures 2006). However, we do not have gillnet, and beach seine gear, catch are similar throughout all of the species’ information on population abundance gravid females during their seasonal range and, therefore, similar declines (historical or current) or catch inshore migration and juveniles all year- are likely, but provides no information information (numbers or trends), nor are round. In the 1980s, neonates were on effort or catch elsewhere. The these data provided in the petition. frequently caught in large numbers (10– petition also asserts that the species’ Without this type of information on 100 per gillnet set) off the beach in the biological characteristics, such as slow historical or current abundance or summer, but in 2003 their occurrence intrinsic population growth and high population trends, it is difficult to was characterized as sporadic (Hozbor natural mortality (neither of which have assess whether the population is at a et al., 2004). In 2002, the state been estimated) have resulted in a risk of extinction that may warrant government of Rio Grande do Sul population that cannot rebound from listing. (Brazil) classified M. fasciatus as a this fishing pressure. The petition also The petition contends that the species species threatened with extinction provides general information on the use is threatened by destruction of habitat, (Hozbor et al., 2004). Farther south, in and trade of shark meat and fins, overutilization by fisheries, inadequate Uruguay, M. fasciatus is caught as including import and export data from regulatory measures, and synergistic bycatch in industrial and artisanal the countries in the daggernose shark’s effects, but provides very little to no fisheries. According to Hozbor et al. range. These trade data are for all shark information or data to support these (2004), the biomass of M. fasciatus in species and products and do not show statements. For example, the petition the coastal region of the Bonaerensean the relative importance of the does not provide any references related District (northern Argentina and daggernose shark in trade. As Compagno to habitat destruction or degradation, Uruguay) decreased by 96 percent (1984b) notes, the daggernose shark just to state that it is ‘‘prolific’’ between 1994 and 1999, as measured by meat is ‘‘occasionally marketed but not throughout most of the species’ range trawl surveys.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69385

In terms of regulatory measures, the common in waters of south Brazil, has the species’ current existence. As such, petition indicates that existing apparently disappeared. A summer we find that the petition presents regulatory mechanisms are inadequate shore fishery survey, conducted in 2003, substantial scientific or commercial and have failed to protect the species failed to record any members of the information indicating that listing may from both targeted and bycatch local population, despite the once be warranted for M. schmitti. mortality. It highlights Brazil’s trawl common occurrence of neonates in The petition requests that we list fishing regulation, which prohibits beach seines and bottom trawls in the three species of angel sharks that have trawling at distances less than 3 nautical 1980s (Massa et al., 2006). The IUCN similar ranges and are found in coastal miles (5.56 km) from the shore (which assessment (Massa et al., 2006) and outer continental shelf sediment would be in depths of less than around attributes this disappearance to intense habitats in the Mediterranean Sea and 10 m). However, the petition and IUCN and continual fishing efforts in the eastern Atlantic. These three species are assessment contend that enforcement of inshore pupping and nursery grounds. Squatina aculeata, S. oculata, and S. the law is difficult and that trawling In Argentina, M. schmitti is a squatina. Angel sharks are bottom continues to occur in these nursery commercially important species dwellers, preferring to spend most of areas (Hozbor et al., 2004). In addition, (Chiaramonte, 1998), mainly caught in their time buried in the sand or mud. , which has historically been the multi-species trawl fishery, and its Squatina squatina can be found from the primary method to catch neonates demand in the market has increased close inshore (5 m) to at least 150 m in within these inshore areas, remains (Massa et al., 2006). From 1992 to 1996, depth (Morey et al., 2006). S. aculeata unregulated (Hozbor et al., 2004). Thus, total declared landings of the species in can be found in depths of 30 to 500 m, the petition suggests that it is the largely Argentina more than doubled, from and S. oculata occurs in depths of over unregulated overutilization of the 5,047.6 mt to 10,271.3 mt (Chiaramonte, 20 to 500 m (Morey et al., 2007a; 2007b). species that has put the species in 1998). From 1993 to 1996, a survey that The historical range of S. squatina danger of extinction. examined shark species in 454 extended along the eastern Atlantic, Given the occurrence of the species in Patagonian coastal fishery trawls found from Scandinavia to Mauritania and the fisheries catch and bycatch data, M. schmitti to be the most frequently Canary Islands, and included the evidence of substantial declines in caught species (found in 28 percent of Mediterranean and Black seas. The biomass (96 percent) and observed the trawls) and it was recorded within historical range of S. aculeata extended decreases in abundance in some areas, all trawling areas (Molen et al., 1998). from the Mediterranean Sea (western as well as information indicating However, between 1998 and 2002, and central basins) to the eastern current regulations may be inadequate national Argentinian landings of the Atlantic, from Morocco to Namibia, and to protect the species from species decreased by 30 percent (Massa the historical range of S. oculata overutilization, we find that the petition et al., 2006, citing unpublished data). In extended throughout the Mediterranean presents substantial scientific or Uruguay, the species is taken as bycatch and in the eastern Atlantic, from commercial information indicating that in industrial and artisanal fisheries. southern Portugal to Namibia. Many of listing may be warranted for M. Estimated annual capture of both M. the life history traits of these angel fasciatus. schmitti and M. fasciatus was 900 mt sharks are unknown, including the age Mustelus schmitti, commonly referred from 2000–2002 (although M. schmitti at maturity, reproductive periodicity, to as the narrownose smooth-hound, is was the main species in the catch; productivity, and natural mortality. endemic to the southwest Atlantic, and (Massa et al., 2006)). Between 1998 and Squatina aculeata is thought to mature is found in waters off of southwest 2002, biomass of the species decreased around 124 cm, with maximum size Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay by 22 percent in the main fishing areas achieved at around 188 cm (Morey et (between latitudes 22° S and 48° S) off Uruguay and Argentina (Massa et al., al., 2007a). Squatina oculata sizes at (Massa et al., 2006). It is found in 2006, citing unpublished data). maturity range from 71 to 100 cm, with coastal waters to depths of 140 m. A In terms of fishery regulations, the maximum size of 160 cm, and S. large population is known to migrate petition contends that the only current squatina mature at sizes of 80 to 169 cm seasonally, wintering off southern Brazil conservation measure in place for the (depending on sex), with a maximum and moving south to spend summers off species is a permitted maximum catch, size of up to 244 cm (Morey et al., 2006; Uruguay and/or Argentina (Massa et al., established by the Argentine fisheries 2007b). 