81_FR_50610 81 FR 50463 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petitions To List Porbeagle Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

81 FR 50463 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petitions To List Porbeagle Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 147 (August 1, 2016)

Page Range50463-50482
FR Document2016-18101

We, the National Marine Fisheries Service, have completed a comprehensive status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in response to petitions to list this species. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, including the status review report (Curtis et al., 2016), and taking into account ongoing efforts to protect these species, we have determined that porbeagle sharks do not warrant listing at this time. This review identified two Distinct Population Segments (DPS)-- North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere--of porbeagle sharks. We conclude that neither is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We also conclude that the species itself is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50463-50482]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18101]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 150122069-6596-02]
RIN 0648-XD740


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on Petitions To List Porbeagle Shark as Threatened or 
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; 12-month finding and availability of status review 
document.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service, have completed a 
comprehensive status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 
porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in response to petitions to list this 
species. Based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including the status review report (Curtis et al., 2016), 
and taking into account ongoing efforts to protect these species, we 
have determined that porbeagle sharks do not warrant listing at this 
time. This review identified two Distinct Population Segments (DPS)--
North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere--of porbeagle sharks. We 
conclude that neither is currently in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. We also conclude that the species itself is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of

[[Page 50464]]

its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

DATES: This finding was made on August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The status review document for porbeagle sharks is available 
electronically at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/notwarranted.htm. You may also receive a copy by submitting a request 
to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS GARFO, 55 Great Republic 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attention: Porbeagle Shark 12-month 
Finding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Crocker, NMFS Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8480 or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office 
of Protected Resources, 301-427-8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), received a 
petition, dated January 20, 2010, from Wild Earth Guardians (WEG) 
requesting that we list porbeagle sharks throughout their entire range, 
or as Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean DPSs 
under the ESA. WEG also requested that we designate critical habitat 
for the species. We also received a petition, dated January 21, 2010, 
from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) requesting we list 
a Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle shark as endangered. In response 
to these petitions, we published a ``negative'' 90-finding on July 12, 
2010, in which we concluded that the petitions did not present 
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that 
listing under the ESA may be warranted.
    In August 2011, the petitioners filed complaints in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our denial of 
the petitions. On November 14, 2014, the court published a Memorandum 
Opinion granting the plaintiffs' requests for summary judgment in part, 
denying our request for summary judgment, and vacating the 2010 90-day 
finding for porbeagle sharks. The court ordered us to prepare a new 90-
day finding. The court entered final judgment on December 12, 2014 
(remand). The new 90-day finding, which published on March 27, 2015 (80 
FR 16356), was based primarily on information that had become available 
since 2010, including a new Canadian assessment of the Northwest 
Atlantic stock and new information in recent proceedings from the 
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT), regulatory documents, published literature, and Federal 
Register notices as well as the information contained in the original 
petitions. We accepted the 2010 petitions and initiated a review of the 
status of the species consistent with the ESA mandate that listing 
determinations should be made on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial information available. Under the ESA, if a petition is found 
to present substantial scientific or commercial information that the 
petitioned action may be warranted, a status review shall be promptly 
commenced (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
    As described in the 90-day finding (80 FR 16356, March 27, 2015), 
new assessments, management actions, and other information became 
available subsequent to the 2010 90-day finding. This information 
indicated that the petitioned actions may be warranted and a review of 
the status of the species was initiated. The standard for making a 
positive 90-day finding (e.g., that a petitioned action ``may be 
warranted'') is low, and if there is information that can be 
interpreted in more than one way, then a status review may be conducted 
in order to delve into the available information more thoroughly. We 
performed that more detailed review and determined that the best 
available scientific and commercial information taken together does not 
support a listing. This included an in-depth review of the available 
literature, including the new assessments described in the 90-day 
finding and additional reports on porbeagle sharks in the Southern 
Hemisphere. This review informed an Extinction Risk Assessment (ERA), 
which was conducted by a team with expertise in shark biology and 
ecology, stock assessment, population dynamics, and highly migratory 
species management. The status review and the ERA were independently 
peer reviewed by external experts, and other published and unpublished 
information was used to make this 12-month determination.

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    We are responsible for determining whether the porbeagle shark is 
threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To 
make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under Section 3 of the ESA, then whether the 
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or 
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' A DPS is a vertebrate population or group of populations 
that is discrete from other populations in the species and significant 
in relation to the entire species. On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted 
a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 
FR 4722). Under the joint DPS policy, we consider the following when 
identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in 
relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it 
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
species or subspecies to which it belongs.
    Section 3 of the ESA further defines an endangered species as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one 
``which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Thus, we interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that is 
presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the 
other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In 
other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and 
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of 
extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future 
(threatened). Section 4 of the ESA also requires us to determine 
whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of 
the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 
disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence 
16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us 
to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any 
state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the 
species. In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic protective 
efforts, we rely on the Services' joint Policy on Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (``PECE''; 68 FR 
15100; March 28, 2003) for any conservation efforts that have not been 
implemented

[[Page 50465]]

or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated effectiveness.

Status Review

    The status review report for porbeagle sharks is composed of two 
components: (1) A scientific literature review and analysis of the five 
ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors and (2) an assessment of the extinction 
risk. A biologist in NMFS' Greater Atlantic Region's Sustainable 
Fisheries Division with expertise in shark ecology was appointed to 
complete the first component, undertaking a scientific review of the 
life history and ecology, distribution and abundance, and an analysis 
of the ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors. An Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) 
team was convened to conduct the extinction risk analysis using the 
information in the scientific review as a basis. The ERA team was 
comprised of a fishery management specialist from NMFS' Highly 
Migratory Species Management Division, two research fishery biologists 
from NMFS' Northeast and Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, and the 
Sustainable Fisheries Division biologist who did the scientific 
literature review and analysis of Section 4(a)(1) factors. The ERA team 
had group expertise in shark biology and ecology, population dynamics, 
highly migratory species management, and stock assessment science. The 
ERA team also reviewed the information in the scientific literature 
review. The status review report for porbeagle sharks (Curtis et al., 
2016) compiles the best available information on the status of the 
species as required by the ESA, provides an evaluation of the 
discreteness and significance of populations in terms of the DPS 
policy, and assesses the current and future extinction risk, focusing 
primarily on threats related to the five statutory factors set forth 
above. This report presents the ERA team's professional judgment of the 
extinction risk facing porbeagle sharks but makes no recommendation as 
to the listing status of the species. The status review report is 
available electronically at the Web site listed above.
    The status review report was subjected to independent peer review 
as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The 
status review report was peer reviewed by four independent specialists 
selected from government, academic, and scientific communities, with 
expertise in shark biology, conservation and management, and specific 
knowledge of porbeagle sharks. The peer reviewers were asked to 
evaluate the adequacy, quality, and completeness of the data considered 
and whether uncertainties in these data were identified and 
characterized in the status review as well as to evaluate the findings 
made in the ``Assessment of Extinction Risk'' section of the report. 
They were also asked to specifically identify any information missing 
or lacking justification, or whether information was applied 
incorrectly in reaching conclusions. All peer reviewer comments were 
addressed prior to finalizing the status review report. Comments 
received are posted online.
    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, cited 
references, and peer review comments, and concluded that the status 
review report, upon which this listing determination is based, provides 
the best available scientific and commercial information on porbeagle 
sharks. Much of the information discussed below on porbeagle shark 
biology, genetic diversity, distribution, abundance, threats, and 
extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, 
we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, 
including evaluation of the factors set forth in Section 4(a)(1)(A)-
(E); our regulations regarding listing determinations; and, our DPS and 
Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) policies in making the listing 
determination.

Taxonomy

    Porbeagle sharks belong to the family Lamnidae, genus Lamna, and 
species nasus. The petitioned subject is a valid species as defined 
under the ESA.

Distribution and Habitat Use

    Porbeagle sharks are found in both the Northern and Southern 
Hemispheres. They are commonly found in waters over the continental 
shelf, shelf edges, and in open ocean waters. In the Northern 
Hemisphere, they are found in the North Atlantic Ocean in pelagic and 
coastal waters in and adjacent to the Northeast coast of the United 
States, Newfoundland Banks, Iceland, Barents, Baltic, and North Seas, 
the coast of Western Europe down to the Northwest African coast, and 
the Mediterranean Sea. They are absent from waters of the North 
Pacific. In the Southern Hemisphere, they are distributed in a 
continuous band around the globe in temperate waters of the Southern 
Atlantic, Southern Indian, and Southern Pacific Oceans. Like other 
lamnid sharks, the porbeagle shark is endothermic (warm-blooded). There 
is no evidence suggesting that the range of the species has contracted.
    It prefers cold, temperate waters and does not occur in equatorial 
waters. Generally, porbeagle sharks prefer waters less than 18 [deg]C 
(64 [deg]F) but have been documented in waters ranging from 1-26 [deg]C 
(34-79 [deg]F) (Compagno, 2002; Francis et al., 2008; Skomal et al., 
2009). Porbeagle sharks are highly mobile and capable of making long-
distance migrations, though individuals often remain within a smaller 
range.
    The porbeagle shark is found from surface and inshore waters (less 
than 1 m (3 ft)) to deep (>1,000 m (>3,281 ft)) depths, with variations 
in depth distribution depending on the season and region (Compagno 
2001; Pade et al., 2009; Saunders et al., 2009; Skomal et al., 2009; 
Campana et al., 2010a; Francis et al., 2015). In the Northwest 
Atlantic, tagged sharks moved from the surface to 1300 m (4265 ft) with 
no difference in depths used during the day or night. Seasonal 
differences in depth distribution were observed (Campana et al., 
2010a). Mature female sharks tagged in the Northwest Atlantic moved to 
the Sargasso Sea, suggesting a pupping area (Campana et al., 2010a). 
Two relatively small tagging studies were conducted in the Northeast 
Atlantic. In these studies, porbeagle sharks ranged from the surface to 
500-700 m (1640-2297 ft) depth, and differences in vertical 
distribution during day and night were observed (Pade et al., 2009; 
Saunders et al., 2009). In a study in the Southern Hemisphere, Francis 
et al. (2015) evaluated the vertical movements of 10 porbeagle sharks. 
All of the sharks in the study dived to depths of at least 600 m (1969 
ft), with a maximum recorded depth of 1024 m (3360 ft) and vertical 
movements were observed.
    The porbeagle shark is a habitat generalist and not substantially 
dependent on any particular habitat type. Its use of habitat is 
influenced by temperature and prey distribution, but the shark has 
broad temperature tolerances and an opportunistic diet (Curtis et al., 
2016). The porbeagle shark is an opportunistic feeder, taking advantage 
of available prey (Joyce et al., 2002; Campana and Joyce 2004). The 
diet is characterized by a diverse range of pelagic, epipelagic, and 
benthic species, depending on what is available (Joyce et al., 2002). 
Prey species include teleosts (a large and diverse group of bony fish), 
including lancetfish, flounders, lumpfish, and Atlantic cod, and 
cephalopods, including squid (Joyce et al., 2002). In the Gulf of 
Maine, porbeagle sharks predominately feed on mackerel, herring, and 
other small fishes, other species of sharks, and squids (Collette and 
Klein-MacPhee, 2002).

[[Page 50466]]

Life History

    The porbeagle shark is an aplacental, viviparous species with 
oophagy. This means embryos develop inside eggs that are retained in 
the mother's body until the young are born live. There is no placental 
connection, and the eggs are consumed in utero during gestation and 
development (Jensen et al., 2002). Size at birth is approximately 58-67 
cm (22.8-26.4 inches) (Francis et al., 2008; Forselledo, 2012). 
Porbeagle sharks have low productivity, an 8-9 month gestation period 
(Jensen et al., 2002; Francis et al., 2008), and an average litter size 
of four pups (Jensen et al., 2002; Francis et al., 2008). Ages of 
sexual maturity are approximately 8 years for males and 13 years for 
females in the Northwest Atlantic (Jensen et al., 2002; Natanson et 
al., 2002; CITES, 2013) and 8-11 years for males and 15-18 years for 
females in New Zealand (Francis et al., 2008; CITES, 2013). The maximum 
age of porbeagle sharks is estimated at 46 years in an unfished 
population, but may exceed 65 years in the Southern Hemisphere 
(Natanson et al., 2002; ICCAT, 2009; CITES, 2013).
    In a comparison of life history characteristics of 38 shark 
species, the population growth rate of porbeagle sharks in the 
Northwest Atlantic was in the lower-third of the species examined. The 
reported population growth rate was 1.022 (values less than 1 indicate 
negative population growth rates) with a mean generation time of 
approximately 18 years (Cortes, 2002). Juvenile survival rates were 
among the highest of the shark species analyzed, resulting in high 
overall natural survival rates (84-90 percent). A recent assessment 
(Cortes et al., 2015) conducted by ICCAT found that the population 
growth rate for porbeagle sharks in the Atlantic ranked 13th highest 
out of 20 stocks and the generation time was on the order of 20 years. 
The generation time in the Southern Hemisphere is longer due to slower 
growth rates and greater estimated longevity. In sum, porbeagle sharks 
are a slow maturing, relatively long lived species with a relatively 
low population growth rate.

Population Structure

    Stocks are often used to define populations for fisheries 
management purposes. These stock management units are not equivalent to 
DPSs unless they also meet the criteria for identifying a DPS. As 
described in the report for the 2009 porbeagle stock assessment meeting 
(International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)/ICCAT, 
2009), four stocks have been identified in the Atlantic Ocean. These 
include two in the Northern Hemisphere--the Northwest and Northeast 
Atlantic stocks--and two in the Southern Hemisphere--the Southwest and 
Southeast Atlantic stocks. There may also be an Indo-Pacific stock in 
the Southern Hemisphere, but the stock boundaries remain unclear. The 
Northwest Atlantic stock includes porbeagle sharks from the waters on 
and adjacent to the continental shelf of North America, and the 
Northeast stock includes porbeagle sharks from the waters in and 
adjacent to the Barents Sea south to Northwest Africa, including the 
Mediterranean Sea. In defining stocks, a range of information is 
considered, including fisheries, biological, distribution, genetic, and 
tagging information. While these stocks do not necessarily equate to 
DPSs, they are useful delineations for discussing the population 
abundance and trends as this is how data for this species are 
frequently collected and reported.
    Tagging and genetic data help define stock structure. Tagging 
studies may use conventional or electronic tags to collect data on an 
animal's movements. Conventional tags have a unique number and contact 
information printed on them. When an animal with a tag is captured, 
scientists can use the tag number to identify the location and date of 
release as well as any other information recorded when the animal was 
tagged. This information, along with information recorded when the 
animal is recaptured, can be used to identify information such as how 
long the shark was at large, distance between release and recapture 
locations, and how much the animal grew during that time. There are 
several limitations to interpreting conventional tagging data. First, 
it relies on recapturing the animal and reporting that capture to 
researchers. In studies of porbeagle sharks, the recapture and 
reporting rate is approximately 10 percent of tags deployed (Kohler et 
al., 2002; Curtis et al., 2016), meaning that for every 100 porbeagle 
sharks tagged, only 10 are recaptured and reported back to researchers. 
Second, with a conventional tag the researcher only knows the location 
where the animal was tagged and released and where it was recaptured. 
The animal's movement between these two locations is unknown. For 
example, if an animal was tagged/released and later recaptured within a 
few kilometers, we would not know if the animal had stayed in that 
small area for the entire time or if it had traveled thousands of 
kilometers and returned back to the area. Other tags such as pop-up 
satellite archival tags (e.g., PSATs) are attached to the animal and 
store information including location, light level, depth, and 
temperature throughout the tag's deployment period (typically up to 1 
year). The tag then detaches from the animal, floats to the ocean 
surface, and transmits all of the stored data to a satellite; those 
data are used to reconstruct the movements of the animal during 
deployment. This provides more insight into the animal's movements as 
it collects data on a more continuous (daily) basis. These satellite 
tags allow for collection of movement information even if the animal is 
not recaptured.
    Tagging data indicate that porbeagle shark movements across the 
North Atlantic are limited (that is, a limited number of porbeagle 
sharks move across the Atlantic), but do occur (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). One 
porbeagle shark tagged in the Northeast Atlantic was recaptured off 
Newfoundland, Canada; this means that trans-Atlantic movements occur at 
least occasionally (ICES, 2007). The greatest distance documented 
between conventional tag release and recapture location is 4,260 km. 
The time between tagged/released and recapture has been as long as 16.8 
years (N. Kohler, NMFS, unpublished data as reported in Curtis et al., 
2016).
    Several recent studies have used PSATs to track porbeagle sharks in 
the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic and the Southwest Pacific (Pade et 
al., 2008; ICCAT, 2009; Skomal et al., 2009; Campana et al., 2010a; 
Saunders et al., 2011; Bendall et al., 2013; Francis et al., 2015). The 
maximum displacement by a porbeagle recorded with a satellite tag 
(4,400 km) was similar to that documented with conventional tags. 
However, most animals showed relatively restricted movements and 
fidelity to the site where they were tagged, at least within the 
tracking duration (<1 year). This means that while some porbeagle 
sharks make long distance migrations, most animals did not. While the 
data are limited, a few animals have traveled great distances showing 
the biological potential for the species to move between areas. 
Individuals often remain within the range of a particular stock, but 
these data indicate that porbeagle sharks do occasionally move between 
stock areas.
    Mature female porbeagle sharks appear to make the largest movements 
in the Northwest Atlantic. Several sharks tagged off Canada swam 
southward to the subtropical Sargasso Sea and northern Caribbean 
region, presumably to pup (Campana et al.,

[[Page 50467]]

2010a). Males and immature sharks have also made significant movements 
(Saunders et al., 2011; Francis et al., 2015; J. Sulikowski 
(unpublished data) as cited in Curtis et al., 2016). Saunders et al. 
(2011) report that a small male migrated greater than 2,400 km. In a 
study in the Southern Hemisphere, porbeagle sharks made movements of 
hundreds to thousands of kilometers. In this study, an immature male 
shark had the maximum estimated track length (Francis et al., 2015).
    Genetic data can also help define population structure. Though the 
available data from tags indicate little exchange between the Northwest 
and Northeast Atlantic stocks (likely due to the low overall sample 
size), genetic analysis shows these stocks mix (Pade et al., 2006; 
Testerman et al., 2007; ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 
2010). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies indicate that there is no 
differentiation between the stocks within the North Atlantic (Pade et 
al., 2006; Testerman et al., 2007). These studies documented that 
dominant haplotypes were present in samples from both sides of the 
Atlantic, indicating that there is gene flow that is not being 
identified clearly through the tagging studies. Kitamura and Matsunaga 
(2010) also found no indication of multiple populations in the North 
Atlantic based on genetic studies. Similarly, genetic studies in the 
Southern Hemisphere indicate that porbeagle sharks in that region are 
not significantly differentiated (Testerman et al., 2007; Kitamura and 
Matsunaga, 2010). Genetic analyses also suggest no separation between 
the southeastern Indian Ocean and the southwestern Indian Ocean, 
indicating that the distribution across the Indian Ocean is continuous 
(Semba et al., 2013).
    There are several genetic studies that show marked differences 
between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, supporting the 
conclusions that these populations do not mix (Pade et al., 2006; 
Testerman et al., 2007; ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 
2010). It is likely that the porbeagle shark's preference for colder 
temperatures limits movement between the hemispheres (Curtis et al., 
2016). If populations are markedly separated and adapted to the 
environment, the differences that occur are shown as they begin to 
diverge genetically. Within the North Atlantic, the data show that they 
are not genetically distinct, that mixing is occurring, and that they 
are not markedly separated. Similarly, the studies within the Southern 
Hemisphere also indicate that these populations are not genetically 
distinct. However, the populations in the Northern Hemisphere are 
markedly separated from those in the Southern Hemisphere.

Abundance and Trends

    As described above, porbeagle sharks are managed for fisheries 
purposes by stock unit. Therefore, much of the data on the abundance of 
populations is by stock. In the North Atlantic, porbeagle sharks have 
declined from 1960s population levels due to overharvesting. However, 
the populations are currently stable or increasing and are on a 
trajectory to recovery (Curtis et al., 2016), meaning that the 
population in the North Atlantic is growing. The North Atlantic stocks 
of porbeagle sharks are considered overfished. In overfished stocks, 
the biomass is well below the biomass at maximum sustainable yield 
(BMSY), which is the abundance level that can support the 
largest, long-term average catch that can be taken under existing 
conditions, and is considered the biomass target for fisheries 
management. Generally, a stock is first considered overfished once 
estimates of biomass are lower than a specific target level. For many 
fish species that target level is one-half BMSY. However, 
generally for sharks, because their natural mortality is so low, the 
target level can be greater than one-half BMSY (e.g., 0.75 
BMSY). In other words, the specific target at which we would 
consider a shark species to be overfished is species-specific and 
depends on that species' level of natural mortality. Once declared 
overfished, a species continues to be considered overfished until 
biomass returns to a different target level. Generally, that level is 
BMSY.
    While porbeagle sharks in the North Atlantic are overfished, 
overfishing is not occurring. (SCRS, 2014; Curtis et al., 2016). 
Overfishing is a level or rate of fishing mortality that jeopardizes 
the long-term capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing 
basis. As explained above, being overfished does not necessarily mean 
that the population is not growing, it is not an indication of 
population trajectory--it just means that biomass is below a target 
level. An overfished stock can be rebuilding and on a trajectory to 
recovery. Overfishing will slow the rate of biomass growth and, if it 
continues, can reverse replenishment and the population will decrease. 
With respect to extinction risk, an overfished marine fish stock may be 
at greater risk than one that is not overfished, but being overfished 
does not automatically equate to a species having an especially high 
risk of extinction (Curtis et al., 2016).
    This means that while the North Atlantic stock sizes are smaller 
than threshold levels (because of fishing or other causes), the annual 
catch rate is at a level that is allowing rebuilding. There is also 
evidence to suggest that the populations in the Southern Hemisphere, 
while overfished, are stable or increasing (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Pons and 
Domingo, 2010; Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC, 2014).
    Northwest Atlantic--The estimate of the stock of porbeagle sharks 
in the Northwest Atlantic in 1961 is considered to be at an unexploited 
or virgin level. Therefore, this estimate is used for comparison with 
more recent estimates. Several models have assessed porbeagle shark 
abundance, biomass, and trends in the Northwest Atlantic. Different 
types of models have been used, including forward-projecting age and 
sex structured models (DFO, 2005; Campana et al., 2012) and a Bayesian 
Surplus Production (BSP) model (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). These independent 
models came to the same conclusions with respect to the stock size and 
trends (i.e., stock size below target levels, but increasing).
    For 2005, the stock was estimated to be between 188,000 to 195,000 
(DFO, 2005) individuals, 12-24 percent of the 1961 estimates (Gibson 
and Campana, 2005). Campana et al. (2012) modeled the populations from 
the 1961 baseline and projected forward by adding recruitment to the 
population and removing catches. This assessment ran four different 
models using differing assumptions, a routine practice in fisheries 
stock assessment. This method estimated 196,111-206,956 porbeagle 
sharks in 2009 (Campagna et al., 2012), 22-27 percent of the 1961 
estimates. The estimates for 2005 and 2009 can be directly compared 
because the same models and data sources were used in estimating the 
populations. The results indicate that the overall population is 
increasing; even when comparing the low ends of the estimates (188,000 
porbeagle sharks in 2005 compared to 196,111 porbeagle sharks in 2009).
    Campana et al. (2012) also estimated the number of mature females. 
The estimated number of mature females in 2009 ranged from 11,339 to 
14,207 individuals. The estimates of mature females or spawning stock 
biomass are used as indicators of stock health. All four models 
indicated that the number of mature females in the Northwest Atlantic 
stock is increasing and that the 2009 estimates are higher than the 
2005 levels (Campana et al., 2012).
    Furthermore, estimated total biomass (the weight of all porbeagle 
sharks collectively) is also increasing. In 2009,

[[Page 50468]]

total biomass was around 10,000 metric tons (mt), 20-24 percent of the 
1961 estimate. The 2005 assessment did not assess the total biomass. 
However, Campana et al. (2012) did estimate total biomass in 2001. The 
2009 biomass estimate is 4-22 percent higher than the biomass estimated 
from 2001 (Campana et al., 2012; Campana et al., 2010b). Population 
metrics are often expressed in biomass rather than the number of 
individuals, as catch data are reported in weight. An increase in 
biomass is generally indicative of an increase in number of individuals 
(Curtis et. al., 2016) and not just an increase in the weight of the 
same number of individuals. Significantly, all four model variations 
show mean increases in biomass since 2001, confirming the increasing 
biomass estimated in the stock assessment (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). This 
increase likely indicates increased recruitment to the adult stock and 
continued growth of individual fish in the stock (Curtis et al., 2016).
    Maximum likelihoood estimation is a technical, computer-intensive 
statistical approach that allows a researcher to evaluate the 
parameters in a model to identify those with the greatest likelihood of 
having produced the observed (given) data. This statistical analysis 
produces a maximum likelihood value. By iteratively changing the 
parameters in the model until this value is found to be highest 
(maximum), the researcher can identify those parameters most likely to 
have produced the observed data.
    Model runs with different parameters or parameter values will 
result in different maximum likelihood values. Therefore, this approach 
can be used to evaluate a series of models as to which model is the 
preferred model; that is, which model fits the data best. Models with 
higher maximum likelihood values are more likely than those with lower 
values to have produced the observed data. Therefore, models with 
higher maximum likelihood values may be preferred.
    Using this approach, Campana et al. (2012) concluded that Model 1 
was the most plausible model. Model 1 showed increases in the number of 
mature females in the overall populations since 2001, likely reflecting 
the positive effects of management (Campana et al., 2012). Model 2 was 
the least plausible model. Therefore, it is not reasonable to rely on 
Model 2 to assess the population.
    All model variations, except model 2, showed increases in the 
overall population since 2001. Model 2 suggested that there could have 
been slightly fewer fish in 2009 than 2001, but, as noted above, based 
on the maximum likelihood method, the researchers identified this model 
variation as the ``least plausible'' variation and indicated that it is 
not likely an indicator of the true trend in the population (Campana et 
al., 2010b; Campana et al., 2012). Because of this, it is not 
reasonable to rely on Model 2. The overall agreement of all modeled 
population trends provides strong evidence of increasing abundance in 
this stock (Campana et al., 2012).
    Similarly, all four model variations show increases in female stock 
numbers and three of the four show increases in general populations 
from 2005-2009. Again, model 2 was the exception. This model estimated 
a slight decrease (approximately two percent or 4,000 fish) in the 
overall population from 2005 to 2009. As mentioned, this model was 
determined to be the ``least plausible'' (Campana et al., 2012). Even 
if the more conservative model 2 (a lower productivity scenario) more 
closely reflected the reality of porbeagle stock size, the stock was 
still projected to increase under the current harvest levels (Campana 
et al., 2012). Based on the four model runs and taking into account the 
most plausible scenarios as defined by the researchers, the reasonable 
conclusion is that biomass and the general population has increased 
since 2001 and will continue to increase in the future (Curtis et al., 
2016).
    The models used by Campana et al. (2010, 2012) were forward 
projecting age- and sex-based models. These models projected the 
population forward in time from an equilibrium starting abundance 
(i.e., the unfished population in 1961) and age distribution by adding 
recruitment and removing catches. The models assessed both the female 
population and total population.
    In 2009, the ICES/ICCAT stock assessment working group ran a BSP 
model for the Northwest Atlantic stock, which was considered in 
addition to the forward projecting age- and sex-based model from 
Campana et al. (2010). The BSP model was used to confirm the trends 
from the results of Campana's age-structured model. The Campana et al. 
(2010) model and the BSP model are based on different assumptions as to 
how the data should be interpreted and weighted and, therefore, result 
in differing estimates. The BSP model used catch per unit effort (CPUE) 
to estimate biomass and weighted the CPUE data using two approaches 
resulting in two variations of the model. CPUE data in the catch-
weighted model were weighted by relative proportion of the catch 
corresponding to each CPUE series in each year (catch-weighted model; 
meaning that annual data with more catch had a greater influence on the 
model output). The equal-weighted BSP considered eight CPUE series; six 
Canadian CPUE series, the U.S. series, and the Spanish series (limited 
to two areas). Each point in each data series was given equal weight 
(equal weighted model; meaning that the relative amount of catch in 
each annual point had no influence on the model output). Thus the 
Canadian series, which has the majority of the catch, was effectively 
given more weight than the United States or Spanish series. The catch-
weighted BSP model estimated the biomass in 2005 to be 66 percent of 
the 1961 biomass. The equal weighted BSP model estimated the biomass in 
2005 as 37 percent of the 1961 biomass. Both models resulted in 
estimates higher than the estimate of 10-24 percent from the Campana et 
al. (2010) age-structured model. Results of the BSP model applied to 
data through 2009 were similar to those of the age-structured model, 
providing further support that Model 2 (Campana et al., 2012) is less 
reliable. Because the two independent models came to the same 
conclusions with respect to the stock size and trends (i.e., stock size 
below target levels, but increasing), we have confidence in the 
determination that the stock has increased.
    The ICES/ICCAT (2009) working group looked at all available models, 
data, and fits to the data. They determined that, in recent years, 
total biomass is increasing and fishing mortality is decreasing. This 
indicates that the Northwest Atlantic stock is recovering. These 
results are supported by more recent assessments (Campana et al., 2010; 
Campana et al., 2012; SCRS, 2014). In summary, recent biomass and 
abundance appears to be increasing under all available models. While 
the population is overfished, overfishing is not occurring.
    Northeast Atlantic--This stock has the longest history of being 
targeted by commercial fishing. The highest catches occurred between 
the 1930s and 1950s (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The lack of CPUE data during 
the peak of the fishery makes it difficult to estimate current status 
relative to biomass of an unfished stock. The ICCAT stock assessment 
working group ran various model scenarios to assess the Northeast 
Atlantic stock of porbeagle sharks. The working group found that the 
stock was overfished but that overfishing was not occurring and that 
current management was likely to prevent the stock from declining 
further and allow recovery (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The working group

[[Page 50469]]

indicated that the stock would recover within 15-34 years (one to two 
generations) if there was no fishing mortality (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). 
Under the 2009 European Union (EU) total allowable catch (TAC) level, 
the stock was projected to increase slowly but not rebuild (i.e., reach 
a target population size that supports maximum sustainable yield) 
within 50 years. The TAC is the amount of the species allowed to be 
harvested by all users, commercial and recreational, over a specified 
time. In 2010, the TAC was set at zero and has remained at zero; 
therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at the current fishing 
levels the stock will continue to increase and rebuild.
    Porbeagle sharks from the Northeast Atlantic stock are also found 
in the Mediterranean Sea. The Mediterranean Sea is in the southeastern 
edge of the porbeagle shark's range in the North Atlantic, and the 
species has always been uncommon in the region (Storai et al., 2005; 
CITES, 2013). There is no information suggesting that porbeagle sharks 
in the Mediterranean Sea are isolated genetically or spatially from the 
larger Northeast Atlantic stock. Given that porbeagle sharks are highly 
mobile and habitat generalists, the animals in the Mediterranean Sea 
are likely to mix with animals in adjacent regions. Ferretti et al. 
(2008) examined various historical data sources, some of which dated 
back to 1800s, from the Mediterranean Sea and estimated that lamnid 
sharks (including porbeagle and shortfin mako sharks) had declined 
significantly from historical levels. The researchers were unable to 
distinguish what portion of the decline is attributable to porbeagle 
sharks. Porbeagle sharks have had a low occurrence and catch rate in 
this region even at the earliest stages of the time series (Ferretti et 
al., 2008). This research was based on small overall sample sizes and 
used methods that have been previously criticized as producing overly 
pessimistic population trends (Burgess et al., 2005). Storai et al. 
(2005) were only able to document 33 verified records of porbeagle 
sharks around Italy from 1871-2004, confirming that these sharks have 
had a low historical occurrence. Other data sources also show low 
historical occurrence throughout the Mediterranean Sea (CITES, 2013). 
The ERA team concluded that porbeagle abundance has possibly declined 
in the Mediterranean Sea, but the species is historically uncommon in 
this region (Curtis et al., 2016).
    Southern Hemisphere--Data on porbeagle sharks in the Southern 
Hemisphere are sparse. This limits the ability to provide a robust 
indication of the stock status and sustainable harvest levels. However, 
there is some information available. The 2009 ICES/ICCAT working group 
found that the available data, from the Uruguayan longline fleet 
operating between 1982 and 2008, indicate a long-term decline in CPUE 
in the Uruguayan fleet, meaning that fewer porbeagle sharks were being 
caught with the same amount of effort in 2008 compared to 1982. The 
data indicate that the CPUE has stabilized since 2000 (ICES/ICCAT, 
2009). In a modeling effort, they concluded that biomass levels may be 
below BMSY and that fishing mortality rates may be above 
those producing MSY (i.e., overfishing may be occurring). Pons and 
Domingo (2010) also evaluated the CPUE using data from 1982-2008. They 
found declines in CPUE in the Uruguayan fleet during the 1990s, but 
that the trend has been stable or slightly increasing since 2000. In 
2013, Uruguay prohibited retention of porbeagle sharks. The Standing 
Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS, 2014) determined that the 
Southwest Atlantic stock was overfished but overfishing was probably 
not occurring. While data in the Southeast Atlantic was too limited to 
assess whether porbeagle stocks were overfished or if overfishing was 
occurring (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; SCRS, 2014), catch rate patterns suggest 
that this stock has stabilized since 2000 and is no longer declining 
(ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Pons and Domingo, 2010).
    Semba et al. (2013) analyzed porbeagle sharks in the Southern 
Hemisphere using standardized CPUE data from the southern Bluefin Tuna 
longline fishery (1994-2011) and a driftnet survey (1982-1990). The 
study found no decreasing trend in abundance and concluded porbeagle 
sharks had a widely continuous distribution between the South Pacific 
and southeastern Indian Ocean and between the southwestern Indian Ocean 
and southeastern Atlantic Ocean. They also determined that juvenile 
abundance had not changed greatly during the period of 1982 to 2011. 
Due to a lack of fishing effort in the Indian Ocean, the study was 
unable to confirm presence in the central South Indian ocean but noted 
that genetic data indicate that the distribution is likely continuous 
through the Indian Ocean (Semba et al., 2013).
    There are no abundance trend data for porbeagle sharks in 
Australian waters. Historically, Japanese longline vessels operating in 
Australian waters caught porbeagle sharks, but these vessels have been 
excluded from these waters since 1997 and domestic Australian fishing 
effort is greatly reduced in areas where porbeagle sharks were caught 
(Bruce et al., 2014). Porbeagle sharks are also caught incidentally in 
New Zealand's Southern Bluefin Tuna longline fishery. In New Zealand 
waters in recent years, stock status indices showed no sign of 
declining trends in abundance (Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC, 2014). The 
CPUE indices were stable or increasing and the frequency of zero 
catches in the fishery declined, suggesting increases in relative 
abundance since 2005.
    The level of diversity in genetic samples can also be an indicator 
of the population size. Mitochondrial DNA from samples in the North and 
South Atlantic show high diversity, indicative of a large population. 
Porbeagle sharks are the third most dominant species in the sub-
Antarctic region of the South Pacific and are common throughout the 
Southern Hemisphere (Semba et al., 2013).
    In summary, stocks in the North Atlantic have stabilized and appear 
to be increasing. The Southwest Atlantic stock is considered overfished 
but overfishing is not occurring. Information on the Southeast Atlantic 
stock is too limited to determine the overfished/overfishing status, 
but it has been stable and not declining since the 1990s (ICES/ICCAT, 
2009; SCRS, 2014). Populations in New Zealand also appear to be 
increasing (Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC, 2014). Stocks in the Southern 
Hemisphere have stabilized and some may be increasing.

Distinct Population Segment Analysis

    As described above, the ESA's definition of ``species'' includes 
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' is 
not recognized in the scientific literature and is not clarified in the 
ESA or its implementing regulations. Therefore, the Services adopted a 
joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 
4722) on February 7, 1996. Congress has instructed the Secretaries of 
Interior and Commerce to exercise this authority with regard to DPSs 
``* * * sparingly and only when biological evidence indicates such an 
action is warranted.'' The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two 
elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment 
qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the 
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or 
subspecies to which it belongs; and (2)

[[Page 50470]]

the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies 
to which it belongs.
    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be discrete if it 
satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly 
separated from other populations of the same taxon (an organism or 
group of organisms) as a result of physical, ecological, or behavioral 
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (e.g., inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms). If a population segment is found to be discrete 
under one or both of the above conditions, its biological and 
ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. 
This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence 
of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or 
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) 
evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or 
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from 
other population segments of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.
    The petition from Wild Earth Guardians requested that we list 
porbeagle sharks throughout their entire range, or as Northwest 
Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Distinct Populations 
Segments (DPS) under the ESA, and that we designate critical habitat 
for the species. The petition from the HSUS requested we list a 
Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle shark as endangered.
    In the Status Review, the ERA team considered the available 
information to assess whether there are any porbeagle population 
segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of both discreteness and 
significance. Rather than limit the analysis to only the potential DPSs 
identified by the petitioners, the ERA team considered whether any DPSs 
could be determined for porbeagle sharks. Data relevant to the 
discreteness question included physical, ecological, behavioral, 
tagging, and genetic data. As described above, porbeagle sharks occur 
in the North Atlantic and in a continuous band around the Southern 
Hemisphere. They are absent from equatorial waters. Recent assessments 
have identified four stocks: The Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and 
Southeast Atlantic stocks for fishery management purposes. An 
additional Indo-Pacific stock may also be present, but Southern 
Hemisphere stock boundaries are unclear (CITES, 2013).
    The population in the North Atlantic is separated from the 
population in the Southern Hemisphere, as porbeagle sharks are absent 
from equatorial waters. It is likely that their preference for colder 
water temperatures limits movement between the Northern and Southern 
Hemispheres. The genetic data support that they do not move between 
these hemispheres, as genetic studies show marked differences between 
the populations in the North Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere. This 
indicates that porbeagle sharks in the North Atlantic and porbeagle 
sharks in the Southern Hemisphere do not interbreed (Padre et al., 
2006; Testerman et al., 2007; ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 
2010). Porbeagle sharks in the Southern Hemisphere are also 
biologically different. In the Southern Hemisphere, porbeagle sharks 
are smaller, slower growing, mature at a smaller size and greater age, 
and may be longer lived than those in the North Atlantic (Francis et 
al., 2007, 2008, 2015). The ERA team concluded, and we concur, that the 
North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere populations are discrete.
    There is no information indicating that porbeagle sharks in the 
Mediterranean Sea, where they are historically rare, are isolated from 
the Northeast Atlantic stock. There are no direct genetic or tagging 
data on porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean Sea, but numerous other 
highly migratory species (tunas, sharks) are known to move in and out 
of the Mediterranean Sea. Given that porbeagle sharks are widely 
distributed and highly migratory, it is reasonable to expect that 
porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean Sea would mix with porbeagle 
sharks in other parts of the Northeast Atlantic. There is no 
information to indicate that porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean Sea 
are a discrete population. As there is no evidence that the 
Mediterranean Sea population of porbeagle sharks is discrete, it was 
considered as part of the Northeast Atlantic stock for the remainder of 
the analysis.
    Both tagging and genetic data can provide insight into whether a 
population is discrete. Conventional and satellite tagging data suggest 
limited, but occasional movements of porbeagle sharks between the 
Northwest and Northeast Atlantic, as well as long distance movements 
into subtropical latitudes of the North Atlantic (Kohler et al., 2002; 
Pade et al., 2008; ICCAT, 2009; Skomal et al., 2009; Campana et al., 
2010a; Saunders et al., 2011; Bendall et al., 2013). As described 
above, using conventional tagging data to inform our understanding of 
the animal's movements is limited by the frequency of recapture/return 
of tags and by the limited data returned. Though the tagging data offer 
little evidence of mixing between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic, 
the genetic analyses show that these populations do mix. Mitochondrial 
DNA studies indicate that there is no differentiation among the stocks 
in the North Atlantic. The stocks are indistinguishable genetically, 
indicating that there is mixing and gene flow between them (Pade et 
al., 2006; Testerman et al., 2007). This level of mixing is occurring 
at a rate that has prevented the species from becoming genetically 
differentiated, meaning that there is enough interbreeding between 
porbeagle sharks in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic that the 
populations are not significantly different genetically. Genetic 
homogeneity across broad regions can be achieved with extremely low 
mixing rates, even one percent per generation (Ward 2000). While the 
mixing rates between the Northwest and Northeast North Atlantic may be 
low, these populations mix sufficiently that there is a lack of genetic 
differentiation between the stocks. Curtis et al. (2016) hypothesize 
two pathways by which these movements may occur: (1) Active emigration 
or vagrancy of mature females from one subpopulation to a neighboring 
one or (2) a lack of philopatry in porbeagle pups born in subtropical 
waters (i.e., not all porbeagle sharks return to their birthplace to 
breed). For example, pups born from Northwest Atlantic mothers may move 
into the Northeast Atlantic as they mature. More tagging and genetic 
studies are needed to determine the pathway and to better assess mixing 
rates (Curtis et al., 2016); however, the current available evidence 
indicates that porbeagle sharks in the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic 
are not discrete.
    In the North Atlantic, the porbeagle shark does cross international 
governmental boundaries. There are regulatory mechanisms in place 
across the species' range with respect to conserving and recovering 
porbeagle stocks. Similar regulatory mechanisms have been implemented 
on both sides of the Atlantic. These mechanisms include regulating 
directed catch and bycatch