2006). There was also a smaller, local authority, but argues that catch should The petition identifies bottom population that was known to breed in be set at zero to ensure the species’ trawling, human population growth, south Brazil during the spring, but is survival. overutilization, inadequacy of existing now thought to be extirpated (Massa et Declines of 20 to 30 percent in regulatory measures, and isolation of al., 2006). biomass and landings do not necessarily populations as potential threats to the The petition identifies overutilization indicate that a population is at risk of existence of these species. The petition and the inadequacy of existing extinction or that catch must be notes that identifying angel sharks down regulatory mechanisms as threats to the prohibited (especially without to species is difficult and so many of the species’ continued existence. The additional information regarding the fishing records identify catch only to the petition notes that the species population size or maximum level. In the Mediterranean, experiences heavy fishing pressure sustainable yield). However, based on historical records from the late 1800s to throughout its entire range, including in the above information provided which early 1900s show a decline in the its nursery grounds. In south Brazil, the shows the species is commercially number of angel sharks caught in tuna wintering population is targeted and important, taken in substantial numbers traps that were operating in Baratti also caught as a component of the in fisheries within its range, including (Northern Tyrrhenian Sea) (Morey et al., mixed-species fishery. Based on bottom in nursery grounds and pupping areas, 2006; 2007a; 2007b). From 1898 to 1905, trawl CPUE data, the winter migrant and has experienced large declines (85 catches of angel sharks averaged 134 population of south Brazil has percent) in parts of its range, with a sharks per year, but from 1914–1933, decreased by 85 percent between 1985 potential extirpation of a local this average declined to only 15 sharks and 1997 (Massa et al., 2006). The small population, we find overutilization for per year (Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; resident population, that was once commercial purposes may be a threat to 2007b). As these years coincided with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69386 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

the beginning of trawling activity in the sharks (likely S. aculeata or S. oculata) which essentially prohibits the capture area, the IUCN assessments (Morey et caught on a daily basis (Morey et al., or trade of the species by Spanish al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b) attribute the 2007a; 2007b). However, since the mid- citizens (Morey et al., 2007a). Squatina decline in catch specifically to trawl 1990s, there have been no records of squatina is listed as a prohibited species fishing, noting that angel sharks, which Squatina sharks around the Balearic by the European Union. This listing dwell near or on the bottom, are Islands, despite a bottom trawl fishing prohibits EU and third country vessels especially susceptible to this type of survey that was conducted at depths from fishing for, transporting, or landing fishing activity. where the sharks should be present the species in EU waters (Morey et al., The petition notes that this bottom (between 46 and 1800 m) (Morey et al., 2006). Likewise, S. squatina is also trawling activity has continued to 2007a; 2007b). The petition points to protected from fishing activities within increase in both intensity and efficiency evidence that Squatina sharks were three nautical miles of English coastal on the Mediterranean shelf and slope once targeted and caught by a special baselines by the UK Wildlife and over the last 50 years, and, as such, is net called an ‘escaterea’ in these waters Countryside Act (Morey et al., 2006). a threat to the angel shark species (Morey et al., 2007a), but reports from However, as the petition notes, these existence. The petition states that the fishermen indicate that all species of regulations provide protections for these three species are now rare or absent Squatina have undergone dramatic species in only parts of their ranges, from most of the northern declines over the last 20 years and are including in some areas where the Mediterranean coastline (Morey et al., likely extirpated from the area (Morey et species are no longer found (northern 2006; 2007a; 2007b), as evidenced by al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b). Mediterranean, northeast Atlantic). species-specific catch data from two Off the coast of West Africa, these Based on the above information major trawl surveys that were angel shark species are primarily taken provided by the petition, which shows conducted in the north Mediterranean: as bycatch in industrial demersal trawl that these three species were once the Mediterranean International Trawl fisheries and inshore bottom set gillnets. common and frequently taken in various Survey (MEDITS) and the Italian The IUCN assessments (Morey et al., fisheries but have now noticeably National Project. During the MEDITS 2007a; 2007b) provide Portuguese declined in abundance throughout their program (1995–1999), tows were made landings data from a fleet fishing in ranges, with evidence of possible local in depths of 10–800 m along the north Moroccan and Mauritanian waters that extirpations, we find that the threats of Mediterranean coastline, from west showed landings of the three species overutilization and inadequate Morocco to the Aegean Sea. Out of the peaking in 1990 at 35 t and then regulatory measures as described above 9,095 tows, S. squatina appeared in two, decreasing by 95 percent to 1.7 t in may be putting the species at an S. aculeata appeared in one, and S. 1998, when the fishery subsequently increased risk of extinction. As such, we oculata was not present in any of the closed. However, the IUCN assessments find that the petition presents tows (Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b). caution that the level of fishing effort substantial scientific or commercial