[[Page 50471]]

and are described further below. Given the lack of genetic 
differentiation between the North Atlantic stocks and the lack of 
significant differences in control of exploitation, management of 
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms across 
international borders, we have determined that the two stocks in the 
North Atlantic are not discrete from one another.
    Tagging data in the Southern Hemisphere are very limited. Porbeagle 
sharks have a continuous distribution throughout the Southern 
Hemisphere (Semba et al., 2013). As described above, Southwest and 
Southeast Atlantic stocks have been defined for management purposes, 
and there may also be an Indo-Pacific stock (including Australia, New 
Zealand, and the greater Southwest Pacific). Potential stock boundaries 
have been difficult to define and remain unclear (CITES, 2013). The 
available genetics data have not revealed any clear differentiation 
among samples throughout the region (Pade et al., 2006; Testerman et 
al., 2007; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010). Similar to the North 
Atlantic, porbeagle sharks in the Southern Hemisphere cross 
jurisdictional boundaries. As described below, regulatory measures 
restricting harvest are also in place across the range of this 
population. There is no information indicating that the populations in 
the Southern Hemisphere are discrete from one another. Therefore, there 
is no information to indicate there are separate DPSs in the Southern 
Hemisphere. Based on the best available information, the ERA team 
concluded that that there are two discrete populations; one in the 
North Atlantic and the other in the Southern Hemisphere.
    In accordance with the DPS policy, the ERA team also reviewed 
whether these two population segments identified in the discreteness 
analysis were significant. If a population segment is considered 
discrete, its biological and ecological significance relative to the 
species or subspecies must then be considered. We must consider 
available scientific evidence of the discrete segment's importance to 
the taxon to which it belongs. Data relevant to the significance 
question include morphological, ecological, behavioral, and genetic 
data, as described above. The ERA team found that the loss of either 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon and, therefore, both were significant. We considered the 
information presented in the status review and the following factors, 
identified in the DPS policy, which can inform the significance 
determination: (a) Persistence of the discrete segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (b) evidence that loss of the 
discrete segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the 
taxon; (c) evidence that the discrete segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and 
(d) evidence that the discrete segment differs markedly from other 
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. A discrete 
population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to be 
considered significant.
    The range of each discrete population (i.e., the North Atlantic and 
Southern Hemisphere populations) represents a large portion of the 
species' range, as well as a unique ecosystem that has influenced the 
population. The North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere ecosystems are 
unique with different physical (e.g., currents), chemical (e.g., 
salinity), and biological (e.g., species size, longevity) properties. 
Each population is in a separate hemisphere, and the loss of either 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the species. 
That is, if the North Atlantic population were extirpated, the only 
porbeagle sharks would be in the Southern Hemisphere. As porbeagle 
sharks do not move between hemispheres and equatorial waters are too 
warm to support the species, it is not reasonable to expect that 
porbeagle sharks would move from the Southern Hemisphere into the North 
Atlantic, and the result would be a significant gap in the range of the 
species. In evaluating the factors above, factors a and b indicate that 
the two discrete population segments are significant. Therefore, we 
concur with the ERA team that the two discrete population segments are 
also significant. As such, we are identifying two DPSs of porbeagle 
shark. The extinction risk to the North Atlantic and Southern 
Hemisphere DPSs was evaluated separately for each DPS.

Assessment of Extinction Risk

    The ESA (Section 3) defines endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' A threatened species is ``any species which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Neither we nor 
the USFWS have developed any formal policy guidance about how to 
further define the thresholds for when a species is endangered or 
threatened. We consider the best available information and apply 
professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a 
species in deciding whether the species is currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or in a significant portion of its range 
(endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
(threatened). We evaluate both demographic risks, such as low abundance 
and productivity, and threats to the species, including those related 
to the factors specified by the ESA Section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E).

Methods

    As described above, we convened an ERA team to evaluate extinction 
risk to the species. This section discusses the methods used to 
evaluate demographic factors, threats, and overall extinction risk to 
the species now and in the foreseeable future. For this assessment, the 
term ``foreseeable future'' was defined as two generation times (40 
years), consistent with other recent assessments for shark species. A 
generation time is defined as the time it takes, on average, for a 
sexually mature female porbeagle shark to be replaced by offspring with 
the same spawning capacity. As a late-maturing species, with slow 
growth rate and relatively low productivity, it would likely take more 
than a generation time for conservative management actions to be 
realized and reflected in population abundance indices. The ERA team 
reviewed other comparable assessments (which used generation times of 
either one or two generations) and discussed the appropriate timeframe 
for porbeagle sharks. The ERA team determined that, for porbeagle 
sharks, there was reasonable confidence across this time period (40 
years) that the information on threats and management is accurate.
    Often the ability to measure or document risk factors is limited, 
and information is not quantitative or very often lacking altogether. 
Therefore, in assessing risk, it is important to include both 
qualitative and quantitative information. In previous NMFS' status 
reviews, Biological Review Teams have used a risk matrix method, 
described in detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999), to organize and 
summarize the professional judgement of a panel of knowledgeable 
scientists. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to 
help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many 
of our status reviews (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for 
links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of 
individual

[[Page 50472]]

populations is considered at the species level according to four 
demographic viability factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, 
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. Connectivity refers to 
rates of exchange among populations of organisms. These viability 
factors reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology 
and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of 
extinction risk.
    Using these concepts, the ERA team evaluated demographic risks by 
individually assigning a risk score to each of the four demographic 
criteria (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, diversity). The scoring for the demographic risk criteria 
correspond to the following values: 1--very low, 2--low, 3--medium, 4--
high, and 5--very high. A demographic factor was ranked very low if it 
is very unlikely the factor contributes or will contribute 
significantly to the risk of extinction. A factor was ranked low if it 
is unlikely it contributes or will contribute significantly to the risk 
of extinction. A factor was ranked medium if it is likely it 
contributes to or will contribute significantly to the risk of 
extinction. A factor was ranked high if it is highly likely that it 
contributes or will contribute significantly to the risk of extinction, 
and a factor was ranked very high if it is very highly (extremely) 
likely that the factor contributes or will contribute significantly to 
the risk of extinction.
    Each team member scored each demographic factor individually. Each 
team member identified other demographic factors and/or threats that 
would work in combination with factors ranked in the higher categories 
to increase risk to the species. After scores were provided, the team 
discussed the range of perspectives and the supporting data for these 
perspectives. Team members were given the opportunity to adjust the 
scores, if desired, after discussion. The scores were then tallied, 
reviewed, and considered in the overall risk determination. As noted 
above, this scoring was carried out for each of the two identified 
DPSs.
    The ERA team also performed a threats assessment for the porbeagle 
shark by evaluating the impact that a particular threat was currently 
having on the extinction risk of the species. Threats considered 
included habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; 
overutilization; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade threats, because 
these are the five factors identified in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 
The scoring for the threats correspond to the following values: 1--very 
low, 2--low, 3--medium, 4--high, and 5--very high. A threat was given a 
rank of very low if it is very unlikely that the particular threat 
contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species. That is, 
it is very unlikely that the threat will have population-level impacts 
that reduce the viability of the species. A threat was ranked as low if 
it was unlikely the threat contributes or will contribute to the 
decline of the species. A threat was ranked as medium if it was likely 
that it contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species 
and high if it highly likely that it contributes or will contribute to 
the decline of the species. A threat was given a rank of very high if 
it was very highly (extremely) likely that the particular threat 
contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species. Detailed 
definitions of the risk scores can be found in the status review 
report. Similar to the demographic parameters, the ERA team was asked 
to identify other threat(s) and/or demographic factor(s) that may 
interact to increase the species extinction risk. The ERA team also 
considered the ranking with respect to the interactions with other 
factors and threats. For example, team members identified that threats 
due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may interact 
with the threat of overutilization and slow population growth rates (a 
demographic factor) to increase the risk extinction. When potential 
interactions such as these were identified, the team then evaluated 
those interactions (in this case interactions between the regulatory 
mechanisms, overutilization, and growth rates) to determine whether 
they would significantly change the ranking of the threat (in this case 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms). Team members again discussed 
their rankings and the supporting data and were given a chance to 
revise scores based on the discussion. These scores were considered 
with the demographic scores in the overall risk assessment.
    The ERA team members were then asked to use their informed 
professional judgment to make an overall extinction risk determination 
for the porbeagle shark. The results of the demographic risks analysis 
and threats assessment, described below, informed this ranking. For 
this analysis, the ERA team defined four levels of extinction risk: Not 
at risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. A species is at high 
risk of extinction when it is at or near a level of abundance, spatial 
structure and connectivity, and/or diversity and resilience that place 
its persistence in question. Demographic risk may be strongly 
influenced by stochastic (random events or processes that may affect 
the population) or depensatory (resulting from a depressed breeding 
population) processes. Similarly, a species may be at high risk of 
extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to 
a small geographic area, imminent destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create 
imminent demographic risks (e.g., low abundance, genetic diversity, 
resilience). A species is at moderate risk of extinction due to 
projected threats and its likely response to those threats (i.e., 
declining trends in abundance/population growth, spatial structure and 
connectivity, and/or diversity and resilience) if it exhibits a 
trajectory indicating that it is more likely not to be at a high level 
of extinction. A species is at low risk of extinction due to projected 
threats and its likely response to those threats (i.e., stable or 
increasing trends in abundance/population growth, spatial structure and 
connectivity, and/or diversity and resilience) if it exhibits a 
trajectory indicating it is not at moderate level of extinction risk. 
Lastly, a species is not at risk of extinction due to projected threats 
and its response to those threats (i.e., long-term stability, 
increasing trends in abundance/population growth, spatial structure and 
connectivity, and/or diversity and resilience) if it exhibits a 
trajectory indicating that it is not at a low risk of extinction.
    The ERA team adopted the ``likelihood point'' method for ranking 
the overall risk of extinction to allow individual team members to 
express uncertainty. For this approach, each team member distributed 10 
`likelihood points' among the extinction risk categories (that is, each 
team member had 10 points to distribute among the four extinction risk 
categories). Uncertainty is expressed by assigning points to different 
risk categories. For example, a team member would assign all 10 points 
to the `not at risk' category if he/she was certain that the definition 
for `not at risk' was met. However, he/she might assign a small number 
of points to the `low risk' category and the majority to the `not at 
risk' category if there was a low level of uncertainty regarding the 
risk level. The more points assigned to one particular category, the 
higher the level of certainty. This approach has been used in previous 
NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident killer 
whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring,

[[Page 50473]]

black abalone, and common thresher shark) to structure the team's 
thinking and express levels of uncertainty when assigning risk 
categories. Although this process helps to integrate and summarize a 
large amount of diverse information, there is no simple way to 
translate the risk matrix scores directly into a determination of 
overall extinction risk. The team scores were tallied (mode, median, 
range), discussed, and summarized for each DPS.
    The ERA team did not make recommendations as to whether the species 
should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather, the ERA team drew 
scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by 
the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere populations of porbeagle 
shark under present conditions and in the foreseeable future (as noted 
above, defined as two generation times or 40 years) based on an 
evaluation of the species' demographic risks and assessment of threats.

Evaluation of Demographic Risks

    Abundance: The ERA team evaluated the available information on 
population abundance and trends. They concluded that a ranking of low 
was warranted for both DPSs, as this factor is unlikely to contribute 
significantly to the porbeagle shark's risk of extinction. Kitamura and 
Matsunaga (2010) analyzed mtDNA from sharks in the North and South 
Atlantic. The research found high genetic diversity, indicative of a 
large population. Campana et al. (2012) reports that the large 
population size of the porbeagle shark in the Northwest Atlantic should 
make it such that random factors would not pose a major risk to the 
species. The ERA team concluded that the best available information 
does not indicate a decrease in the productivity of the porbeagle shark 
and that both DPSs exhibit significant diversity indicative of large 
populations (Curtis et al., 2016).
    Both DPSs have declined significantly from historical levels. In 
the North Atlantic, these declines appear to have been halted and the 
DPS' abundance and biomass are increasing (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Campana et 
al., 2010b; Campana et al., 2012). Further declines are unlikely due to 
improved and continuing management. As described in the status review, 
the North Atlantic population is overfished, but overfishing is not 
occurring (Curtis et al., 2016). Estimates of the population size are 
in the hundreds of thousands of individuals for just the Northwest 
Atlantic portion of the DPS (DFO, 2005; Camapana et al., 2010, 2012). 
The population abundance and trends of porbeagle sharks throughout the 
Southern Hemisphere are stable or increasing. The declines in the 
Southern Hemisphere appear to be halted and, in some regions, the 
abundance has increased in recent years (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Pons and 
Domingo, 2010; Semba et al., 2013; Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC, 2014; 
Curtis et al., 2016).
    Targeted removal from a population can result in a population 
structure (e.g., size and sex composition) that has been modified from 
unfished conditions. If fisheries remove certain age classes or sexes 
(e.g., selectively target the largest individuals in the population), 
the structure of the population will be modified. Porbeagle sharks are 
overfished and, therefore, it is likely the population structure (e.g., 
the number of large females) has been reduced, resulting in a truncated 
size/age distribution. However, declines have been halted, and stocks 
are rebuilding. As the stocks rebuild, the population structure will 
return to its more natural state with a robust size/age composition.
    Growth rate/productivity: The ERA team evaluated the information 
available on the porbeagle shark's growth rate/productivity. They 
determined that this is a medium risk factor for both DPSs. Life 
history characteristics of late age to maturity, low fecundity, slow 
population growth rates, and long generation time contribute to low 
productivity in porbeagle sharks. These characteristics make both DPSs 
vulnerable to overexploitation and slow to recover from depletion. This 
vulnerability is characteristic of species with this type of life 
history.
    Spatial structure/connectivity: The ERA team evaluated the 
porbeagle shark's spatial structure and connectivity (i.e., rates of 
exchange among populations). They concluded that this factor is very 
unlikely to contribute to the risk of extinction for either the North 
Atlantic or Southern Hemisphere DPS. While there is not mixing across 
the equator, tagging studies show that the species is highly mobile, 
and there are movements over long distances within the North Atlantic 
and the Southern Hemisphere. Genetic studies show that within each DPS, 
mixing occurs, and there is connectivity within each of the two DPSs. 
There is no evidence of isolation of any stock within either DPS. There 
is also no evidence that the range of the species has contracted over 
time or is likely to contract in the future (Curtis et al., 2016). The 
ERA team ranked this factor as very low.
    Diversity: The ERA team also evaluated the diversity within both 
DPSs. They concluded that this is a very low risk factor because 
diversity is high within each DPS. Genetic studies indicate high 
diversity in both DPSs, and there is connectivity across the ocean 
basins. The high genetic diversity indicates that, within hemispheres, 
the populations are not isolated. Significant differentiation within 
either DPS has not been identified, meaning that while diversity is 
high within each DPS (indicative of a large population), each stock 
within a DPS has similar genetics that are not distinct. The species 
does not appear to be at risk due to substantial changes or loss of 
variation in life history characteristics, population demography, 
morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics.

Evaluation of Threats

    Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment: The ERA team 
ranked this threat as very low for both DPSs. As described above, 
porbeagle sharks are highly mobile generalists. That is, they are not 
substantially dependent on any particular habitat type. Occurring in 
coastal and offshore waters, this shark is not dependent during any 
life stage on more vulnerable estuarine habitats, and there are no 
indications that its range has contracted or is expected to contract in 
the future (Curtis et al., 2016). While their distribution is 
influenced by temperature and prey distributions, they have broad 
temperature tolerances (1-26 [deg]C) and an opportunistic diet, feeding 
on a wide range of species, depending on what is available (Joyce et 
al., 2002). Both factors make them less vulnerable to impacts from 
habitat changes.
    The literature review found no information to indicate that there 
has been a change in distribution of porbeagle sharks due to climate 
change or that porbeagle sharks would be unable to adapt to potential 
changes in prey distribution. Changes in temperature in the range of 
those predicted under various climate scenarios (Hare et al., 2016) are 
unlikely to have a significant impact on porbeagle sharks (Curtis et 
al., 2016). Fabry et al., (2008) indicate that increases in carbon 
dioxide (CO2) have the potential to affect pH levels in 
marine animals. Active animals have a higher capacity for buffering pH 
changes, and the tolerance of CO2 by marine fish appears to 
be very high (Fabry et al., 2008). Porbeagle sharks are an active and 
highly mobile species. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that 
porbeagle sharks will tolerate changes in CO2 and buffer pH 
(Compagno, 2001; Fabry et al., 2008; Curtis et al., 2016).

[[Page 50474]]

As detailed in the status review, they also appear to have low exposure 
to pollution and do not appear to be threatened by it. The National 
Shark Research Consortium (2007) determined that it was unlikely that 
infertility rates were associated with contaminant exposure. The 
available information indicates that the fitness of porbeagle sharks is 
not likely to be negatively impacted by mercury or other contaminants 
to any significant degree (Curtis et al., 2016). Therefore, this threat 
is considered to be very low to both the North Atlantic and Southern 
Hemisphere DPSs.
    Overutilization: Overutilization was ranked as medium in the 
threats assessment by each member of the ERA team. In evaluating the 
status of the species, Curtis et al. (2016) reviewed population 
dynamics, including population size, abundance trends, recruitment and 
depensation, and the effects of trade as most shark landings enter 
international trade. Porbeagle sharks have historically been fished 
commercially, and overutilization is considered the primary threat to 
porbeagle shark populations. They have primarily been harvested 
incidentally in longline fisheries targeting other highly migratory 
species. Incidental harvest occurs when the species is caught in a 
fishery targeting other species. Directed fisheries for porbeagle 
sharks have occurred in Canada, France, Norway, Faroe Islands, and 
Uruguay (Curtis et al., 2016). Porbeagle stocks are overfished. Being 
overfished is not, by itself, equivalent to having a high risk of 
extinction. Currently, overfishing is not occurring and populations of 
porbeagle sharks appear to be stable or increasing, and further 
declines are considered unlikely, given conservation and management 
measures. Declines in catch in recent years are largely due to greater 
regulatory controls, especially in nations that had directed fisheries 
(DFO, 2005; ICCAT, 2009).
    In the United States, commercial fishermen can land porbeagle under 
a directed or incidental shark permit. In the past, most porbeagle 
sharks have been landed via pelagic longline, but there have also been 
some incidental landings in Gulf of Maine fisheries targeting other 
species. According to logbook data, pelagic longline fishermen have not 
reported landing any porbeagle sharks in the last few years (2013-2015) 
and reported landing only between 3 and 23 sharks each year from 2010 
through 2012 (NMFS, unpublished data). The majority of porbeagle sharks 
caught by pelagic longline fishermen from 2010 through 2015 were 
released alive (on average 78 percent per year). There are strict 
regulations in the pelagic longline fishery including restrictions on 
hook size, hook type, and bait type. There are no mesh restrictions in 
the shark gillnet fishery under the management plan for highly 
migratory species. However, incidental gillnet landings of porbeagle 
sharks have occurred in the Gulf of Maine. Gillnet fisheries operating 
in this area are subject to the requirements of other fishery 
management plans such as the Northeast multispecies and monkfish plans. 
These plans restrict the mesh sizes and overall fishing effort in the 
Gulf of Maine. The commercial porbeagle shark fishery is regulated by a 
TAC of 11.3 mt dressed weight (dw) (24,912 lb dw) and a commercial 
quota. The U.S. commercial quota is the portion of the TAC that can be 
landed by fishermen with a commercial fishing permit and is adjusted 
annually based on any overharvest from previous years. In recent years, 
the commercial quota was reduced due to overharvest from previous 
fishing years. The commercial quota was 1.5 mt (3,307 lb) dw in 2010, 
1.6 mt (3,479 lb) dw in 2011, and 0.7 mt (1,585 lb) dw in 2012. In 
2013, the fishery was closed due to overharvest in the previous years. 
It reopened in 2014 with a quota of 1.2 mt (2,820 lb) dw; however, by 
early December 2014, 198 percent of the quota (2.5 mt dw or 5,586 lb 
dw) had been reported landed and triggered a commercial fishery closure 
for the rest of 2014 and all of 2015. This reported overharvest 
represents approximately 27 individual fish if the catch consisted of 
large adults (Curtis et al., 2016). It is unlikely that this 
overharvest represents a significant threat to the species as it 
represents only a small fraction of the estimated abundance (i.e., 27 
fish out of hundreds of thousands). The 2016 commercial quota in the 
U.S. is 1.7 mt dw (3,594 lbs dw). There have been no landings in 2016 
so far. In the past, most of the landings occurred in the fall.
    Landings in Canada have progressively decreased from a peak of 
1,400 mt (3,086,471 lbs) in 1995 to 92 mt (202,825 lbs) in 2007, 
corresponding with decreasing TAC levels. Canadian landings have been 
below the TAC since 2007. There were no landings in the directed 
fishery in 2012, and the directed fishery has been closed since 2013.
    At mortality rates less than four percent of the vulnerable 
biomass, recovery for the Northwest Atlantic stock was estimated to be 
achievable in 5 to 100 years (Campana et al., 2012). Estimated recovery 
times vary based on assumed productivity and harvest rates. The authors 
concluded that all the analyses indicate that the porbeagle shark 
population can recover at modest fishing mortalities but that the time 
horizon for recovery is sensitive to the amount of human-induced 
mortality. They note that the known cause of human-induced mortality is 
bycatch, and it is under management controls (Campana et al., 2012). 
Generally, the vulnerable biomass is that portion of the population 
that is biologically available to the fishery to catch. That is, it is 
of a size that can be caught in the gear used in the fishery; the 
vulnerable biomass is not the amount that they are allowed to catch. 
The gears used in the shark fisheries select for larger fish. In 2009, 
the vulnerable biomass in the Northwest Atlantic assessment was 
estimated to be between 4,406 and 5,092 mt (9,713,568 and 11,228,143 
lbs) (Campana et al., 2012).
    There are restrictions on catch in the EU. In 2010, regulations set 
the EU TAC at zero in domestic waters and prohibited EU vessels from 
fishing for, retaining on board, transferring from one ship to another, 
and landing porbeagle sharks in international waters. Since 2010, the 
TAC has been at zero (SCRS, 2014). Under the older TAC of 436 mt 
(961,200 lbs), the Northeast Atlantic stock was projected to remain 
stable (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The elimination of directed and bycatch 
fisheries is expected to allow the population to rebuild.
    Data in the Southern Hemisphere are more limited. Since 2000, the 
CPUE in the Uruguayan fleet has been stable or slightly increasing 
(Pons and Domingo, 2010); and Uruguay prohibited retention of porbeagle 
sharks in 2013. Argentinian and Chilean fisheries have also harvested 
porbeagle sharks as incidental catch. In Argentina, catches ranged from 
19-70 mt (41,890-154,300 lbs) from 2003-2006. Live sharks greater than 
4.9 ft (1.5 m) are required to be released (CITES, 2013). In Chilean 
fisheries, landings are mostly unreported but are thought to comprise 
less than two percent of harvests (Hernandez et al., 2008). Semba et 
al., (2013) analyzed distribution and abundance trends in the Southern 
Hemisphere using CPUE data from the southern bluefin tuna longline 
fishery (see above). During this study, they found that the fishery 
occurs primarily on the edge of porbeagle shark habitat and that the 
majority of the shark's distribution is located outside of where the 
fishery operates. The authors also assert that there is only a small 
overlap between porbeagle sharks and the eastern Pacific purse seine 
fisheries. Catches in Australia and New Zealand have also declined 
significantly due to reductions in fishing effort and

[[Page 50475]]

protective regulations. The available data indicate that this stock has 
stabilized (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Pons and Domingo, 2010; Semba et al., 
2013; Curtis et al., 2016). Bycatch in non-directed fisheries could be 
an ongoing source of fishing mortality (Simpson and Miri, 2013).
    Although catch on the high seas, including the Japanese catch of 
porbeagle sharks outside of the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone, was 
once considered a significant factor in total catch from the 
Northwestern Atlantic stock of porbeagle sharks, the ICES/ICCAT (2009) 
assessment found that catch levels on the high seas occurred at low 
levels, indicating that bycatch and directed catch in this area is 
minor and does not pose a significant risk to the species (ICES/ICCAT, 
2009). Information on catch ratios indicated that the relative 
abundance of porbeagle shark in the catch tended to be greatest on or 
near the continental shelf and declined markedly in the high seas 
(ICES/ICCAT, 2009). There were differences in the catch ratios among 
fisheries from different nations, but the relative proportion of 
porbeagle sharks in the high seas catch was almost always less than 2 
percent (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). Bycatch of porbeagle sharks within some 
major ICES and Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) 
longline fisheries was reported to be very rare, and bycatch in the 
North and South Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fisheries was very 
low (ICES/ICCAT 2009). Because North Atlantic porbeagle stocks are 
increasing in abundance, any ongoing discards or additional unreported 
mortality does not appear to be of a magnitude that is negatively 
impacting the stocks.
    In addition to bycatch in pelagic longline gear, incidental catch 
in Canada and the United States occurs in trawl, gillnet, and bottom 
longline fisheries for various groundfish species (Simpson and Miri, 
2013; NAFO, unpublished data: www.nafo.int). Using fisheries data and 
observer data, Simpson and Miri (2013) estimated bycatch in Canada's 
Newfoundland/Grand Banks Region (NAFO Division 3LNOP). From 2006-2010, 
bycatch averaged 19 mt (41,890 lb) per year (Simpson and Miri, 2013). 
Total reported landings, which includes directed and incidental catch, 
from NAFO fisheries averaged 43.2 mt (95,240 lb) per year from 2010-
2014 (NAFO unpublished data as cited in Curtis et al., 2016). These 
data are included in assessment and management of the Northwest 
Atlantic stock.
    Underreporting of incidental catch is often noted as a concern 
(ICES/ICCAT, 2009; CITES, 2013; Simpson and Miri, 2013), particularly 
in high seas fisheries. The level of capture of porbeagle sharks in the 
high seas longline fisheries is unclear as there is non-reporting and 
generic reporting of sharks. However, the ICES/ICCAT (2009) assessment 
estimated the potential porbeagle shark catch based on observed catch 
ratios of porbeagle sharks to tuna and swordfish. For the Northwest 
Atlantic, this analysis indicated that unaccounted high seas longline 
catches were a minor portion of the total reported catch historically 
and that catches have been even smaller in recent years (ICES/ICCAT, 
2009). The data on non-reporting in Southern Hemisphere fisheries are 
less certain, but there is little evidence that these catches would 
significantly alter stock assessments (Semba et al., 2013; Francis et 
al., 2014).
    Recreational catch is minimal (NMFS, 2013). Harvests are extremely 
low in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand (CITES, 2009; WCPFC, 
2014). Regulations in Canada and the United States limit the gear that 
is allowed to be used for sharks. Most porbeagle sharks caught in 
recreational fisheries are released with a small percentage being 
retained. In the United States, porbeagle sharks must be at least 4.5 
ft (137 cm) fork length and one shark (porbeagle or other) per vessel 
per trip can be landed. Recreational gears in the United States are 
restricted to rod and reel and handline.
    Estimates of the catch in the United States vary depending on the 
data source analyzed. Data on recreational catch are available through 
the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and from 
the large pelagic survey (LPS). MRFSS is a generalized angler survey; 
LPS is a specialized survey focused on highly migratory species such as 
pelagic sharks and tunas. This specialization allows for a higher level 
of sampling needed to obtain more precise estimates. However, because 
of limited overlap in species distribution and recreational fishery 
effort, some species such as porbeagle sharks are less commonly 
encountered by recreational anglers (Curtis et al., 2016). During the 
summer when fishing effort is higher, porbeagle sharks are distributed 
farther north and offshore. Due to these lower encounters, even the 
specialized surveys are not able to produce precise estimates of 
overall catch. Data from the LPS survey from 2010 through 2015 indicate 
that 15 porbeagle sharks were observed or reported as kept and 103 were 
observed or reported as released alive; none were observed or reported 
as released dead (NMFS, 2015).
    When animals are captured and released, whether in commercial or 
recreational fisheries, it is important to understand at-vessel and 
post-release mortality. At-vessel mortality rate is the percentage of 
animals that are dead when retrieved from the fishing gear; post-
release mortality refers to the percentage of animals that die after 
being released from fishing gear alive. Several researchers have 
evaluated at-vessel mortality, and mortality rates have varied. In 
several of the studies, at-vessel mortality in longline gear averaged 
around 20 percent (Marshall et al., 2012; Griggs and Baird, 2013; 
Gallagher et al., 2014; NMFS HMS Logbooks), while other studies have 
found higher rates up to approximately 44 percent (Francis et al., 
2004; Coelho et al., 2012; Campana et al., 2015), meaning that of the 
porbeagle sharks caught, 20-44 percent are dead when retrieved from the 
gear. Campana et al., (2015) also evaluated post-release mortality 
rates as determined from PSAT studies. Healthy porbeagle sharks had a 
10 percent post-release mortality rate, while injured porbeagle sharks 
had a 75 percent mortality rate. The overall mortality due to capture 
and discard mortality was then calculated as the sum of the post-
release mortality rates for healthy and injured sharks, weighted by the 
frequency of injury as recorded by fisheries observers from 2010-2014, 
plus the observed frequency of dead sharks. Of porbeagle sharks 
reported by the observers, the mean annual percentage of injured sharks 
at release from pelagic longlines was 14.6 percent. Healthy sharks 
accounted for 41.6 percent. Applying the 75 percent mortality rate to 
the 14.6 percent injury rates and the 10 percent mortality rate to the 
41.6 percent healthy sharks resulted in an overall post-release 
mortality rate of 27.2 percent. Total mortality includes both hooking 
and post-release mortality. In this study of the Canadian pelagic 
longline fishery, the mean at-vessel mortality was 43.8 percent. When 
combined with an overall post release mortality of live (healthy and 
injured sharks), this yielded an overall non-landed fishing mortality 
of 59 percent (Campana et al., 2015).
    Applying the 27 percent mean post-release mortality rate to the 
mean 20 percent mortality rate from the other studies suggests an 
average total mortality of approximately 47 percent. These studies 
suggest that there is great deal of variability in mortality rates. 
Survival rates are dependent on numerous factors, including soak time,

[[Page 50476]]

handling, water temperature, shark size, shark sex, degree of injury, 
etc. (Campana et al., 2015). The studies indicate a moderate to high 
risk of mortality to a porbeagle shark once it is hooked on longline 
gear (Curtis et al., 2016). The elimination of most directed fisheries 
and reductions in catches are likely reducing overall fishing 
mortality. The status review concluded that, while it had been the 
primary threat, overutilization no longer appears to be a threat to the 
species' survival anywhere in its range. The ERA team ranked the threat 
as medium as it is likely that it contributes or will contribute to the 
decline of the species. Continued fishery management efforts are 
necessary to rebuild populations and prevent future declines (Curtis et 
al., 2016).
    The ERA team also considered whether any of the demographic factors 
or other threats would interact with this threat to increase its 
overall threat level. As described above, stocks have been overfished; 
however, fishing pressure has decreased, and overfishing is no longer 
occurring. Stocks have stabilized, and some are increasing. Under 
current management, stocks are projected to continue to recover. 
Therefore, this threat was ranked as medium. The threat from 
overutilization would be higher if there were threats due to inadequate 
regulation coupled with the life history of porbeagle sharks (low 
productivity). As described below, the inadequacy of existing 
regulations measures was determined to be a low risk by the ERA team 
for the North Atlantic DPS and medium for the Southern Hemisphere DPS. 
Regulatory mechanisms to protect porbeagle sharks are widespread and 
improving throughout their range. The porbeagle shark's inherently low 
productivity indicates that recovery from overutilization will take a 
long time, on the order of decades. After considering these factors, 
the ERA team concluded that the threat from overutilization would not 
significantly increase due to interactions with other risk factors. 
Therefore, the ERA team maintained the ranking of medium.
    The only interactions with overutilization identified by the status 
review team were the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms and the 
porbeagle shark's growth rate/productivity. However, we also evaluated 
potential interactions between overutilization and spatial structure/
connectivity and overutilization and diversity. Risks associated with 
spatial structure/connectivity and diversity are both ranked very low 
for the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere DPSs. Porbeagle sharks 
are distributed broadly across both the North Atlantic and the Southern 
Hemisphere. The species is highly mobile, and, as described above, the 
available data indicate that there is connectivity within each DPS. The 
genetic studies also indicate that there is high genetic diversity and 
reproductive connectivity within each DPS. Genetic diversity appears to 
be sufficiently high and not indicative of isolated or depleted 
populations. Overutilization does not appear to have reduced the 
genetic diversity or limited the spatial distribution and connectivity. 
Given this and that the risk from both these factors is considered very 
low, interactions between these factors and overutilization would not 
increase the ranking from medium.
    Disease and Predation: Disease and predation were ranked as very 
low risk for both DPSs. Porbeagle sharks are an apex predator residing 
at the top of the food web. Rarely, white sharks and orcas will prey on 
porbeagle sharks. However, predation on the species is very low. In 
general, sharks may be susceptible to diseases, but there is no 
evidence that disease has ever caused declines in shark populations 
(Curtis et al., 2016). Sharks have shown occurrences of cancer, but 
rates are unknown (National Geographic, 2003). There is no evidence 
that either of these threats is negatively impacting either DPS.
    Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms: This threat was 
ranked as low for the North Atlantic DPS and as medium for the Southern 
Hemisphere DPS. Porbeagle sharks are managed by Fisheries and Oceans 
Canada (DFO), NMFS, and the EU. Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and 
Uruguay also manage porbeagle sharks in their waters. Several 
international organizations, including the North East Atlantic 
Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), NAFO, WCPFC, CCAMLR, and ICCAT, also work 
collaboratively on the science and management of this species. 
Porbeagle sharks are listed under several international conventions, 
including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 
Barcelona Convention Protocol, the Bern Convention on the Conservation 
of European Wildlife and Habitats, the Convention for the Protection of 
the Marine Environment of the North-east Atlantic (OSPAR), the Bonn 
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS), and CITES.
    Porbeagle sharks are listed under Annex I of UNCLOS which 
establishes conservation for highly migratory fish stocks on the high 
seas and encourages cooperation between nations on their management. 
Listings under Annex II of the Barcelona Convention, Appendix III of 
the Bern Convention, and Annex V of the OSPAR Convention are intended 
to protect porbeagle sharks and their habitats in the Northeast 
Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. The CMS Migratory Shark Memorandum 
of Understanding and Appendix II of CMS aim to enhance conservation of 
migratory sharks and require range states to coordinate management 
efforts for trans-boundary stocks. Inclusion under Appendix II of CITES 
results in regulation of trade and close monitoring. International 
trade must be non-detrimental to the survival of the stock. CCAMLR 
implemented a moratorium on all directed shark fishing in the Antarctic 
region in 2006 and encourages the live release of incidentally caught 
sharks. Under these governments, organizations and conventions, 
porbeagle sharks are currently one of the most widely protected sharks 
in the world.
    Management efforts and regulations that benefit porbeagle sharks 
have increased in the United States, Canada, and other waters in recent 
years. In the United States, the shark must be landed with its fins 
naturally attached (which helps prevent the illegal practice of 
finning, as species identification is enhanced by the presence of fins 
which may facilitate identification for enforcement and data 
collection), a commercial fishing permit is required, and the fishery 
is regulated by a TAC that is adjusted annually based on any 
overharvests. Other measures in highly migratory species fisheries in 
the United States include retention limits, time/area closures, 
observer requirements, and reporting requirements. These measures are 
designed to prevent overfishing and allow an increase in biomass. 
Canada has closed the mating grounds to directed fisheries, and catch 
is regulated by a TAC limit that has been lowered in recent years. In 
2013, Canada suspended the directed porbeagle shark fishery and will 
not resume it until the stock has sufficiently recovered (Canada/ICCAT 
2014, Doc. No. PA4-810). Canada also has a national plan for the 
conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable 
use. This plan outlines monitoring and management measures, including 
observer coverage and dockside monitoring. New Zealand and Australia 
have harvest quotas, and catches have been greatly reduced. Uruguay has 
also implemented fishing regulations for porbeagle sharks.
    An ICCAT working paper from the 19th Special Meeting of ICCAT (CPC/
ICCAT, 2015; Doc. No. COC 314/2014)

[[Page 50477]]

summarizes how ICCAT members are implementing shark measures. Belize 
reported that they do not conduct scientific research for porbeagle 
sharks or catch them in the convention area; Japan reports that no tuna 
longline vessels are targeting porbeagle sharks and incidental catch is 
retained with all parts or released alive. The United Kingdom indicated 
that porbeagle sharks are rarely caught. Porbeagle sharks are a 
prohibited species in the EU and Turkey; there is no permitted harvest 
in these countries. Retention of porbeagle sharks has been prohibited 
in Uruguay since 2013. In 2015, ICCAT adopted additional measures that 
require all vessels promptly release unharmed porbeagle sharks when 
brought alive alongside the vessel and improved reporting, and 
encouraged research and monitoring to improve assessments. Similarly, 
NEAFC prohibited all directed fishing for porbeagle in the NEAFC area 
(high seas) by vessels flying their flag. Incidentally caught porbeagle 
sharks must be promptly released unharmed.
    Domestic, regional, and international regulation designed to reduce 
catch and rebuild stocks have been broadly implemented. Directed 
porbeagle shark fisheries have been mostly eliminated, many fisheries 
require live release of incidentally caught animals, and trade 
restrictions have been implemented. This improved management has 
resulted in declining catches, and overfishing is not occurring. The 
ERA team ranked this factor as low for the North Atlantic population 
and as medium for the Southern Hemisphere, where there is less rigorous 
monitoring, reporting and enforcement of regulations resulting in more 
uncertainty in their effectiveness.
    In both DPSs, this threat could interact with the medium threat of 
overutilization to increase the risk of extinction and with the 
demographic factor of slow population growth rates to increase the risk 
of extinction. The threat of overutilization has been reduced through 
improved management as has this threat. The shark's inherently low 
productivity means that recovery from past utilization will take 
decades, but this would not significantly increase the ranking of this 
threat as the current regulations have ended overfishing and stocks are 
rebuilding. The ERA team found that the significant interacting threats 
are being simultaneously reduced, supporting the low and medium 
rankings for the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere DPSs, 
respectively.
    We also considered whether measures to protect the species (e.g., 
closed areas, fishery restrictions, etc.) had been implemented 
effectively. With respect to the conservation measures described here, 
the measures have been implemented. Despite some uncertainties around 
the monitoring and enforcement of the measures in the Southern 
Hemisphere, both DPSs have stabilized and, in some areas are 
increasing. Therefore, regulations to reduce the threat of 
overutilization appear to be effective and are positively affecting the 
status of the porbeagle sharks in both DPSs.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Porbeagle's Continued 
Existence