Biomass estimates were only provided associated with these data is unknown. information indicating that listing may for S. squatina, with total biomass Citing various personal be warranted for S. aculeata, S. oculata, estimated to be 14 mt throughout the communications, the IUCN assessments and S. squatina. survey area, equating to about 1,400 also note that the Squatina sharks were The petition also requests that we list sharks (Morey et al., 2006). The Italian common in these waters in the 1970s three species of angel sharks that are National Project survey (1985–1998) did and 1980s, frequently caught by lines endemic to the southwest Atlantic: not report any catches of S. aculeata or and gillnets; however, according to both Squatina argentina, S. punctata, and S. S. oculata from the 9,281 hauls artisanal fishermen and observers of the guggenheim. According to the IUCN conducted in the northern industrial demersal trawl fleets, the assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, Mediterranean (Morey et al., 2007a; species has been depleted and is now 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007; 2007b). S. squatina were caught in only only very rarely observed. Morey et al., IUCN SSG, 2007), there is some 0.41 percent of the hauls (Morey et al., (2007a) and (2007b) also mention controversy regarding the of 2006). research surveys that were conducted these southwest Atlantic Squatina Squatina aculeata is now considered along the coast of West Africa and species. In one study, for example, the to be absent from the Black Sea and rare previously reported catches of Squatina authors analyzed mitochondrial DNA in the eastern part of the Mediterranean species, but noted that no specimens and indicated that there are only three (Morey et al., 2007a). Squatina squatina have been captured since 1998 for S. species of Squatina in southern Brazil: has also become rare within its range, aculeata and since 2002 for S. oculata. S. argentina, S. guggenheim, and S. with evidence of possible local The petition identifies existing occulta (Furtado-Neto and Carr, 2002). extirpations. For example, it was once regulations that aim to protect these In another study (Vooren and Silva, recorded in trawl surveys in the three species from further declines, but 1991), S. punctata was characterized as Adriatic Sea (in 1948), but the MEDIT contends that these current regulations being the same species as S. surveys conducted in 1998 found no are either insufficient or ineffective to guggenheim. Based on the information evidence of the species in this area protect the existing populations of the provided in the petition, species- (Morey et al., 2006). In addition, the last three species from extinction. For specific data are available for both S. reported landing of the species in the example, the petition notes that argentina, whose validity as a species northeast Atlantic was in 1998 Squatina sharks are protected from and occurrence is ‘‘generally agreed (compiled from landings records dated fishing within six Balearic Islands upon’’ (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006), 1978 to 2002 for all International marine reserves, but suggests that local and S. guggenheim, whose Council for the Exploration of the Sea extirpation of the species are likely in nomenclature and taxonomy are areas), and is now considered extinct in this part of the Squatina range, and, questionable, but whose occurrence and the North Sea (Morey et al., 2006). therefore, the regulation is not effective information on its abundance are Off the Balearic Islands (Spain), in minimizing extinction risk to the represented in the available fisheries Squatina sharks were fairly common existing populations. In 2012, S. data. Although the petition requests us until the mid-1980s, with records from aculeata was added to Spain’s List of to list S. punctata, it provides no a lobster gillnet fishery that show angel Wild Species under Special Protection, specific-specific population or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69387

abundance data, or evidence of its ∼92 cm total length, TL), and occurs almost entirely consisting of S. occurrence. The only species-specific from 24° S, in Rio de Janeiro, southern guggenheim (Vooren and Chiaramonte, information for S. punctata provided in Brazil, to 43° S, northern Patagonia, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). the petition corresponds to some life Argentina) (Chiaramonte and Vooren, Citing a study from 1982, Chiaramonte history data from Vooren and Silva 2007). It is also a bottom-dweller and is and Vooren (2007) state that annual (1991), the paper in which the authors found at depths of 10 to 80 m in Brazil biomass for angel sharks on the Buenos synonymize S. punctata with S. and from the coast to 150 m in Aires coast (in 1981/82) was estimated guggenheim, so it is unclear whether Argentinian waters (Chiaramonte and to be around 4,050 mt, with total this information actually corresponds to Vooren, 2007). captures of Squatina sharks wavering S. punctata or S. guggenheim. The petition identifies overutilization around 1,000 mt between 1979 and In terms of threats, the petition as a threat to the continued existence of 1984. However, by the 1990s, landings identifies overutilization of S. punctata both species. These angel sharks are had increased to over 4,000 mt, with and provides general angel shark both targeted and caught as bycatch in maximum landings recorded in 1997 landing statistics and information on fisheries operating from southern Brazil and 1998. Chiaramonte and Vooren CPUE declines. However, Vooren and to Uruguay. Landing statistics from (2007) and Vooren and Chaiaramonte Chiaramonte (2006) and Chiaramonte southern Brazil are combined for S. (2006) note that these landings and Vooren (2007) note that the landing argentina, S. guggenheim, and S. consisted almost entirely of S. statistics in southern Brazil (referenced occulta as they are hard to distinguish. guggenheim (and that S. argentina is in the petition) refer to S. guggenheim, They show variable catches throughout rare in commercial landings data); S. occulta, and S. argentina combined, the years, with peaks of around 2,000 mt however, Molen (1998), citing an but make no mention of S. punctata. for the species assemblage in 1986–1989 anonymous reference, stated that The petition notes that the sharp decline and 1993 and then a decrease in catch landings of S. argentina were 4,300 mt in landings is ‘‘attributed to recruitment to around 900 mt in 2003 (Vooren and in 1997. In addition, a bottom trawl due to the bottom gillnet Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and survey conducted between 1993 and fishery;’’ however, the citations it uses, Vooren, 2007). No data are cited in the 1996 found S. argentina to be of which are also referenced by Vooren petition or available in our files since medium frequency in Patagonian coastal and Chiaramonte (2006) and 2003. From 1984 to 2002, CPUE of these trawl fisheries, showing up as bycatch Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007), angel sharks in otter and pair trawls on in 15.4 percent of the 454 trawls (Molen, specifically refer to the decline in the continental shelf declined by around 1998). Therefore, it appears that both S. abundance of S. argentina and S. 85 percent (Vooren and Chiaramonte, argentina and S. guggenheim may have guggenheim on the outer shelf of Brazil, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). been present and fairly abundant in the not S. punctata. The petition also cites Research trawl surveys conducted on late 1990s in Argentine waters. In 1998, declines in angel shark catch in the outer shelf of southern Brazil in the gillnet fleet of Puerto Quequen Argentine waters, but the IUCN 1986/97 and 2001/02 also found considered angel sharks to be the assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, significant declines in angel shark second most important fish in their 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007; abundance, with S. guggenheim and S. catch (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). IUCN SSG, 2007) note that the majority argentina estimated to be at 15 percent Landings of these angel sharks have of these landings consist almost entirely of their original abundance levels since decreased from the 1997/98 peak of S. guggenheim. In Uruguay, the IUCN (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; levels, dropping to 3,550 mt in 2003 assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). The (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). The 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007; petition references the IUCN petition indicates that the overall IUCN SSG, 2007), citing a personal assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, negative trend in these landings data communication, state that species- 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007) (from 1998 to 2003) is also reflected in specific statistics are not known, but which attribute these decreases to the 58 percent decline in CPUE of the that the largest catches most likely recruitment overfishing specifically by a angel shark that was calculated for the correspond to S. guggenheim and S. bottom gillnet fishery that began in 1990 coastal bottom trawl fleet in Argentina argentina. Given the available and continues to operate on the outer (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). information provided by the petitioner, continental shelf, targeting and taking In Uruguay, species-specific statistics we do not find that the petition has large numbers of Squatina sharks. In are unavailable, but the petition notes presented substantial evidence that S. addition to being targeted catch, the that angel sharks are taken as bycatch in punctata is a taxonomically valid petition notes that S. argentina is also industrial and artisanal fisheries. Total species for listing. caught (and retained) in significant Squatina shark captures have been We will now evaluate the petition’s numbers as bycatch in the trawl and estimated at 300 to 400 mt per year request to list the other two angel shark gillnet fishery for monkfish (Lophius since 1997, with the majority likely S. species in the southwest Atlantic, S. gastrophysus), which operates on the guggenheim and S. argentina (based on argentina and S. guggenheim. Squatina shelf edge and upper slope (Vooren and personal communications provided to argentina is a bottom-dwelling species Chiaramonte, 2006). In 2001, the Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007) and that occurs from 32° S in Rio Grande, estimated bycatch of S. argentina in the Vooren and Chiaramonte (2006)). southern Brazil, to 43° S, in northern monkfish gillnet fishery was 1.052 The petition also identifies Patagonia, Argentina (Vooren and sharks per 100 nets, which equates to a inadequate regulatory measures and the Chiaramonte, 2006). It is found offshore, total of 8,689 individuals (Vooren and species’ low reproductive potential as on the shelf and upper continental slope Chiaramonte, 2006). Vooren and threats to the continued existence of in depths of 120 to 320 m, but has Chiaramonte (2006) note that S. both species. The petition, citing the occasionally been observed in 50 m argentina was ‘‘one of the most retained IUCN assessments, states that there are depths (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). bycatch species’’ in the monkfish gillnet currently no regulations to manage the It has an estimated maximum size of fishery. angel shark fishery that operates on the 138 cm TL (Vooren and Chiaramonte, In Argentina, angel shark landings continental shelf off southern Brazil. 2006). Squatina guggenheim is a smaller have been decreasing since reaching However, a management plan for the angel shark species (maximum size is maximum levels in 1998, with landings gillnet monkfish fishery, which takes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69388 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

substantial numbers of S. argentina as to overutilization of the species to the evidence that listing may be warranted bycatch, was approved in 2005 and thus point where the species is threatened for S. formosa. may help to minimize the threat of with extinction, the petition provides no Triakis acutipinna, commonly overutilization to the species in this area information on catch numbers, referred to as the sharpfin houndshark, (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). The population status, or abundance trends is found only in the tropical, continental petition also notes that Argentina has for the species. Instead, the petition waters off Manabi Province, Ecuador. set the maximum permitted catch for refers to other angel shark species in Little is known about the species’ life angel sharks at 4,000 mt (down from different parts of the world that have history, habitat, or ecology. It was first 6,000 mt in the years 1995 to 1999), a undergone population declines from recorded 40 years ago, in waters off Isla quota that appears to be similar to the intense fishing pressure, and uses this de La Plata, and has since been peak landings of the Squatina species information as a surrogate for evidence identified in artisanal coastal gillnet during the 1990s. However, with of threats to S. formosa. While we agree fishery landings from the coastal fishing declining trends evident in the landings that extensive fishing is occurring port of Daniel Lo´pez, Ecuador. However, and CPUE of angel sharks, this within the range of S. formosa, the its occurrence is rare and it is unknown management measure may not be petition has not provided any whether the species is taken in other adequate to protect the species from information on the level of directed artisanal inshore fisheries. The petition threats such as overutilization. In