    Overall, this threat was ranked low for both DPSs. Genetic studies 
indicate that isolation is not a factor affecting this species in the 
North Atlantic. In the Southern Hemisphere, the population is 
widespread in a continuous circumglobal band, and there is no evidence 
that any of the populations in the Southern Hemisphere might be 
isolated. Given its migratory nature, isolation does not appear to be a 
factor impacting the porbeagle shark.
    Low productivity has the potential to make the species more 
vulnerable to threats, but is considered in modelling and assessment 
and in management and conservation actions. Several Ecological Risk 
Assessments have evaluated the productivity of the porbeagle shark in 
terms of its vulnerability to certain fisheries. Results from these 
assessments have varied. Cortes et al., (2010) and Murua et al., (2012) 
found porbeagle sharks less vulnerable than other shark species to 
pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, 
respectively. Cortes et al., (2010) conducted a quantitative assessment 
that consisted of a risk analysis to evaluate the productivity of the 
stocks and a susceptibility analysis to assess their propensity to 
capture and mortality in pelagic longline fisheries. In this 
assessment, vulnerability considered both productivity and 
susceptibility to evaluate relative risk. They found that porbeagle 
sharks were less vulnerable than other shark species to pelagic 
longlines in the Atlantic Ocean (Cortes et al., 2010). Murua et al., 
(2012) also ranked the vulnerability of porbeagle sharks based on the 
productivity and susceptibility to fishing gear. In the Indian Ocean, 
porbeagle ranked eight (rankings 1-16 with lower numbers being more 
vulnerable (Murua et al., 2012)). SCRS (2014) reported on a risk 
assessment carried out for 20 stocks of pelagic sharks, finding 
porbeagle sharks to rank fourth in vulnerability (1 being most 
vulnerable) to pelagic longline gear. The Ecological Risk Assessment 
conducted by the committee was a quantitative assessment consisting of 
a risk analysis to evaluate productivity and susceptibility of stocks 
in the Atlantic to being caught in pelagic longline gear (SCRS, 2014; 
Cortes et al., 2015).
    The results of an ecological risk assessment are used to determine 
a species' vulnerability to a specific fishery and can be a first step 
in the assessment process. Although a risk assessment considering a 
specific vulnerability may rank porbeagle sharks higher than other 
sharks in some respects, this is not necessarily an indicator of a high 
risk of extinction. Thus, results of stock assessments, which 
incorporate additional and more quantitative sources of information 
than ERAs, should generally outweigh the qualitative outputs from ERAs 
when available.
    Global climate change, including warming and acidification, is 
unlikely to substantially impact porbeagle populations. The species has 
an inherently high adaptive capacity. They are highly mobile, have a 
broad temperature tolerance, and have a generalist diet. They are 
highly likely to adapt to changing conditions. Chin et al., (2010) 
found that continental shelf- and pelagic sharks have a low overall 
vulnerability to climate change.
    In an assessment of 82 Northeast U.S. fishery species, Hare et al., 
(2016) found that porbeagle sharks have, on a scale of low to very 
high, a high vulnerability to climate change. Exposure to warming ocean 
temperatures and ocean acidification was considered high for most 
species in this region (Hare et al., 2016). This high sensitivity was 
influenced by the porbeagle shark's low productivity and overfished 
status. Most other sensitivity attributes, including habitat and prey 
specificity, mobility, early life history requirements, were considered 
to be low for porbeagle sharks (Hare et al., 2016). Therefore, we 
expect the overall vulnerability to drop as populations rebuild. Hare 
et al., (2016) indicated that the overall climate vulnerability ranking 
would drop to moderate if the poor stock status is removed as a factor. 
In addition, the mobility and temperature tolerances of the species are 
expected to limit the impacts from climate change. The distribution of 
porbeagle sharks may shift away from the northeast United States with 
climate change; its overall population is likely to persist (Curtis et 
al., 2016). Due to their high mobility and temperature tolerances, the 
overall directional effect of climate changes was

[[Page 50478]]

considered to be neutral (Hare et al., 2016).
    This threat may interact with the threat of overutilization and the 
demographic factor of low population growth rates. Since 
overutilization is being reduced through improved management, which 
takes into account the porbeagle shark's life history (e.g., 
restricting directed fishing in mating areas), this threat is expected 
to remain as low for both DPSs.

Summary of Demographic Factors and Threats Affecting Porbeagle Sharks

    Both demographic factors and threats were ranked on a scale from 
very low to very high by the ERA team members. For the demographic 
factors, diversity and spatial structure/connectivity were ranked very 
low for each DPS, abundance was ranked low for each DPS, and growth 
rate/productivity was ranked medium for each DPS. For the threats, 
habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment and disease or 
predation were both ranked very low for each DPS; inadequacy of 
existing regulation mechanisms was ranked low for the North Atlantic 
DPS and other natural or manmade threats was ranked low for each DPS; 
overutilization was ranked medium for each DPS and inadequacy of 
existing regulation mechanisms was ranked medium for the Southern 
Hemisphere DPS. No demographic factors or threats were ranked high or 
very high.
    The only demographic factor ranked above low was growth rate/
productivity. The porbeagle shark's life history traits make the 
populations vulnerable to threats and slow to recover from depletion. 
The only threats ranked above low are overutilization (both DPSs) and 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Southern Hemisphere DPS). 
These threats are ranked as medium. Recent management efforts across 
the globe have reduced fishing mortality. There are a number of 
countries or organizations that restrict the harvest of porbeagle 
sharks. Due to these efforts, stocks are no longer declining and most 
have begun to recover. Given their life history traits, recovery is 
likely to take decades, but demographic risks are mostly low and 
significant threats have been reduced. The inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms for the Southern Hemisphere DPS was ranked medium 
due to uncertainties in monitoring, reporting, and enforcement of 
regulations when compared to the North Atlantic, suggesting the 
Southern Hemisphere DPS may be more vulnerable to this threat.

Overall Risk Summary

    As described, the ERA team used a ``likelihood analysis'' to 
evaluate the overall risk of extinction. The ERA team did not find 
either DPS to be at high risk of extinction as no team members assigned 
points to this category. For the North Atlantic DPS, the current level 
of extinction risk was 7.5 percent likelihood of moderate risk, 80 
percent likelihood of low risk, and 12.5 percent likelihood of not at 
risk. For the foreseeable future, the ERA team found that the level of 
moderate risk remained the same, the level of low risk decreased to 
62.5 percent and the not-at-risk level increased to 30 percent. For the 
Southern Hemisphere population, the current levels were 25 percent 
likelihood of moderate risk, 72.5 percent likelihood of low risk, and 
2.5 percent likelihood of not at risk. Similar to the North Atlantic 
DPS, the level of moderate risk for the Southern Hemisphere DPS 
remained at 25 percent in the foreseeable future; the low risk 
decreased to 70 percent, and the not at risk category increased to 5 
percent.
    While these numbers reflect the percentage of risk assigned to each 
category, we also evaluated the points assigned to each category by 
individual team members to better understand the risk. Each individual 
team member assigned 10 points across the risk categories. As described 
above, no points were assigned to the high risk category for the North 
Atlantic DPS for the current or foreseeable future categories of risk. 
In the North Atlantic DPS, no more than 1 point was assigned by any 
individual to the moderate risk currently or in the foreseeable future. 
Each team member assigned eight points to the low risk category and one 
or two points to the not at risk category for the current risk. For the 
foreseeable future, team members assigned 4 to 8 points to the `low 
risk' and 1 to 6 to the `not at risk' categories.
    As with the North Atlantic DPS, each team member assigned 10 points 
across the four categories for the Southern Hemisphere DPS. No team 
member assigned points to the high risk category for this DPS for 
either the current or foreseeable future level of risk. For the current 
level of extinction risk, team members each assigned 2-3 points to the 
moderate category and 7-8 points to the low category; one team member 
assigned a single point to the not at risk category. For the level of 
risk through the foreseeable future, team members assigned 1-4 points 
to the moderate category and 6-8 points to the low category; two team 
members each assigned one point to the not at risk category.
    The ERA team determined that, overall, both DPSs are at low risk of 
extinction. While the overall risk is low, there is some likelihood of 
a moderate risk of extinction, especially in the Southern Hemisphere 
DPS. The scoring, along with the information in the status review, 
indicates that the moderate level of risk in the Southern Hemisphere 
population is due to the uncertainty in current stock status and 
projections for the Southern Hemisphere, and more uncertainty about the 
adequacy of current and future regulatory mechanisms, including fishery 
monitoring, reporting, and enforcement in that region. In addition, 
generation times are longer in the Southern Hemisphere and the DPS is 
potentially more vulnerable to depletion. Populations with longer 
generation times and low productivity cannot rebound as quickly as 
populations with short generation times and high productivity. 
Considering the factors and despite the uncertainty, each team member 
assigned the majority of the points to the low risk category, resulting 
in 75 percent of the points being assigned to the low/not at risk 
categories. Based on this, we conclude that, while there is some 
uncertainty, the Southern Hemisphere DPS is at low risk of extinction 
currently and in the foreseeable future. We also conclude that the 
North Atlantic DPS is at low risk of extinction currently and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The ERA team noted that there is a higher likelihood that the North 
Atlantic DPS is at low risk of extinction than the Southern Hemisphere 
DPS. Despite these concerns, they still agreed that there was a much 
greater likelihood of Southern Hemisphere porbeagle sharks having an 
overall low risk of extinction. For both DPSs, the ERA team determined 
that overall extinction risk is likely to be lower in the foreseeable 
future (40 years) than it is currently, due to improved management and 
recent indications of population recoveries. This decrease in risk in 
the foreseeable future is reflected in the decrease in the percentages 
in the low level category and the increases in the not at risk 
category. This shift, while relatively small in the Southern 
Hemisphere, indicates that the porbeagle population will face fewer 
threats and populations will grow, provided effective management 
continues to be implemented. Recovery is likely to take decades, but 
the demographic risks are mostly low, and significant threats have been 
reduced.

[[Page 50479]]

    We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and 
commercial information, including the status review report (Curtis et 
al., 2016) and other published and unpublished information. We 
concluded that the two DPSs are not in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future throughout their ranges. As 
described earlier, an endangered species is ``any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species is one ``which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The ERA team ranked the demographic 
criteria and the five factors identified in the ESA and completed an 
assessment of overall risk of extinction. The ERA team provided this 
information to us to determine whether listing is warranted. We 
reviewed the results of the ERA and concurred with the team's 
conclusions regarding extinction risk. We then applied the statutory 
definitions of ``threatened species'' and ``endangered species'' to 
determine if listing either of the DPSs based on the ERA results and 
other available information is warranted.
    The ERA team concluded that the level of extinction risk to the 
North Atlantic DPS is low, with 92.5 percent of its likelihood points 
allocated to the ``low risk'' or ``not at risk'' category, both now and 
in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the percentage assigned to the 
``not at risk'' category increased for the foreseeable future, while 
the percentage assigned to the ``low risk'' category decreased. The ERA 
team allocated only 7.5 percent of its likelihood points to the 
``moderate extinction risk'' category, both now and in the foreseeable 
future. Given this low level of risk and an evaluation of the 
demographic parameters and threats, we have determined that this DPS 
does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
and, as such, listing under the ESA is not warranted at this time.
    The ERA team concluded that the Southern Hemisphere DPS was at low 
risk of extinction, though their distribution of likelihood points 
indicates that there was some uncertainty about this. However, 75 
percent of the likelihood points were allocated to the ``low risk'' or 
``not at risk of extinction'' category. The ERA Team's uncertainty 
about the level of risk is due to some uncertainty in the stock status, 
projections, and fishery monitoring/enforcement. Described in detail 
elsewhere, the primary threat to porbeagle sharks is overfishing. 
Strict management measures have been implemented to minimize this 
threat and, given that abundance and biomass have stabilized, these 
measures appear to be effective in addressing the threat. In addition, 
the available information indicates that the current population, while 
reduced from known historical levels, is sufficient to maintain 
population viability. We agree with the ERA Team's conclusions, and, 
therefore, we conclude that this DPS does not warrant listing as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA at this time.
    We also considered the risk of extinction of porbeagle sharks 
throughout their range. As described above, porbeagle sharks are found 
in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. There is no evidence 
that this range has contracted or that there has been any loss of 
habitat. The abundance and biomass have stabilized and in many areas 
are increasing. As indicated above, overfishing is the primary threat 
to the species throughout its range. Regulations, both domestic and 
international, have been put in place across the range and overfishing 
is not occurring. As the primary threat has been reduced, the 
population has stabilized, and neither of the DPSs are threatened or 
endangered, we have concluded that the species as a whole is not 
threatened or endangered.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    Though we find that the porbeagle shark, the North Atlantic DPS of 
the porbeagle shark, and the Southern Hemisphere DPS of the porbeagle 
shark (all of which are considered ``species'' under the ESA) are not 
in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future, under the SPR 
Policy, we must go on to evaluate whether these species are in danger 
of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in a 
``significant portion of its range'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species 
can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of 
ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range 
that are not reasonably likely to be significant or in which a species 
may not be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions 
that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is 
substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be 
significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those 
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We 
emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a 
determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a 
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining 
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37578, 
July 1, 2014). Making this preliminary determination triggers a need 
for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually 
meets these standards such that the species should be listed.
    If this preliminary determination identifies a particular portion 
or portions for potential listing, those portions are then fully 
evaluated under the ``significant portion of its range'' authority as 
to whether the portion is both biologically significant and endangered 
or threatened. In making a determination of significance, we consider 
the contribution of the individuals in that portion to the viability of 
the species. That is, we determine whether the portion's contribution 
to the viability is so important that, without the members in that 
portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future.
    The SPR policy further explains that, depending on the particular 
facts of each situation, NMFS may find it is more efficient to address 
the significance issue first, but in other cases it will make more 
sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially 
significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an 
affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id. 
``[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not `significant,' 
we will not need to determine whether the species is endangered or 
threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or 
threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to determine if 
that portion is `significant''' (79 FR 37587). Thus, if the answer to 
the first question is negative--whether it addresses the significance 
question or the status question--then the analysis concludes, and 
listing is not warranted.
    As described elsewhere, the ERA team determined that there are two 
DPSs of porbeagle shark. Therefore, we will apply the SPR policy to the 
North Atlantic DPS, the Southern Hemisphere DPS, and the taxonomic 
species separately. The first step in applying the SPR policy is to 
identify portions of the range that may be significant and in which the 
species may be threatened or endangered.
    In the North Atlantic DPS, we preliminarily identified two portions 
for further consideration--the western North Atlantic and the 
Mediterranean

[[Page 50480]]

Sea. Porbeagle sharks in the western North Atlantic may be more 
susceptible to threats than those in the eastern North Atlantic given 
that the western area includes known and suggested locations for mating 
and pupping (birthing). In addition, Campana et al. (2015b) identify 
Emerald Basin off Nova Scotia, Canada, as a potential sensitive life 
history area at least in the fall. Emerald Basin is an area with high 
densities of juveniles (Campana et al., 2015b). The available research 
indicates that mating occurs in at least two locations. The first 
mating ground identified is on the Grand Banks, off southern 
Newfoundland and at the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A second 
mating ground was identified on Georges Bank, based on high catch rates 
and similar aggregations of mature females that did not appear to be 
feeding (Campana et al., 2010b). Research also suggests that there may 
be a pupping ground in the Sargasso Sea (Campana et al., 2010a). 
Transmissions were received from 21 PSATs applied in the summer to 
porbeagle sharks off the eastern coast of Canada between 2001 and 2008. 
While males and immature sharks remained in the cool temperate water, 
all tagged mature females exited these waters by December, swimming to 
the Sargasso Sea. Pupping was strongly suggested based on the 
observation that only the sexually mature females made the migration 
and the residency in the Sargasso Sea overlapped with the known pupping 
period (Campana et al., 2010a). However, pupping was not directly 
observed, only logically inferred from the tagging data. Both the 
mating and pupping stages of the life history can concentrate the 
species in specific areas making them more vulnerable to threats in 
those areas.
    In order to determine whether the western North Atlantic 
constitutes a significant portion of the North Atlantic DPS' range, we 
first examined whether this portion of the range is biologically 
significant. A portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if 
the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so 
important that, without the members of that portion, the species would 
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, throughout all of its range. As described above, this portion 
of the porbeagle range includes known mating and presumed pupping 
areas. These areas are important to the continued existence of the 
North Atlantic DPS as they allow for recruitment into the population. 
Recruitment into the population must occur for it to increase. While 
similar mating areas likely exist in the Northeast Atlantic, these 
areas have not yet been described. In addition, the loss of porbeagle 
sharks in the western North Atlantic would result in a significant gap 
in the distribution of the North Atlantic DPS as this is a relatively 
large area relative to the spatial distribution throughout the North 
Atlantic. We have concluded that the western North Atlantic portion is 
a significant portion of the North Atlantic DPS under the SPR policy.
    Next, we examined whether porbeagle sharks were endangered or 
threatened in the western North Atlantic portion. As described 
elsewhere, the primary threat to porbeagle sharks is fishing. In the 
mating areas, there is no directed fishery for porbeagle sharks. 
Similarly, there is no directed fishing in the area of Emerald Basin. 
Porbeagle sharks may be incidentally caught in other fisheries. In the 
Sargasso Sea (presumed to be a pupping area), tagged sharks undertook 
multiple ascents and descents between 50 and 850 m (164 and 2,789 ft) 
in waters between 8 and 23 [deg]C (46 and 73[emsp14][deg]F). The mean 
daily depth in April and May was 480 m (1,575 ft) indicating that most 
of the pupping period was spent at depth (Campana et al., 2010), which 
would limit the interactions with anthropogenic threats. While 
individual porbeagle sharks may be caught as bycatch in fisheries on 
the mating grounds or in fisheries in the Sargasso Sea, the population 
in the Northwest Atlantic is increasing (see abundance and trends 
above). If fisheries in these areas were impacting the species to the 
extent that they are threatened or endangered, we would not expect the 
population to continue to grow. That is, impacting essential life 
history needs such as mating or pupping would result in less 
recruitment to the population, which would be reflected in the overall 
population trend. Accordingly, the primary threat in these areas is 
being addressed by existing regulatory measures, precluding directed 
fisheries in the areas. There are no other known significant threats in 
these areas. Based on an evaluation of threats in the areas, the 
population data, and life history of the species, we have determined 
that porbeagle sharks in the western North Atlantic are not threatened 
or endangered.
    The second portion of the North Atlantic DPS' range identified as 
potentially significant under the SPR Policy is the Mediterranean Sea. 
Porbeagle shark abundance in the Mediterranean Sea is low, making them 
more vulnerable to threats in this area. As described elsewhere, the 
main threat to the species in the North Atlantic is fishing. In the 
Mediterranean Sea, catch rates are low. However, the available data 
suggest that porbeagle sharks were historically uncommon in this area. 
In addition, the Mediterranean Sea represents a small portion of the 
range of the North Atlantic DPS, which is found in the Mediterranean 
Sea and the North Atlantic. Given that porbeagle sharks are widely 
distributed and highly mobile within the North Atlantic, we did not 
find that the loss of the Mediterranean Sea portion of the range would 
severely fragment and isolate the population to a point where 
individuals would be prevented from moving to suitable habitats or 
would have an increased vulnerability to threats. We also did not find 
that the loss of this portion would result in a level of abundance for 
the remaining North Atlantic population that would to be so low or 
variable that it would cause the DPS to be at an increased risk of 
extinction due to environmental variation, anthropogenic perturbations, 
or depensatory processes. With mixing between the Northeast Atlantic 
and Mediterranean Sea animals, we would also expect that increases in 
the population in the Northeast Atlantic would have positive impacts on 
the population in the Mediterranean Sea as individuals may move from 
the Northeast Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea. There is no 
substantial evidence that the loss of the Mediterranean portion of its 
range would isolate the North Atlantic DPS such that the remaining 
populations would be at risk of extinction from demographic processes. 
As described elsewhere, genetic data show that there is mixing between 
the populations across the North Atlantic. If this portion were lost, 
we would not expect it to result in a loss of genetic diversity in the 
DPS as a whole. Overall, we did not find any evidence to suggest that 
this portion of the range has increased importance over any other with 
respect to the species' survival. Given that porbeagle abundance is 
historically low in the Mediterranean Sea, that the Mediterranean Sea 
represents a small portion of the North Atlantic DPS' range, that 
mixing occurs between the Mediterranean Sea and the Northeast Atlantic, 
and that there is no evidence to suggest that the loss of the 
Mediterranean Sea portion would result in the remainder of the North 
Atlantic DPS being endangered or threatened, we have determined that 
this area does not represent a significant part of the North Atlantic 
DPS' range. Given that the portion is not significant, the question of 
whether it is endangered or threatened in this area is not addressed.

[[Page 50481]]

    The other DPS considered under the SPR policy is the Southern 
Hemisphere DPS. Porbeagle sharks in the Southern Hemisphere are found 
in a continuous band around the globe, and the genetic data indicate 
that this population is mixing. For management purposes, ICCAT has 
identified two stocks in the South Atlantic. There may also be an Indo-
Pacific stock. However, stock boundaries in the Southern Hemisphere 
remain unclear (Curtis et al., 2016). As with the North Atlantic DPS, 
the greatest threat to porbeagle sharks in the Southern Hemisphere is 
fishing. Threats from fishing are likely more concentrated closer to 
the coast. However, there is no evidence that porbeagle sharks face a 
higher risk of extinction in one area of the Southern Hemisphere over 
any other. Under the SPR policy, we could not identify, in the 
preliminary analysis, any portion of the porbeagle shark's range in the 
Southern Hemisphere DPS that may be significant and in which members of 
the species may be endangered or threatened. As we did not find 
evidence to suggest that any one portion of the range has increased 
importance over any other with respect to that species' survival, no 
further analysis under the SPR policy was conducted.
    Finally, we also considered whether there is any portion of the 
range of the taxonomic species that could be considered significant 
under the SPR Policy and that is threatened or endangered. Two portions 
of the range of the species could be considered significant: The North 
Atlantic DPS and the Southern Hemisphere DPS. However, as we described 
above in our extinction risk analysis, these two DPSs are not in danger 
of extinction throughout their ranges or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, there is no need to consider further 
whether any of these two DPSs constitute significant portions of the 
species' range.

Final Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that listing determinations be 
based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after 
conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into 
account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign 
nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the 
species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific 
and commercial information, including the petition, public comments 
submitted in response to the 90-day finding (80 FR 16356; March 27, 
2015), the status review report (Curtis et al., 2016), and other 
published and unpublished information, and we have consulted with 
species experts and individuals familiar with porbeagle sharks. We 
identified two DPSs of the porbeagle shark: The North Atlantic DPS and 
the Southern Hemisphere DPS. We considered each of the Section 4(a)(1) 
factors to determine whether it contributed significantly to the 
extinction risk of each DPS on its own. We also considered the 
combination of those factors to determine whether they collectively 
contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the DPSs. As 
previously explained, we could not identify any portion of either DPS' 
range that met both criteria of the SPR policy. Therefore, our 
determination set forth below is based on a synthesis and integration 
of the foregoing information, factors and considerations, and their 
effects on the status of the species throughout each DPS.
    We conclude that neither the North Atlantic nor Southern Hemisphere 
DPS of porbeagle shark is presently in danger of extinction, nor is it 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We summarize the factors supporting 
this conclusion as follows: (1) The species is broadly distributed over 
a large geographic range within each hemisphere, with no barrier to 
dispersal within each DPS; (2) genetic data indicate that, within each 
DPS, populations are not isolated, have high genetic diversity, and 
reproductive connectivity; (3) there is no evidence of a range 
contraction, and there is no evidence of habitat loss or destruction; 
(4) while the species possesses life history characteristics that 
increase its vulnerability to overutilization, overfishing is not 
currently occurring within the range of either the North Atlantic or 
Southern Hemisphere DPS; (5) the best available information indicates 
that abundance and biomass has stabilized in the Southern Hemisphere 
and is increasing in the North Atlantic; (6) while the current 
population size in both DPSs has declined from historical numbers, the 
population sizes are sufficient to maintain population viability into 
the foreseeable future and consist of at least hundreds of thousands of 
individuals; (7) the main threat to the species is fishery-related 
mortality from incidental catch; however, there are strict management 
requirements in place to minimize this threat in many areas of the 
North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere, and these measures appear to be 
effective in addressing this threat; (8) porbeagle shark's high 
mobility, broad temperature tolerance, and generalist habitat and 
opportunistic diet limit potential impacts from climate change; (9) 
directional effects of climate change are expected to be neutral; (10) 
there is no evidence that disease or predation is contributing to 
increasing the risk of extinction of either DPS; and (11) there is no 
evidence that either DPS is currently suffering from depensatory 
processes (such as reduced likelihood of finding a mate or mate choice 
or diminished fertilization and recruitment success) or is at risk of 
extinction due to environmental variation or anthropogenic 
perturbations.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that the North Atlantic and 
Southern Hemisphere DPSs of the porbeagle shark are not currently in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their 
ranges, nor are they likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 
We have further concluded that the species as a whole is not currently 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 
Accordingly, the porbeagle shark does not meet the definition of a 
threatened or endangered species and, thus, does not warrant listing as 
threatened or endangered at this time.
    Porbeagle sharks from Newfoundland, Canada to Massachusetts, and 
seasonally to New Jersey, were identified as a NMFS ``species of 
concern'' in 2006. A species of concern is one for which we have 
concerns regarding status and threats but for which insufficient 
information is available to indicate a need to list the species under 
the ESA. In identifying species of concern, we consider demographic and 
genetic diversity concerns; abundance and productivity; distribution; 
life history characteristics and threats to the species. Given the 
information presented in the status review and the findings of this 
listing determination, we are removing the designation of species of 
concern for porbeagle sharks in the North Atlantic DPS. This is a final 
action, and, therefore, we do not solicit comments on it.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), we have concluded

[[Page 50482]]

that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental 
assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (See 
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 25, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18101 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P



                                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                                  50463

                                                of intent to participate. The required                        Form Number(s): None.                                Affected Public: Business or other for-
                                                contents of the notice of intent to                           Type of Request: Regular (request for              profit organizations; not-for-profit
                                                participate are set forth at 19 CFR                        extension of a currently approved                     institutions; individuals or households.
                                                351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the                  information collection).                                Frequency: Intermittently (every 2–3
                                                Department’s regulations, if we do not                        Number of Respondents: 460.                        years).
                                                receive a notice of intent to participate                     Average Hours per Response: 30                       Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
                                                from at least one domestic interested                      minutes.                                                This information collection request
                                                party by the 15-day deadline, the                             Burden Hours: 143.                                 may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow
                                                Department will automatically revoke                          Needs and Uses: This request is for                the instructions to view Department of
                                                the order without further review.6                         revision and extension of a currently                 Commerce collections currently under
                                                   If we receive an order-specific notice                  approved information collection. The                  review by OMB.
                                                of intent to participate from a domestic                   revision consists of minor changes to                   Written comments and
                                                interested party, the Department’s                         the information collection tool.                      recommendations for the proposed
                                                                                                              Historically, changes in fisheries                 information collection should be sent
                                                regulations provide that all parties
                                                                                                           management regulations have been                      within 30 days of publication of this
                                                wishing to participate in a Sunset
                                                                                                           shown to result in impacts to                         notice to OIRA_Submission@
                                                Review must file complete substantive
                                                                                                           individuals within the fishery. An                    omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806.
                                                responses not later than 30 days after
                                                                                                           understanding of social impacts in
                                                the date of publication in the Federal                                                                             Dated: July 26, 2016.
                                                                                                           fisheries—achieved through the
                                                Register of this notice of initiation. The                                                                       Sarah Brabson,
                                                                                                           collection of data on fishing
                                                required contents of a substantive                         communities, as well as on individuals                NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
                                                response, on an order-specific basis, are                  who fish—is a requirement under                       [FR Doc. 2016–18076 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
                                                set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note                    several federal laws. Laws such as the                BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
                                                that certain information requirements                      National Environmental Protection Act
                                                differ for respondent and domestic                         and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
                                                parties. Also, note that the Department’s                  Conservation Act (as amended 2007)                    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                information requirements are distinct                      describe such requirements. The
                                                from the Commission’s information                          collection of this data not only helps to             National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                requirements. Consult the Department’s                     inform legal requirements for the                     Administration
                                                regulations for information regarding                      existing management actions, but will
                                                the Department’s conduct of Sunset                                                                               [Docket No. 150122069–6596–02]
                                                                                                           inform future management actions
                                                Reviews. Consult the Department’s                          requiring equivalent information.                     RIN 0648–XD740
                                                regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for                            Literature indicates fisheries
                                                definitions of terms and for other                         rationalization programs have an impact               Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
                                                general information concerning                             on those individuals participating in the             and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding
                                                antidumping and countervailing duty                        affected fishery. The Pacific Fisheries               on Petitions To List Porbeagle Shark
                                                proceedings at the Department.                             Management Council implemented a                      as Threatened or Endangered Under
                                                   This notice of initiation is being                      rationalization program for the Pacific               the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
                                                published in accordance with section                       Coast Groundfish limited entry trawl                  AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries
                                                751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).                   fishery in January 2011. This research                Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
                                                  Dated: July 28, 2016.                                    aims to continue to study the                         Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
                                                Christian Marsh,                                           individuals in the affected fishery over              Commerce.
                                                Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping                 the long term. Data collection will shift             ACTION: Notice; 12-month finding and
                                                and Countervailing Duty Operations.                        from a timing related to changes in the               availability of status review document.
                                                [FR Doc. 2016–18297 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]                catch share program design elements to
                                                BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P                                     a five-year cycle. In addition, the study             SUMMARY:   We, the National Marine
                                                                                                           will compare results to previous data                 Fisheries Service, have completed a
                                                                                                           collection efforts in 2010, 2012, and                 comprehensive status review under the
                                                DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                     2015/2016. The data collected will                    Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
                                                                                                           provide updated and more                              porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in
                                                National Oceanic and Atmospheric                           comprehensive descriptions of the                     response to petitions to list this species.
                                                Administration                                             industry as well as allow for analysis of             Based on the best scientific and
                                                                                                           changes the rationalization program                   commercial information available,
                                                Submission for OMB Review;                                 may create in the fishery. The                        including the status review report
                                                Comment Request                                            measurement of these changes will lead                (Curtis et al., 2016), and taking into
                                                  The Department of Commerce will                          to a greater understanding of the social              account ongoing efforts to protect these
                                                submit to the Office of Management and                     impacts the management measure may                    species, we have determined that
                                                Budget (OMB) for clearance the                             have on the individuals in the fishery.               porbeagle sharks do not warrant listing
                                                following proposal for collection of                       To achieve these goals, it is critical to             at this time. This review identified two
                                                information under the provisions of the                    continue data collection for comparison               Distinct Population Segments (DPS)—
                                                Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.                         to previously collected data and                      North Atlantic and Southern
                                                                                                           establish a time-series which will                    Hemisphere—of porbeagle sharks. We
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                Chapter 35).
                                                  Agency: National Oceanic and                             identify changes over the long term.                  conclude that neither is currently in
                                                Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).                         Analysis can also be correlated with any              danger of extinction throughout all or a
                                                  Title: Pacific Coast Groundfish                          regulatory adjustments due to the                     significant portion of its range or likely
                                                Fishery Rationalization Social Study.                      upcoming five-year review of the                      to become so in the foreseeable future.
                                                  OMB Control Number: 0648–0606.                           program. This study will continue data                We also conclude that the species itself
                                                                                                           collection efforts to achieve the stated              is not currently in danger of extinction
                                                  6 See   19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).                       objectives.                                           throughout all or a significant portion of


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014     20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50464                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                its range or likely to become so in the                  information contained in the original                 population or group of populations that
                                                foreseeable future.                                      petitions. We accepted the 2010                       is discrete from other populations in the
                                                DATES: This finding was made on                          petitions and initiated a review of the               species and significant in relation to the
                                                August 1, 2016.                                          status of the species consistent with the             entire species. On February 7, 1996,
                                                ADDRESSES: The status review document                    ESA mandate that listing determinations               NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                for porbeagle sharks is available                        should be made on the basis of the best               Service (USFWS; together, the Services)
                                                electronically at: http://                               scientific and commercial information                 adopted a policy describing what
                                                www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/                            available. Under the ESA, if a petition               constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species
                                                notwarranted.htm. You may also receive                   is found to present substantial scientific            (61 FR 4722). Under the joint DPS
                                                a copy by submitting a request to the                    or commercial information that the                    policy, we consider the following when
                                                Protected Resources Division, NMFS                       petitioned action may be warranted, a                 identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness
                                                GARFO, 55 Great Republic Drive,                          status review shall be promptly                       of the population segment in relation to
                                                Gloucester, MA 01930, Attention:                         commenced (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).                  the remainder of the species or
                                                Porbeagle Shark 12-month Finding.                           As described in the 90-day finding (80             subspecies to which it belongs; and (2)
                                                                                                         FR 16356, March 27, 2015), new                        the significance of the population
                                                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
                                                                                                         assessments, management actions, and                  segment to the species or subspecies to
                                                Crocker, NMFS Greater Atlantic                           other information became available
                                                Regional Fisheries Office, 978–282–                                                                            which it belongs.
                                                                                                         subsequent to the 2010 90-day finding.                   Section 3 of the ESA further defines
                                                8480 or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office                       This information indicated that the
                                                of Protected Resources, 301–427–8469.                                                                          an endangered species as ‘‘any species
                                                                                                         petitioned actions may be warranted
                                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                                                                     which is in danger of extinction
                                                                                                         and a review of the status of the species
                                                                                                                                                               throughout all or a significant portion of
                                                Background                                               was initiated. The standard for making
                                                                                                                                                               its range’’ and a threatened species as
                                                                                                         a positive 90-day finding (e.g., that a
                                                   We, the National Marine Fisheries                                                                           one ‘‘which is likely to become an
                                                                                                         petitioned action ‘‘may be warranted’’)
                                                Service (NMFS), received a petition,                                                                           endangered species within the
                                                                                                         is low, and if there is information that
                                                dated January 20, 2010, from Wild Earth                                                                        foreseeable future throughout all or a
                                                                                                         can be interpreted in more than one
                                                Guardians (WEG) requesting that we list                                                                        significant portion of its range.’’ Thus,
                                                                                                         way, then a status review may be
                                                porbeagle sharks throughout their entire                                                                       we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to
                                                                                                         conducted in order to delve into the
                                                range, or as Northwest Atlantic,                                                                               be one that is presently in danger of
                                                                                                         available information more thoroughly.
                                                Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean                    We performed that more detailed review                extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on
                                                DPSs under the ESA. WEG also                             and determined that the best available                the other hand, is not presently in
                                                requested that we designate critical                     scientific and commercial information                 danger of extinction, but is likely to
                                                habitat for the species. We also received                taken together does not support a                     become so in the foreseeable future (that
                                                a petition, dated January 21, 2010, from                 listing. This included an in-depth                    is, at a later time). In other words, the
                                                the Humane Society of the United States                  review of the available literature,                   primary statutory difference between a
                                                (HSUS) requesting we list a Northwest                    including the new assessments                         threatened and endangered species is
                                                Atlantic DPS of porbeagle shark as                       described in the 90-day finding and                   the timing of when a species may be in
                                                endangered. In response to these                         additional reports on porbeagle sharks                danger of extinction, either presently
                                                petitions, we published a ‘‘negative’’ 90-               in the Southern Hemisphere. This                      (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
                                                finding on July 12, 2010, in which we                    review informed an Extinction Risk                    (threatened). Section 4 of the ESA also
                                                concluded that the petitions did not                     Assessment (ERA), which was                           requires us to determine whether any
                                                present substantial scientific and                       conducted by a team with expertise in                 species is endangered or threatened as
                                                commercial information indicating that                   shark biology and ecology, stock                      a result of any of the following five
                                                listing under the ESA may be warranted.                  assessment, population dynamics, and                  factors: The present or threatened
                                                   In August 2011, the petitioners filed                 highly migratory species management.                  destruction, modification, or
                                                complaints in the U.S. District Court for                The status review and the ERA were                    curtailment of its habitat or range;
                                                the District of Columbia challenging our                 independently peer reviewed by                        overutilization for commercial,
                                                denial of the petitions. On November                     external experts, and other published                 recreational, scientific, or educational
                                                14, 2014, the court published a                          and unpublished information was used                  purposes; disease or predation; the
                                                Memorandum Opinion granting the                          to make this 12-month determination.                  inadequacy of existing regulatory
                                                plaintiffs’ requests for summary                                                                               mechanisms; or other natural or
                                                judgment in part, denying our request                    Listing Species Under the Endangered                  manmade factors affecting its continued
                                                for summary judgment, and vacating the                   Species Act                                           existence 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)–(E)).
                                                2010 90-day finding for porbeagle                           We are responsible for determining                 Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us
                                                sharks. The court ordered us to prepare                  whether the porbeagle shark is                        to make listing determinations based
                                                a new 90-day finding. The court entered                  threatened or endangered under the                    solely on the best scientific and
                                                final judgment on December 12, 2014                      ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make                 commercial data available after
                                                (remand). The new 90-day finding,                        this determination, we first consider                 conducting a review of the status of the
                                                which published on March 27, 2015 (80                    whether a group of organisms                          species and after taking into account
                                                FR 16356), was based primarily on                        constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under Section 3             efforts being made by any state or
                                                information that had become available                    of the ESA, then whether the status of                foreign nation or political subdivision
                                                since 2010, including a new Canadian                     the species qualifies it for listing as               thereof to protect the species. In
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                assessment of the Northwest Atlantic                     either threatened or endangered. Section              evaluating the efficacy of existing
                                                stock and new information in recent                      3 of the ESA defines species to include               domestic protective efforts, we rely on
                                                proceedings from the International                       ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or               the Services’ joint Policy on Evaluation
                                                Convention for the Conservation of                       plants, and any distinct population                   of Conservation Efforts When Making
                                                Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), regulatory                       segment of any species of vertebrate fish             Listing Decisions (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100;
                                                documents, published literature, and                     or wildlife which interbreeds when                    March 28, 2003) for any conservation
                                                Federal Register notices as well as the                  mature.’’ A DPS is a vertebrate                       efforts that have not been implemented


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                             50465