fishing or level of bycatch of this states that the current population size is addition, the petition asserts that the particular shark. The petition only notes estimated to be less than 2,500 low reproductive potential of both that there are no catch records of the individuals, based on very few records, species makes them especially slow to species but that it is present in the and cites the IUCN assessment recover from overutilization and market place. The petition also argues (Compagno et al., 2009); however, it is depletion, and thus poses an additional that the triennial reproductive cycle and unclear how this number was threat to the species’ existence. For small litter sizes makes several species calculated. Neither the IUCN assessment example, the petition states that of angel sharks more vulnerable to nor the petition provides any references pregnant females of S. guggenheim are depletion, but specific reproductive to population size data, records of known to abort embryos upon capture information for S. formosa is not abundance or occurrence, or in fishing gear, thus further decreasing currently known (although it is likely information on how the population total their reproductive potential even if similar to other angel shark species). We was calculated. It appears that the size released alive (Chiaramonte and Vooren, do not find that the available of the species is only known from two 2007). information is substantial information documented adult specimens, a male of After a review of the species-specific indicating that overutilization is a threat 90 cm and a female of 102 cm information provided in the petition, to this species such that listing may be (Compagno et al., 2009). All other life which shows that S. argentina and S. warranted. history parameters are unknown. guggenheim have and continue to be The petition acknowledges that little The petition also contends that there targeted and taken in various fisheries, is known about the species and its are no conservation measures in place with limited regulation of these fisheries occurrence in fisheries catch, but for the species, but states that there are and evidence of significant population contends that the species is landed and some areas of Chinese waters that are declines for both species in part of their perhaps targeted and thus fishing protected from trawling activities. The range, we find that the threats of pressure is likely causing a decline and overutilization and inadequate petition does not provide any additional is a threat to its continued existence. In regulatory measures as described above information on these regulations except 2004, Ecuador banned directed fishing may be putting the two angel shark to note that these areas may or may not for sharks in all of its waters; therefore, species at an increased risk of be within S. formosa’s range and may it is illegal to target the species. extinction. As such, we find that the not be effectively enforced and therefore Although fishermen can catch sharks as petition presents substantial scientific ‘‘provide no certain protection’’ for the bycatch, information provided in the or commercial information indicating species. It is unclear how the petitioner petition indicates that the species is that listing may be warranted for S. came to such a conclusion. The petition only rarely caught as bycatch, and has argentina and S. guggenheim. specifically identifies bottom trawling only been observed in landings from the Squatina formosa, commonly referred as a threat to the species, so if this artisanal coastal gillnet fishery in the to as the Taiwan angel shark, occurs in activity were prohibited within certain fishing port of Daniel Lo´pez (Compagno the northwest Pacific Ocean and East areas of the species’ range, this threat et al., 2009). As such, we do not find China Sea and is primarily found in would be decreased and provide some that the available information indicates waters around northern Taiwan and the protection to the species. that overutilization is a threat to the East Taiwan Strait (Walsh and Ebert, The petition fails to provide any species. In addition, the petition states 2009). It is found on the continental information on the species’ abundance, that regulatory measures are inadequate shelf, in depths of around 100–300 m, life history, status, or trends throughout to protect the species from extinction with a maximum recorded size of 150 all or a significant portion of the because trade in shark fins is still cm TL (Walsh and Ebert, 2009). There species’ range, nor do we have any allowed, which will ‘‘ensure that the are no life history details for this species information in our files. The petition sharpfin houndshark will continue to be or information on its population size. provides no evidence that the species is a utilized bycatch species.’’ However, Although it is found in local Taiwanese or has been in decline. The petition the petitioner provides no evidence that fish markets, there have been no catch provides only general statements and sharpfin houndshark fins even enter (or records of this species (possibly due to assumptions regarding threats to the are valued in) the shark fin trade. It also the difficulty in distinguishing the species but does not provide evidence to states that the meat of sharpfin species from other angel sharks in the suggest these threats are acting upon the houndsharks has a higher value than area) (Walsh and Ebert, 2009). species to the point where it may meet most other species, but does not provide Although the petition contends that the definition of threatened or a reference for the statement or any the extensive bottom trawling occurring endangered. As such, we find that the further information that would support within the range of S. formosa has led petition does not provide substantial the claim that the sharpfin houndshark

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:20 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69389