                                                or have been implemented but not yet                     completeness of the data considered and                  It prefers cold, temperate waters and
                                                demonstrated effectiveness.                              whether uncertainties in these data were              does not occur in equatorial waters.
                                                                                                         identified and characterized in the                   Generally, porbeagle sharks prefer
                                                Status Review
                                                                                                         status review as well as to evaluate the              waters less than 18 °C (64 °F) but have
                                                   The status review report for porbeagle                findings made in the ‘‘Assessment of                  been documented in waters ranging
                                                sharks is composed of two components:                    Extinction Risk’’ section of the report.              from 1–26 °C (34–79 °F) (Compagno,
                                                (1) A scientific literature review and                   They were also asked to specifically                  2002; Francis et al., 2008; Skomal et al.,
                                                analysis of the five ESA Section 4(a)(1)                 identify any information missing or                   2009). Porbeagle sharks are highly
                                                factors and (2) an assessment of the                     lacking justification, or whether                     mobile and capable of making long-
                                                extinction risk. A biologist in NMFS’                    information was applied incorrectly in                distance migrations, though individuals
                                                Greater Atlantic Region’s Sustainable                    reaching conclusions. All peer reviewer               often remain within a smaller range.
                                                Fisheries Division with expertise in                     comments were addressed prior to                         The porbeagle shark is found from
                                                shark ecology was appointed to                           finalizing the status review report.                  surface and inshore waters (less than 1
                                                complete the first component,                            Comments received are posted online.                  m (3 ft)) to deep (>1,000 m (>3,281 ft))
                                                undertaking a scientific review of the                      We subsequently reviewed the status                depths, with variations in depth
                                                life history and ecology, distribution                                                                         distribution depending on the season
                                                                                                         review report, cited references, and peer
                                                and abundance, and an analysis of the                                                                          and region (Compagno 2001; Pade et al.,
                                                                                                         review comments, and concluded that
                                                ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors. An                                                                                2009; Saunders et al., 2009; Skomal et
                                                                                                         the status review report, upon which
                                                Extinction Risk Analysis (ERA) team                                                                            al., 2009; Campana et al., 2010a; Francis
                                                                                                         this listing determination is based,
                                                was convened to conduct the extinction                                                                         et al., 2015). In the Northwest Atlantic,
                                                                                                         provides the best available scientific
                                                risk analysis using the information in                                                                         tagged sharks moved from the surface to
                                                                                                         and commercial information on
                                                the scientific review as a basis. The ERA                                                                      1300 m (4265 ft) with no difference in
                                                                                                         porbeagle sharks. Much of the
                                                team was comprised of a fishery                                                                                depths used during the day or night.
                                                                                                         information discussed below on
                                                management specialist from NMFS’                                                                               Seasonal differences in depth
                                                                                                         porbeagle shark biology, genetic
                                                Highly Migratory Species Management                                                                            distribution were observed (Campana et
                                                Division, two research fishery biologists                diversity, distribution, abundance,
                                                                                                                                                               al., 2010a). Mature female sharks tagged
                                                from NMFS’ Northeast and Southeast                       threats, and extinction risk is
                                                                                                                                                               in the Northwest Atlantic moved to the
                                                Fisheries Science Centers, and the                       attributable to the status review report.
                                                                                                                                                               Sargasso Sea, suggesting a pupping area
                                                Sustainable Fisheries Division biologist                 However, we have independently
                                                                                                                                                               (Campana et al., 2010a). Two relatively
                                                who did the scientific literature review                 applied the statutory provisions of the
                                                                                                                                                               small tagging studies were conducted in
                                                and analysis of Section 4(a)(1) factors.                 ESA, including evaluation of the factors
                                                                                                                                                               the Northeast Atlantic. In these studies,
                                                The ERA team had group expertise in                      set forth in Section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E); our
                                                                                                                                                               porbeagle sharks ranged from the
                                                shark biology and ecology, population                    regulations regarding listing
                                                                                                                                                               surface to 500–700 m (1640–2297 ft)
                                                dynamics, highly migratory species                       determinations; and, our DPS and
                                                                                                                                                               depth, and differences in vertical
                                                management, and stock assessment                         Significant Portion of its Range (SPR)                distribution during day and night were
                                                science. The ERA team also reviewed                      policies in making the listing                        observed (Pade et al., 2009; Saunders et
                                                the information in the scientific                        determination.                                        al., 2009). In a study in the Southern
                                                literature review. The status review                     Taxonomy                                              Hemisphere, Francis et al. (2015)
                                                report for porbeagle sharks (Curtis et al.,                                                                    evaluated the vertical movements of 10
                                                2016) compiles the best available                          Porbeagle sharks belong to the family               porbeagle sharks. All of the sharks in
                                                information on the status of the species                 Lamnidae, genus Lamna, and species                    the study dived to depths of at least 600
                                                as required by the ESA, provides an                      nasus. The petitioned subject is a valid              m (1969 ft), with a maximum recorded
                                                evaluation of the discreteness and                       species as defined under the ESA.                     depth of 1024 m (3360 ft) and vertical
                                                significance of populations in terms of                  Distribution and Habitat Use                          movements were observed.
                                                the DPS policy, and assesses the current                                                                          The porbeagle shark is a habitat
                                                and future extinction risk, focusing                       Porbeagle sharks are found in both the              generalist and not substantially
                                                primarily on threats related to the five                 Northern and Southern Hemispheres.                    dependent on any particular habitat
                                                statutory factors set forth above. This                  They are commonly found in waters                     type. Its use of habitat is influenced by
                                                report presents the ERA team’s                           over the continental shelf, shelf edges,              temperature and prey distribution, but
                                                professional judgment of the extinction                  and in open ocean waters. In the                      the shark has broad temperature
                                                risk facing porbeagle sharks but makes                   Northern Hemisphere, they are found in                tolerances and an opportunistic diet
                                                no recommendation as to the listing                      the North Atlantic Ocean in pelagic and               (Curtis et al., 2016). The porbeagle shark
                                                status of the species. The status review                 coastal waters in and adjacent to the                 is an opportunistic feeder, taking
                                                report is available electronically at the                Northeast coast of the United States,                 advantage of available prey (Joyce et al.,
                                                Web site listed above.                                   Newfoundland Banks, Iceland, Barents,                 2002; Campana and Joyce 2004). The
                                                   The status review report was                          Baltic, and North Seas, the coast of                  diet is characterized by a diverse range
                                                subjected to independent peer review as                  Western Europe down to the Northwest                  of pelagic, epipelagic, and benthic
                                                required by the Office of Management                     African coast, and the Mediterranean                  species, depending on what is available
                                                and Budget Final Information Quality                     Sea. They are absent from waters of the               (Joyce et al., 2002). Prey species include
                                                Bulletin for Peer Review (M–05–03;                       North Pacific. In the Southern                        teleosts (a large and diverse group of
                                                December 16, 2004). The status review                    Hemisphere, they are distributed in a                 bony fish), including lancetfish,
                                                report was peer reviewed by four                         continuous band around the globe in
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                                                                               flounders, lumpfish, and Atlantic cod,
                                                independent specialists selected from                    temperate waters of the Southern                      and cephalopods, including squid
                                                government, academic, and scientific                     Atlantic, Southern Indian, and Southern               (Joyce et al., 2002). In the Gulf of Maine,
                                                communities, with expertise in shark                     Pacific Oceans. Like other lamnid                     porbeagle sharks predominately feed on
                                                biology, conservation and management,                    sharks, the porbeagle shark is                        mackerel, herring, and other small
                                                and specific knowledge of porbeagle                      endothermic (warm-blooded). There is                  fishes, other species of sharks, and
                                                sharks. The peer reviewers were asked                    no evidence suggesting that the range of              squids (Collette and Klein-MacPhee,
                                                to evaluate the adequacy, quality, and                   the species has contracted.                           2002).


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50466                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                Life History                                             been identified in the Atlantic Ocean.                kilometers and returned back to the
                                                   The porbeagle shark is an aplacental,                 These include two in the Northern                     area. Other tags such as pop-up satellite
                                                viviparous species with oophagy. This                    Hemisphere—the Northwest and                          archival tags (e.g., PSATs) are attached
                                                means embryos develop inside eggs that                   Northeast Atlantic stocks—and two in                  to the animal and store information
                                                are retained in the mother’s body until                  the Southern Hemisphere—the                           including location, light level, depth,
                                                the young are born live. There is no                     Southwest and Southeast Atlantic                      and temperature throughout the tag’s
                                                placental connection, and the eggs are                   stocks. There may also be an Indo-                    deployment period (typically up to 1
                                                consumed in utero during gestation and                   Pacific stock in the Southern                         year). The tag then detaches from the
                                                                                                         Hemisphere, but the stock boundaries                  animal, floats to the ocean surface, and
                                                development (Jensen et al., 2002). Size
                                                                                                         remain unclear. The Northwest Atlantic                transmits all of the stored data to a
                                                at birth is approximately 58–67 cm
                                                                                                         stock includes porbeagle sharks from                  satellite; those data are used to
                                                (22.8–26.4 inches) (Francis et al., 2008;
                                                                                                         the waters on and adjacent to the                     reconstruct the movements of the
                                                Forselledo, 2012). Porbeagle sharks have
                                                                                                         continental shelf of North America, and               animal during deployment. This
                                                low productivity, an 8–9 month
                                                                                                         the Northeast stock includes porbeagle                provides more insight into the animal’s
                                                gestation period (Jensen et al., 2002;
                                                                                                         sharks from the waters in and adjacent                movements as it collects data on a more
                                                Francis et al., 2008), and an average
                                                                                                         to the Barents Sea south to Northwest                 continuous (daily) basis. These satellite
                                                litter size of four pups (Jensen et al.,
                                                                                                         Africa, including the Mediterranean                   tags allow for collection of movement
                                                2002; Francis et al., 2008). Ages of
                                                                                                         Sea. In defining stocks, a range of                   information even if the animal is not
                                                sexual maturity are approximately 8                                                                            recaptured.
                                                years for males and 13 years for females                 information is considered, including
                                                                                                         fisheries, biological, distribution,                     Tagging data indicate that porbeagle
                                                in the Northwest Atlantic (Jensen et al.,                                                                      shark movements across the North
                                                2002; Natanson et al., 2002; CITES,                      genetic, and tagging information. While
                                                                                                         these stocks do not necessarily equate to             Atlantic are limited (that is, a limited
                                                2013) and 8–11 years for males and 15–                                                                         number of porbeagle sharks move across
                                                18 years for females in New Zealand                      DPSs, they are useful delineations for
                                                                                                         discussing the population abundance                   the Atlantic), but do occur (ICES/
                                                (Francis et al., 2008; CITES, 2013). The                                                                       ICCAT, 2009). One porbeagle shark
                                                maximum age of porbeagle sharks is                       and trends as this is how data for this
                                                                                                         species are frequently collected and                  tagged in the Northeast Atlantic was
                                                estimated at 46 years in an unfished                                                                           recaptured off Newfoundland, Canada;
                                                population, but may exceed 65 years in                   reported.
                                                                                                                                                               this means that trans-Atlantic
                                                the Southern Hemisphere (Natanson et                        Tagging and genetic data help define               movements occur at least occasionally
                                                al., 2002; ICCAT, 2009; CITES, 2013).                    stock structure. Tagging studies may use              (ICES, 2007). The greatest distance
                                                   In a comparison of life history                       conventional or electronic tags to collect            documented between conventional tag
                                                characteristics of 38 shark species, the                 data on an animal’s movements.                        release and recapture location is 4,260
                                                population growth rate of porbeagle                      Conventional tags have a unique                       km. The time between tagged/released
                                                sharks in the Northwest Atlantic was in                  number and contact information printed                and recapture has been as long as 16.8
                                                the lower-third of the species examined.                 on them. When an animal with a tag is                 years (N. Kohler, NMFS, unpublished
                                                The reported population growth rate                      captured, scientists can use the tag                  data as reported in Curtis et al., 2016).
                                                was 1.022 (values less than 1 indicate                   number to identify the location and date                 Several recent studies have used
                                                negative population growth rates) with                   of release as well as any other                       PSATs to track porbeagle sharks in the
                                                a mean generation time of                                information recorded when the animal                  Northwest and Northeast Atlantic and
                                                approximately 18 years (Cortes, 2002).                   was tagged. This information, along                   the Southwest Pacific (Pade et al., 2008;
                                                Juvenile survival rates were among the                   with information recorded when the                    ICCAT, 2009; Skomal et al., 2009;
                                                highest of the shark species analyzed,                   animal is recaptured, can be used to                  Campana et al., 2010a; Saunders et al.,
                                                resulting in high overall natural survival               identify information such as how long                 2011; Bendall et al., 2013; Francis et al.,
                                                rates (84–90 percent). A recent                          the shark was at large, distance between              2015). The maximum displacement by a
                                                assessment (Cortes et al., 2015)                         release and recapture locations, and                  porbeagle recorded with a satellite tag
                                                conducted by ICCAT found that the                        how much the animal grew during that                  (4,400 km) was similar to that
                                                population growth rate for porbeagle                     time. There are several limitations to                documented with conventional tags.
                                                sharks in the Atlantic ranked 13th                       interpreting conventional tagging data.               However, most animals showed
                                                highest out of 20 stocks and the                         First, it relies on recapturing the animal            relatively restricted movements and
                                                generation time was on the order of 20                   and reporting that capture to                         fidelity to the site where they were
                                                years. The generation time in the                        researchers. In studies of porbeagle                  tagged, at least within the tracking
                                                Southern Hemisphere is longer due to                     sharks, the recapture and reporting rate              duration (<1 year). This means that
                                                slower growth rates and greater                          is approximately 10 percent of tags                   while some porbeagle sharks make long
                                                estimated longevity. In sum, porbeagle                   deployed (Kohler et al., 2002; Curtis et              distance migrations, most animals did
                                                sharks are a slow maturing, relatively                   al., 2016), meaning that for every 100                not. While the data are limited, a few
                                                long lived species with a relatively low                 porbeagle sharks tagged, only 10 are                  animals have traveled great distances
                                                population growth rate.                                  recaptured and reported back to                       showing the biological potential for the
                                                                                                         researchers. Second, with a                           species to move between areas.
                                                Population Structure                                     conventional tag the researcher only                  Individuals often remain within the
                                                   Stocks are often used to define                       knows the location where the animal                   range of a particular stock, but these
                                                populations for fisheries management                     was tagged and released and where it                  data indicate that porbeagle sharks do
                                                purposes. These stock management                         was recaptured. The animal’s movement
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                                                                               occasionally move between stock areas.
                                                units are not equivalent to DPSs unless                  between these two locations is                           Mature female porbeagle sharks
                                                they also meet the criteria for                          unknown. For example, if an animal                    appear to make the largest movements
                                                identifying a DPS. As described in the                   was tagged/released and later                         in the Northwest Atlantic. Several
                                                report for the 2009 porbeagle stock                      recaptured within a few kilometers, we                sharks tagged off Canada swam
                                                assessment meeting (International                        would not know if the animal had                      southward to the subtropical Sargasso
                                                Council for the Exploration of the Sea                   stayed in that small area for the entire              Sea and northern Caribbean region,
                                                (ICES)/ICCAT, 2009), four stocks have                    time or if it had traveled thousands of               presumably to pup (Campana et al.,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                            50467

                                                2010a). Males and immature sharks                        populations in the Northern                              This means that while the North
                                                have also made significant movements                     Hemisphere are markedly separated                     Atlantic stock sizes are smaller than
                                                (Saunders et al., 2011; Francis et al.,                  from those in the Southern Hemisphere.                threshold levels (because of fishing or
                                                2015; J. Sulikowski (unpublished data)                                                                         other causes), the annual catch rate is at
                                                                                                         Abundance and Trends
                                                as cited in Curtis et al., 2016). Saunders                                                                     a level that is allowing rebuilding. There
                                                et al. (2011) report that a small male                      As described above, porbeagle sharks               is also evidence to suggest that the
                                                migrated greater than 2,400 km. In a                     are managed for fisheries purposes by                 populations in the Southern
                                                study in the Southern Hemisphere,                        stock unit. Therefore, much of the data               Hemisphere, while overfished, are
                                                porbeagle sharks made movements of                       on the abundance of populations is by                 stable or increasing (ICES/ICCAT, 2009;
                                                hundreds to thousands of kilometers. In                  stock. In the North Atlantic, porbeagle               Pons and Domingo, 2010; Francis et al.,
                                                this study, an immature male shark had                   sharks have declined from 1960s                       2014; WCPFC, 2014).
                                                the maximum estimated track length                       population levels due to overharvesting.                 Northwest Atlantic—The estimate of
                                                (Francis et al., 2015).                                  However, the populations are currently                the stock of porbeagle sharks in the
                                                   Genetic data can also help define                     stable or increasing and are on a                     Northwest Atlantic in 1961 is
                                                population structure. Though the                         trajectory to recovery (Curtis et al.,                considered to be at an unexploited or
                                                available data from tags indicate little                 2016), meaning that the population in                 virgin level. Therefore, this estimate is
                                                exchange between the Northwest and                       the North Atlantic is growing. The                    used for comparison with more recent
                                                Northeast Atlantic stocks (likely due to                 North Atlantic stocks of porbeagle                    estimates. Several models have assessed
                                                the low overall sample size), genetic                    sharks are considered overfished. In                  porbeagle shark abundance, biomass,
                                                analysis shows these stocks mix (Pade et                 overfished stocks, the biomass is well                and trends in the Northwest Atlantic.
                                                al., 2006; Testerman et al., 2007; ICES/                 below the biomass at maximum                          Different types of models have been
                                                ICCAT, 2009; Kitamura and Matsunaga,                     sustainable yield (BMSY), which is the                used, including forward-projecting age
                                                2010). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)                         abundance level that can support the                  and sex structured models (DFO, 2005;
                                                studies indicate that there is no                        largest, long-term average catch that can             Campana et al., 2012) and a Bayesian
                                                differentiation between the stocks                       be taken under existing conditions, and               Surplus Production (BSP) model (ICES/
                                                within the North Atlantic (Pade et al.,                  is considered the biomass target for                  ICCAT, 2009). These independent
                                                2006; Testerman et al., 2007). These                     fisheries management. Generally, a                    models came to the same conclusions
                                                studies documented that dominant                         stock is first considered overfished once             with respect to the stock size and trends
                                                haplotypes were present in samples                       estimates of biomass are lower than a                 (i.e., stock size below target levels, but
                                                from both sides of the Atlantic,                         specific target level. For many fish                  increasing).
                                                indicating that there is gene flow that is               species that target level is one-half                    For 2005, the stock was estimated to
                                                not being identified clearly through the                 BMSY. However, generally for sharks,                  be between 188,000 to 195,000 (DFO,
                                                tagging studies. Kitamura and                            because their natural mortality is so                 2005) individuals, 12–24 percent of the
                                                Matsunaga (2010) also found no                           low, the target level can be greater than             1961 estimates (Gibson and Campana,
                                                indication of multiple populations in                    one-half BMSY (e.g., 0.75 BMSY). In other             2005). Campana et al. (2012) modeled
                                                the North Atlantic based on genetic                      words, the specific target at which we                the populations from the 1961 baseline
                                                studies. Similarly, genetic studies in the               would consider a shark species to be                  and projected forward by adding
                                                Southern Hemisphere indicate that                        overfished is species-specific and                    recruitment to the population and
                                                porbeagle sharks in that region are not                  depends on that species’ level of natural             removing catches. This assessment ran
                                                significantly differentiated (Testerman                  mortality. Once declared overfished, a                four different models using differing
                                                et al., 2007; Kitamura and Matsunaga,                    species continues to be considered                    assumptions, a routine practice in
                                                2010). Genetic analyses also suggest no                  overfished until biomass returns to a                 fisheries stock assessment. This method
                                                separation between the southeastern                      different target level. Generally, that               estimated 196,111–206,956 porbeagle
                                                Indian Ocean and the southwestern                        level is BMSY.                                        sharks in 2009 (Campagna et al., 2012),
                                                Indian Ocean, indicating that the                           While porbeagle sharks in the North                22–27 percent of the 1961 estimates.
                                                distribution across the Indian Ocean is                  Atlantic are overfished, overfishing is               The estimates for 2005 and 2009 can be
                                                continuous (Semba et al., 2013).                         not occurring. (SCRS, 2014; Curtis et al.,            directly compared because the same
                                                   There are several genetic studies that                2016). Overfishing is a level or rate of              models and data sources were used in
                                                show marked differences between the                      fishing mortality that jeopardizes the                estimating the populations. The results
                                                Northern and Southern Hemispheres,                       long-term capacity of the stock to                    indicate that the overall population is
                                                supporting the conclusions that these                    produce MSY on a continuing basis. As                 increasing; even when comparing the
                                                populations do not mix (Pade et al.,                     explained above, being overfished does                low ends of the estimates (188,000
                                                2006; Testerman et al., 2007; ICES/                      not necessarily mean that the                         porbeagle sharks in 2005 compared to
                                                ICCAT, 2009; Kitamura and Matsunaga,                     population is not growing, it is not an               196,111 porbeagle sharks in 2009).
                                                2010). It is likely that the porbeagle                   indication of population trajectory—it                   Campana et al. (2012) also estimated
                                                shark’s preference for colder                            just means that biomass is below a target             the number of mature females. The
                                                temperatures limits movement between                     level. An overfished stock can be                     estimated number of mature females in
                                                the hemispheres (Curtis et al., 2016). If                rebuilding and on a trajectory to                     2009 ranged from 11,339 to 14,207
                                                populations are markedly separated and                   recovery. Overfishing will slow the rate              individuals. The estimates of mature
                                                adapted to the environment, the                          of biomass growth and, if it continues,               females or spawning stock biomass are
                                                differences that occur are shown as they                 can reverse replenishment and the                     used as indicators of stock health. All
                                                                                                         population will decrease. With respect
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                begin to diverge genetically. Within the                                                                       four models indicated that the number
                                                North Atlantic, the data show that they                  to extinction risk, an overfished marine              of mature females in the Northwest
                                                are not genetically distinct, that mixing                fish stock may be at greater risk than                Atlantic stock is increasing and that the
                                                is occurring, and that they are not                      one that is not overfished, but being                 2009 estimates are higher than the 2005
                                                markedly separated. Similarly, the                       overfished does not automatically                     levels (Campana et al., 2012).
                                                studies within the Southern Hemisphere                   equate to a species having an especially                 Furthermore, estimated total biomass
                                                also indicate that these populations are                 high risk of extinction (Curtis et al.,               (the weight of all porbeagle sharks
                                                not genetically distinct. However, the                   2016).                                                collectively) is also increasing. In 2009,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00008   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50468                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                total biomass was around 10,000 metric                   but, as noted above, based on the                     series in each year (catch-weighted
                                                tons (mt), 20–24 percent of the 1961                     maximum likelihood method, the                        model; meaning that annual data with
                                                estimate. The 2005 assessment did not                    researchers identified this model                     more catch had a greater influence on
                                                assess the total biomass. However,                       variation as the ‘‘least plausible’’                  the model output). The equal-weighted
                                                Campana et al. (2012) did estimate total                 variation and indicated that it is not                BSP considered eight CPUE series; six
                                                biomass in 2001. The 2009 biomass                        likely an indicator of the true trend in              Canadian CPUE series, the U.S. series,
                                                estimate is 4–22 percent higher than the                 the population (Campana et al., 2010b;                and the Spanish series (limited to two
                                                biomass estimated from 2001 (Campana                     Campana et al., 2012). Because of this,               areas). Each point in each data series
                                                et al., 2012; Campana et al., 2010b).                    it is not reasonable to rely on Model 2.              was given equal weight (equal weighted
                                                Population metrics are often expressed                   The overall agreement of all modeled                  model; meaning that the relative amount
                                                in biomass rather than the number of                     population trends provides strong                     of catch in each annual point had no
                                                individuals, as catch data are reported                  evidence of increasing abundance in                   influence on the model output). Thus
                                                in weight. An increase in biomass is                     this stock (Campana et al., 2012).                    the Canadian series, which has the
                                                generally indicative of an increase in                      Similarly, all four model variations               majority of the catch, was effectively
                                                number of individuals (Curtis et. al.,                   show increases in female stock numbers                given more weight than the United
                                                2016) and not just an increase in the                    and three of the four show increases in               States or Spanish series. The catch-
                                                weight of the same number of                             general populations from 2005–2009.                   weighted BSP model estimated the
                                                individuals. Significantly, all four                     Again, model 2 was the exception. This                biomass in 2005 to be 66 percent of the
                                                model variations show mean increases                     model estimated a slight decrease                     1961 biomass. The equal weighted BSP
                                                in biomass since 2001, confirming the                    (approximately two percent or 4,000                   model estimated the biomass in 2005 as
                                                increasing biomass estimated in the                      fish) in the overall population from                  37 percent of the 1961 biomass. Both
                                                stock assessment (ICES/ICCAT, 2009).                     2005 to 2009. As mentioned, this model                models resulted in estimates higher than
                                                This increase likely indicates increased                 was determined to be the ‘‘least                      the estimate of 10–24 percent from the
                                                recruitment to the adult stock and                       plausible’’ (Campana et al., 2012). Even              Campana et al. (2010) age-structured
                                                continued growth of individual fish in                   if the more conservative model 2 (a                   model. Results of the BSP model
                                                the stock (Curtis et al., 2016).                         lower productivity scenario) more                     applied to data through 2009 were
                                                   Maximum likelihoood estimation is a                   closely reflected the reality of porbeagle            similar to those of the age-structured
                                                technical, computer-intensive statistical                stock size, the stock was still projected             model, providing further support that
                                                approach that allows a researcher to                     to increase under the current harvest                 Model 2 (Campana et al., 2012) is less
                                                evaluate the parameters in a model to                    levels (Campana et al., 2012). Based on               reliable. Because the two independent
                                                identify those with the greatest                         the four model runs and taking into                   models came to the same conclusions
                                                likelihood of having produced the                        account the most plausible scenarios as               with respect to the stock size and trends
                                                observed (given) data. This statistical                  defined by the researchers, the                       (i.e., stock size below target levels, but
                                                analysis produces a maximum                              reasonable conclusion is that biomass                 increasing), we have confidence in the
                                                likelihood value. By iteratively changing                and the general population has                        determination that the stock has
                                                the parameters in the model until this                   increased since 2001 and will continue                increased.
                                                value is found to be highest (maximum),                  to increase in the future (Curtis et al.,                The ICES/ICCAT (2009) working
                                                the researcher can identify those                        2016).                                                group looked at all available models,
                                                parameters most likely to have                              The models used by Campana et al.                  data, and fits to the data. They
                                                produced the observed data.                              (2010, 2012) were forward projecting                  determined that, in recent years, total
                                                   Model runs with different parameters                  age- and sex-based models. These                      biomass is increasing and fishing
                                                or parameter values will result in                       models projected the population                       mortality is decreasing. This indicates
                                                different maximum likelihood values.                     forward in time from an equilibrium                   that the Northwest Atlantic stock is
                                                Therefore, this approach can be used to                  starting abundance (i.e., the unfished                recovering. These results are supported
                                                evaluate a series of models as to which                  population in 1961) and age distribution              by more recent assessments (Campana et
                                                model is the preferred model; that is,                   by adding recruitment and removing                    al., 2010; Campana et al., 2012; SCRS,
                                                which model fits the data best. Models                   catches. The models assessed both the                 2014). In summary, recent biomass and
                                                with higher maximum likelihood values                    female population and total population.               abundance appears to be increasing
                                                are more likely than those with lower                       In 2009, the ICES/ICCAT stock                      under all available models. While the
                                                values to have produced the observed                     assessment working group ran a BSP                    population is overfished, overfishing is
                                                data. Therefore, models with higher                      model for the Northwest Atlantic stock,               not occurring.
                                                maximum likelihood values may be                         which was considered in addition to the                  Northeast Atlantic—This stock has
                                                preferred.                                               forward projecting age- and sex-based                 the longest history of being targeted by
                                                   Using this approach, Campana et al.                   model from Campana et al. (2010). The                 commercial fishing. The highest catches
                                                (2012) concluded that Model 1 was the                    BSP model was used to confirm the                     occurred between the 1930s and 1950s
                                                most plausible model. Model 1 showed                     trends from the results of Campana’s                  (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The lack of CPUE
                                                increases in the number of mature                        age-structured model. The Campana et                  data during the peak of the fishery
                                                females in the overall populations since                 al. (2010) model and the BSP model are                makes it difficult to estimate current
                                                2001, likely reflecting the positive                     based on different assumptions as to                  status relative to biomass of an unfished
                                                effects of management (Campana et al.,                   how the data should be interpreted and                stock. The ICCAT stock assessment
                                                2012). Model 2 was the least plausible                   weighted and, therefore, result in                    working group ran various model
                                                                                                         differing estimates. The BSP model used
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                model. Therefore, it is not reasonable to                                                                      scenarios to assess the Northeast
                                                rely on Model 2 to assess the                            catch per unit effort (CPUE) to estimate              Atlantic stock of porbeagle sharks. The
                                                population.                                              biomass and weighted the CPUE data                    working group found that the stock was
                                                   All model variations, except model 2,                 using two approaches resulting in two                 overfished but that overfishing was not
                                                showed increases in the overall                          variations of the model. CPUE data in                 occurring and that current management
                                                population since 2001. Model 2                           the catch-weighted model were                         was likely to prevent the stock from
                                                suggested that there could have been                     weighted by relative proportion of the                declining further and allow recovery
                                                slightly fewer fish in 2009 than 2001,                   catch corresponding to each CPUE                      (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The working group


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                            50469

                                                indicated that the stock would recover                   ability to provide a robust indication of             1997 and domestic Australian fishing
                                                within 15–34 years (one to two                           the stock status and sustainable harvest              effort is greatly reduced in areas where
                                                generations) if there was no fishing                     levels. However, there is some                        porbeagle sharks were caught (Bruce et
                                                mortality (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). Under                      information available. The 2009 ICES/                 al., 2014). Porbeagle sharks are also
                                                the 2009 European Union (EU) total                       ICCAT working group found that the                    caught incidentally in New Zealand’s
                                                allowable catch (TAC) level, the stock                   available data, from the Uruguayan                    Southern Bluefin Tuna longline fishery.
                                                was projected to increase slowly but not                 longline fleet operating between 1982                 In New Zealand waters in recent years,
                                                rebuild (i.e., reach a target population                 and 2008, indicate a long-term decline                stock status indices showed no sign of
                                                size that supports maximum sustainable                   in CPUE in the Uruguayan fleet,                       declining trends in abundance (Francis
                                                yield) within 50 years. The TAC is the                   meaning that fewer porbeagle sharks                   et al., 2014; WCPFC, 2014). The CPUE
                                                amount of the species allowed to be                      were being caught with the same                       indices were stable or increasing and
                                                harvested by all users, commercial and                   amount of effort in 2008 compared to                  the frequency of zero catches in the
                                                recreational, over a specified time. In                  1982. The data indicate that the CPUE                 fishery declined, suggesting increases in
                                                2010, the TAC was set at zero and has                    has stabilized since 2000 (ICES/ICCAT,                relative abundance since 2005.
                                                remained at zero; therefore, it is                       2009). In a modeling effort, they                        The level of diversity in genetic
                                                reasonable to assume that at the current                 concluded that biomass levels may be                  samples can also be an indicator of the
                                                fishing levels the stock will continue to                below BMSY and that fishing mortality                 population size. Mitochondrial DNA
                                                increase and rebuild.                                    rates may be above those producing                    from samples in the North and South
                                                   Porbeagle sharks from the Northeast                   MSY (i.e., overfishing may be                         Atlantic show high diversity, indicative
                                                Atlantic stock are also found in the                     occurring). Pons and Domingo (2010)                   of a large population. Porbeagle sharks
                                                Mediterranean Sea. The Mediterranean                     also evaluated the CPUE using data from               are the third most dominant species in
                                                Sea is in the southeastern edge of the                   1982–2008. They found declines in                     the sub-Antarctic region of the South
                                                porbeagle shark’s range in the North                     CPUE in the Uruguayan fleet during the                Pacific and are common throughout the
                                                Atlantic, and the species has always                     1990s, but that the trend has been stable             Southern Hemisphere (Semba et al.,
                                                been uncommon in the region (Storai et                   or slightly increasing since 2000. In                 2013).
                                                al., 2005; CITES, 2013). There is no                     2013, Uruguay prohibited retention of                    In summary, stocks in the North
                                                information suggesting that porbeagle                    porbeagle sharks. The Standing                        Atlantic have stabilized and appear to
                                                sharks in the Mediterranean Sea are                      Committee on Research and Statistics                  be increasing. The Southwest Atlantic
                                                isolated genetically or spatially from the               (SCRS, 2014) determined that the                      stock is considered overfished but
                                                larger Northeast Atlantic stock. Given                   Southwest Atlantic stock was overfished               overfishing is not occurring. Information
                                                that porbeagle sharks are highly mobile                  but overfishing was probably not                      on the Southeast Atlantic stock is too
                                                and habitat generalists, the animals in                  occurring. While data in the Southeast                limited to determine the overfished/
                                                the Mediterranean Sea are likely to mix                  Atlantic was too limited to assess                    overfishing status, but it has been stable
                                                with animals in adjacent regions.                        whether porbeagle stocks were                         and not declining since the 1990s (ICES/
                                                Ferretti et al. (2008) examined various                  overfished or if overfishing was                      ICCAT, 2009; SCRS, 2014). Populations
                                                historical data sources, some of which                   occurring (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; SCRS,                    in New Zealand also appear to be
                                                dated back to 1800s, from the                            2014), catch rate patterns suggest that               increasing (Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC,
                                                Mediterranean Sea and estimated that                     this stock has stabilized since 2000 and              2014). Stocks in the Southern
                                                lamnid sharks (including porbeagle and                   is no longer declining (ICES/ICCAT,                   Hemisphere have stabilized and some
                                                shortfin mako sharks) had declined                       2009; Pons and Domingo, 2010).                        may be increasing.
                                                significantly from historical levels. The                   Semba et al. (2013) analyzed                       Distinct Population Segment Analysis
                                                researchers were unable to distinguish                   porbeagle sharks in the Southern
                                                what portion of the decline is                           Hemisphere using standardized CPUE                       As described above, the ESA’s
                                                attributable to porbeagle sharks.                        data from the southern Bluefin Tuna                   definition of ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any
                                                Porbeagle sharks have had a low                          longline fishery (1994–2011) and a                    subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
                                                occurrence and catch rate in this region                 driftnet survey (1982–1990). The study                and any distinct population segment of
                                                even at the earliest stages of the time                  found no decreasing trend in abundance                any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
                                                series (Ferretti et al., 2008). This                     and concluded porbeagle sharks had a                  which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
                                                research was based on small overall                      widely continuous distribution between                term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is
                                                sample sizes and used methods that                       the South Pacific and southeastern                    not recognized in the scientific
                                                have been previously criticized as                       Indian Ocean and between the                          literature and is not clarified in the ESA
                                                producing overly pessimistic population                  southwestern Indian Ocean and                         or its implementing regulations.
                                                trends (Burgess et al., 2005). Storai et al.             southeastern Atlantic Ocean. They also                Therefore, the Services adopted a joint
                                                (2005) were only able to document 33                     determined that juvenile abundance had                policy for recognizing DPSs under the
                                                verified records of porbeagle sharks                     not changed greatly during the period of              ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on
                                                around Italy from 1871–2004,                             1982 to 2011. Due to a lack of fishing                February 7, 1996. Congress has
                                                confirming that these sharks have had a                  effort in the Indian Ocean, the study                 instructed the Secretaries of Interior and
                                                low historical occurrence. Other data                    was unable to confirm presence in the                 Commerce to exercise this authority
                                                sources also show low historical                         central South Indian ocean but noted                  with regard to DPSs ‘‘* * * sparingly
                                                occurrence throughout the                                that genetic data indicate that the                   and only when biological evidence
                                                Mediterranean Sea (CITES, 2013). The                     distribution is likely continuous                     indicates such an action is warranted.’’
                                                                                                                                                               The DPS Policy requires the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                ERA team concluded that porbeagle                        through the Indian Ocean (Semba et al.,
                                                abundance has possibly declined in the                   2013).                                                consideration of two elements when
                                                Mediterranean Sea, but the species is                       There are no abundance trend data for              evaluating whether a vertebrate
                                                historically uncommon in this region                     porbeagle sharks in Australian waters.                population segment qualifies as a DPS
                                                (Curtis et al., 2016).                                   Historically, Japanese longline vessels               under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of
                                                   Southern Hemisphere—Data on                           operating in Australian waters caught                 the population segment in relation to
                                                porbeagle sharks in the Southern                         porbeagle sharks, but these vessels have              the remainder of the species or
                                                Hemisphere are sparse. This limits the                   been excluded from these waters since                 subspecies to which it belongs; and (2)


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50470                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                the significance of the population                       continuous band around the Southern                   porbeagle sharks between the Northwest
                                                segment to the species or subspecies to                  Hemisphere. They are absent from                      and Northeast Atlantic, as well as long
                                                which it belongs.                                        equatorial waters. Recent assessments                 distance movements into subtropical
                                                   A population segment of a vertebrate                  have identified four stocks: The                      latitudes of the North Atlantic (Kohler et
                                                species may be discrete if it satisfies                  Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, and                  al., 2002; Pade et al., 2008; ICCAT,
                                                either one of the following conditions:                  Southeast Atlantic stocks for fishery                 2009; Skomal et al., 2009; Campana et
                                                (1) It is markedly separated from other                  management purposes. An additional                    al., 2010a; Saunders et al., 2011; Bendall
                                                populations of the same taxon (an                        Indo-Pacific stock may also be present,               et al., 2013). As described above, using
                                                organism or group of organisms) as a                     but Southern Hemisphere stock                         conventional tagging data to inform our
                                                result of physical, ecological, or                       boundaries are unclear (CITES, 2013).                 understanding of the animal’s
                                                behavioral factors. Quantitative                            The population in the North Atlantic               movements is limited by the frequency
                                                measures of genetic or morphological                     is separated from the population in the               of recapture/return of tags and by the
                                                discontinuity may provide evidence of                    Southern Hemisphere, as porbeagle                     limited data returned. Though the
                                                this separation; or (2) it is delimited by               sharks are absent from equatorial                     tagging data offer little evidence of
                                                international governmental boundaries                    waters. It is likely that their preference            mixing between the Northwest and
                                                within which differences in control of                   for colder water temperatures limits                  Northeast Atlantic, the genetic analyses
                                                exploitation, management of habitat,                     movement between the Northern and                     show that these populations do mix.
                                                conservation status, or regulatory                       Southern Hemispheres. The genetic data                Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate
                                                mechanisms exist that are significant in                 support that they do not move between                 that there is no differentiation among
                                                light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA                   these hemispheres, as genetic studies                 the stocks in the North Atlantic. The
                                                (e.g., inadequate regulatory                             show marked differences between the                   stocks are indistinguishable genetically,
                                                mechanisms). If a population segment is                  populations in the North Atlantic and                 indicating that there is mixing and gene
                                                found to be discrete under one or both                   the Southern Hemisphere. This                         flow between them (Pade et al., 2006;
                                                of the above conditions, its biological                  indicates that porbeagle sharks in the                Testerman et al., 2007). This level of
                                                and ecological significance to the taxon                 North Atlantic and porbeagle sharks in                mixing is occurring at a rate that has
                                                to which it belongs is evaluated. This                   the Southern Hemisphere do not                        prevented the species from becoming
                                                consideration may include, but is not                    interbreed (Padre et al., 2006; Testerman             genetically differentiated, meaning that
                                                limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete              et al., 2007; ICES/ICCAT, 2009;                       there is enough interbreeding between
                                                population segment in an ecological                      Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010).                        porbeagle sharks in the Northwest and
                                                setting unusual or unique for the taxon;                 Porbeagle sharks in the Southern                      Northeast Atlantic that the populations
                                                (2) evidence that loss of the discrete                   Hemisphere are also biologically                      are not significantly different
                                                population segment would result in a                     different. In the Southern Hemisphere,                genetically. Genetic homogeneity across
                                                significant gap in the range of a taxon;                 porbeagle sharks are smaller, slower                  broad regions can be achieved with
                                                (3) evidence that the discrete population                growing, mature at a smaller size and                 extremely low mixing rates, even one
                                                segment represents the only surviving                    greater age, and may be longer lived                  percent per generation (Ward 2000).
                                                natural occurrence of a taxon that may                   than those in the North Atlantic (Francis             While the mixing rates between the
                                                be more abundant elsewhere as an                         et al., 2007, 2008, 2015). The ERA team               Northwest and Northeast North Atlantic
                                                introduced population outside its                        concluded, and we concur, that the                    may be low, these populations mix
                                                historical range; or (4) evidence that the               North Atlantic and Southern                           sufficiently that there is a lack of genetic
                                                discrete population segment differs                      Hemisphere populations are discrete.
                                                                                                                                                               differentiation between the stocks.
                                                markedly from other population                              There is no information indicating
                                                                                                                                                               Curtis et al. (2016) hypothesize two
                                                segments of the species in its genetic                   that porbeagle sharks in the
                                                                                                         Mediterranean Sea, where they are                     pathways by which these movements
                                                characteristics.
                                                   The petition from Wild Earth                          historically rare, are isolated from the              may occur: (1) Active emigration or
                                                Guardians requested that we list                         Northeast Atlantic stock. There are no                vagrancy of mature females from one
                                                porbeagle sharks throughout their entire                 direct genetic or tagging data on                     subpopulation to a neighboring one or
                                                range, or as Northwest Atlantic,                         porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean                 (2) a lack of philopatry in porbeagle
                                                Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean                    Sea, but numerous other highly                        pups born in subtropical waters (i.e., not
                