is valued in trade, nor do we have that provides no other information, such as provided by the petitioner suggests the type of information on its trade in our tagging studies, to support its claim of Southwest Atlantic population of C. files. isolation. Additionally, this depth taurus shares many of its biological and Although the sharpfin houndshark barrier does not explain why mixing life history characteristics with may be a rare species, the petition has would not occur between the Southwest populations of C. taurus found not provided any evidence to indicate Atlantic population and those sharks elsewhere. We therefore find that that the species is currently in decline found in the Caribbean as well as the petitioner has not provided substantial or that there are any threats that are Northwest Atlantic. information to indicate that the acting upon the species to the point The petition also states that the Southwest Atlantic population of C. where it may meet the definition of Southwest Atlantic population is taurus may qualify as a discrete threatened or endangered. As such, we behaviorally unique because it is more population based on physical, find that the petition does not provide migratory than other C. taurus physiological, behavioral, or substantial evidence that listing may be populations, yet does not mix with morphological factors. warranted for T. acutipinna. these other populations, and cites Citing the same information it provided for the discreteness factor Species-Specific Information for Sardowsky (1970) and Compagno (2001) discussed above, the petitioner asserts Requested DPSs as support. These references are also that the Southwest Atlantic population This petition also requests that we used as support for the petitioner’s claim that the Southwest Atlantic segment is significant to the taxon. identify three subpopulations of shark However, based on our above analysis, subpopulation is a ‘closed group,’ with species as DPSs and subsequently list we do not find that the petitioner has dentition that differs from all other these subpopulations as threatened or provided substantial information that subpopulations. However, it is unclear endangered under the ESA. In this specific population has biological how the petitioner came to these evaluating this request, we must first or ecological significance to the taxon. conclusions based on the results of consider whether the petition provides The available information does not these studies. The study by Sardowsky substantial information that the indicate that the population exists in an (1970) examined the dentition of requested populations may qualify as unusual or unique ecological setting, or specimens of C. taurus caught in waters DPSs under the discreteness and that loss of the population would result off Canane´ia, Brazil, and compared their significance criteria of our joint DPS in a significant gap in the range of the Policy (as noted above in the dental characteristics to sandtigers from taxon, or that it differs markedly from ‘‘Background’’ section). If we find that other regions. Based on these other populations of the species in its the petition presents substantial comparisons, the authors concluded genetic characteristics. information that the requested that the sandtiger sharks found off the In conclusion, we find that the populations may qualify as DPSs, we coast of southern Brazil are not petitioner has failed to provide must then determine whether the taxonomically distinct from sandtigers substantial information that the petitioner provides substantial found elsewhere in the world. Southwest Atlantic population of information that listing may be Sardowsky (1970) also states that the sandtiger sharks may qualify as a DPS warranted for those DPSs. Our analyses northwest Atlantic population and under the discreteness and significance and conclusions regarding the Brazilian populations are not isolated criteria of our joint DPS Policy. As such, information presented by the petitioner from each other and share some dental we deny the petitioner’s request to list and available in our files for these character combinations. The Compagno the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of petitioned subpopulations are provided (2001) reference mentions that the C. taurus as threatened or endangered below. sandtiger shark is strongly migratory in because the available information in our Carcharias taurus, commonly referred certain parts of its range, and lists files and provided by the petitioner to as the sandtiger shark, is found in all populations found off Australia, the east suggests it is not a ‘‘species’’ eligible for warm and temperate seas, except the coast of the USA, and the east coast of listing under the ESA. eastern Pacific. They occur in the surf South Africa as sharing this behavior. Cetorhinus maximus, commonly zone, in shallow bays and around coral Lucifora et al. (2002) notes that this referred to as the basking shark, is the and rocky reefs, but are also found in migratory behavior is likely linked to second largest shark species (reaching depths as great as 191 m on the outer reproduction and also observed it in lengths of 10 m) and is circumglobal in continental shelf (Compagno, 1984a). sandtigers in the Southwest Atlantic. In distribution (Compagno, 2001), The petitioner requests that we list the fact, the reproductive migration patterns observed in boreal to tropical waters Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of of the Southwest Atlantic sandtigers (Skomal et al., 2009; Compagno, 2001). sandtiger shark as threatened or were noted as similar to those of Seasonal changes in abundance have endangered, arguing that it satisfies both sandtigers in the northwest Atlantic been noted for the species, as well as the ‘‘discreteness’’ and ‘‘significance’’ (Lucifora et al., 2002). Although the strong sexual segregation in parts of its requirements under our DPS policy, and petition contends that the Southwest range (NMFS, 2010). Tagging studies in thus qualifies as a DPS. Atlantic sandtiger population has ‘‘its the Atlantic have discovered that this The petition contends that the own unique maturation age and size’’, species is capable of large, trans- Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of Lucifora et al. (2002) states that the oceanic, and trans-equatorial sandtiger shark is discrete based on estimates of maturity size for sandtigers migrations, and may occasionally dive physical, physiological, behavioral, and found off Brazil (females = 218–235 cm to meso-pelagic depths (200 to 1000 m) morphological factors. In terms of TL and males = 193 cm TL) are (Gore et al., 2008; Skomal et al., 2009). physical barriers, the petition states that comparable to those for sandtigers off These sharks are filter-feeders and are the population rarely occurs in deep the east coast of the USA (females = commonly observed foraging at the water (greater than 200 m depth; 220–229 cm TL; males = 190–195 cm surface on zooplankton (NMFS, 2010). Compagno, 1984a) and uses this as TL), South Africa (females = 220 cm TL; The petitioner requests that we list both evidence that the species does not mix males = 202–220 cm TL), and Australia the North Pacific subpopulation as well with the sandtiger sharks found (females = 220 cm TL). Thus, the as the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation elsewhere. However, the petitioner available information in our files and of basking sharks as threatened or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 69390 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices

endangered, asserting that these but also suggested it could be explained influence abundance and distribution of subpopulations satisfy both the by female mediated gene flow over the the species over long and short time ‘‘discreteness’’ and ‘‘significance’’ entire range of the species (Hoelzel et scales. The basking shark will remain on requirements under our DPS policy, and al., 2006). The latter theory of our ‘‘Species of Concern’’ list until more thus qualify as DPSs. worldwide panmixia of basking sharks data become available. For both subpopulations, the has recently been supported by tagging Petition Finding petitioner claims that these populations studies conducted by Gore et al. (2008) are discrete because they are and Skomal et al. (2009). These studies After reviewing the information geographically isolated from other have revealed that basking sharks are contained in the petition, as well as populations of the taxon. The petitioner capable of making trans-oceanic information readily available in our cites a statement in the IUCN migrations (with an observed trans- files, including the sections of the assessments (Fowler, 2009a; 2009b) atlantic distance of 9,589 km; Gore et petition applicable to all of the which reads: ‘‘[t]he different al., 2008) across dynamic oceanographic petitioned species and subpopulations morphological characteristics of Basking conditions, from boreal and temperate as well as the species-specific Sharks in the Pacific and the north and latitudes to tropical waters (Skomal et information, we conclude the petition in south Atlantic oceans are not thought to al., 2009). As Skomal et al. (2009) notes, its entirety does not present substantial indicate separate species (Compagno these new data raise ‘‘the possibility scientific or commercial information 1984), but are geographically isolated that there may also be migratory indicating the petitioned action may be subpopulations.’’ The petitioner uses connectivity of basking sharks on global warranted for 13 of the 22 species and this quote as the only source of spatial scales.’’ subpopulations of sharks. These 13 information to support the claim of Based on this information, we do not species and subpopulations are: discreteness through geographic find evidence that indicates that the Carcharhinus borneensis, Carcharhinus isolation. In addition, the petitioner North Pacific or Northeast Atlantic hemiodon, Carcharias taurus uses the above statement as the only subpopulations may qualify as discrete (Southwest Atlantic subpopulation), support to show that these two populations under our DPS policy based Cetorhinus maximus (North Pacific subpopulations are also significant to on physical, physiological, behavioral, subpopulation), Cetorhinus maximus the species. According to the petitioner, or morphological factors, or may qualify (Northeast Atlantic subpopulation), the geographic isolation mentioned in as significant populations under our Haploblepharus kistnasamyi, the quote is evidence that loss of either DPS policy based on differences in Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, subpopulation would result in a genetic characteristics. We also find that Holohalaelurus favus, Holohalaelurus significant gap in the range of the taxon, the petitioner has failed to provide punctatus, Lamiopsis temmincki, and the morphological differences substantial information that would Squatina formosa, Squatina punctata, mentioned in the quote is evidence that indicate otherwise. As such, we deny and Triakis acutipinna. In contrast, as the subpopulations are markedly the petitioner’s request to list the North described above, we find that there is different from other populations of the Pacific or Northeast Atlantic substantial scientific or commercial species based on genetic characteristics. subpopulation of C. maximus as information indicating the petitioned However, the IUCN assessments from threatened or endangered because the action may be warranted for 9 of the 22 which this quote is taken (Fowler, available information in our files species and subpopulations of sharks 2009a; 2009b) do not provide any suggests these subpopulations are not and we hereby announce the initiation details regarding the different ‘‘species’’ eligible for listing under the of a status review for each of these morphological characteristics, such as ESA. species to determine whether the what they are or which populations Currently, the basking shark is a petition action is warranted. These 9 exhibit these traits, or explain how these NMFS ‘‘Species of Concern’’, with a species are: Centrophorus harrissoni, apparent differences indicate geographic focus on the eastern North Pacific part Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Mustelus isolation. In addition, we reviewed the of its range. ‘‘Species of Concern’’ are fasciatus, Mustelus schmitti, Squatina information on C. maximus presented in those species about which NMFS has aculeata, Squatina argentina, Squatina Compagno (1984a) and found no some concerns regarding status and guggenheim, Squatina oculata, and discussion of morphological differences threats, but for which insufficient Squatina squatina. information is available to indicate a between the Pacific and the north and Information Solicited south Atlantic basking shark need to list the species under the ESA. populations. As noted on the basking shark ‘‘Species To ensure that the status review is In our own files, we reviewed a paper of Concern’’ fact sheet, ‘‘[t]here is no based on the best available scientific by Hoelzel et al. (2006), which aspect of the movements, behaviors, and commercial data, we are soliciting examined the global genetic diversity of population size or structure, or life information relevant to whether the basking sharks by comparing samples of history that isn’t data deficient for nine species we believe may be C. maximus mitochondrial DNA basking sharks in the eastern North warranted for listing (Centrophorus (mtDNA) taken from the western North Pacific’’ (NMFS, 2010). There is a lack harrissoni, Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Atlantic, eastern North Atlantic, of information on habitat requirements Mustelus fasciatus, Mustelus schmitti, Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean and for different life stages of basking sharks Squatina aculeata, Squatina argentina, western Pacific. The results of this study and there are still questions regarding Squatina guggenheim, Squatina oculata, showed that there is low genetic key life history characteristics, and Squatina squatina) are threatened diversity in the global basking shark including age at first reproduction, or endangered. Specifically, we are population and no significant genetic gestation period, littler size, and mating soliciting information, including differentiation between ocean basins. frequency. Population dynamics, unpublished information, in the The authors suggested that this lack of structure, size, geographic range, and following areas: (1) Historical and genetic structure in the global basking genetics are still largely unknown. current distribution and abundance of shark population is likely a result of a Without this type of basic information, each species throughout its range; (2) population bottleneck event that it is difficult to assess the potential historical and current population occurred within the Holocene epoch, threats to the species and how they may trends; (3) life history information; (4)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices 69391

data on trade of these species, including ADDRESSES: You may submit written either the Mid-Atlantic or New England products such as fins, jaws, meat, and comments by any of the following Council. teeth; (5) historical and current data on methods. Alternatives under consideration in catch, bycatch, retention, and discards • Email: nmfs.ner.draftSBRM@ the omnibus SBRM amendment address in fisheries; (6) ongoing or planned noaa.gov. Include in the subject line bycatch reporting and monitoring efforts to protect and restore these ‘‘Comments on draft SBRM.’’ mechanisms, analytical techniques, and species and their habitats; (7) any • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional allocation of at-sea fishery observers current or planned activities that may Administrator, NMFS, Northeast when funding limits the recommended adversely impact these species; and (8) Regional Office, 55 Great Republic level of observer coverage; management, regulatory, and Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the establishment of a target level for enforcement information. We request outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on precision of bycatch estimates; and that all information be accompanied by: draft SBRM.’’ requirements for reviewing and (1) Supporting documentation such as • Fax: (978) 281–9135. reporting on the efficacy of the SBRM. maps, bibliographic references, or Copies of the draft SBRM amendment NMFS and the Councils will consider reprints of pertinent publications; and may be obtained by contacting the all comments received on the draft (2) the submitter’s name, address, and NMFS Northeast Regional Office at the SBRM amendment and the alternatives any association, institution, or business above address. The documents are also for incorporation into the final that the person represents. available via the internet at: http:// document until the end of the comment period on December 19, 2013. The References Cited nero.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/09/ draftsbrmamendment.html. public will have several additional A complete list of references is opportunities to comment on the SBRM. available upon request to the Office of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The final amendment will be considered Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES). Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, for approval by the Councils at public (978) 281–9341. Authority meetings in early 2014. Once submitted SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section to NMFS, the final SBRM Amendment The authority for this action is the 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens will be made available for public review Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Fishery Conservation and Management and comment, and regulations will be amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires proposed for review and comment. Dated: November 13, 2013. each fishery management plan (FMP) to Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Alan D. Risenhoover, include provisions establishing ‘‘a Dated: November 13, 2013. standardized reporting methodology to Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Kelly Denit, performing the functions and duties of the assess the amount and type of bycatch Deputy Assistant Administrator for occurring in the fishery.’’ The Councils Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Regulatory Programs, National Marine and NMFS are considering an omnibus Fisheries Service. amendment to establish a standardized [FR Doc. 2013–27570 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2013–27718 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) BILLING CODE 3510–22–P BILLING CODE 3510–22–P or modify existing SBRMs under every Northeast Region FMP. NMFS had previously implemented an omnibus DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SBRM amendment recommended by the Office of the Secretary Councils. That amendment was vacated National Oceanic and Atmospheric by a Federal Court and remanded to [Docket ID: DoD–2013–OS–0106] Administration NMFS and the Councils in order to develop and implement another SBRM Submission for OMB Review; RIN 0648–XC968 amendment consistent with the Court’s Comment Request findings, see Oceana v. Locke et al. (No. New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery ACTION: Notice. Management Councils; Public 10–5299). The purpose of the Comment amendment is to respond to the remand; SUMMARY: The Department of Defense particularly the appellate court’s finding has submitted to OMB for clearance, the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries that the level of observer coverage was following proposal for collection of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and too dependent on the discretion of information under the provisions of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS. This amendment also would Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Commerce. explain the methods and processes by Chapter 35). ACTION: Notice; request for comments. which bycatch is currently monitored DATES: Consideration will be given to all and assessed for Northeast Region comments received by December 19, SUMMARY: The New England and Mid- fisheries, determine whether these 2013. Atlantic Fishery Management Councils methods and processes need to be seek public comment on a draft modified and/or supplemented, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred amendment to all the fishery establish standards of precision for Licari, 571–372–0493. management plans under their purview. bycatch estimation for all Northeast SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The omnibus amendment would Region fisheries and, thereby, to Title, Associated Form and OMB establish a standardized bycatch document the SBRM established for all Number: DOD Loan Repayment Program reporting methodology for each fishery fisheries managed through the FMPs of (LRP); DD Form 2475; OMB Number management plan, as required by the the Northeast Region. The scope of the 0704–0152. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery omnibus amendment is limited to those Type of Request: Extension. Conservation and Management Act. fisheries prosecuted in the Federal Number of Respondents: 22,391. DATES: Comments must be received by waters of the Northeast Region and Responses per Respondent: 1. December 19, 2013. managed through an FMP developed by Annual Responses: 22,391.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM 19NON1 TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES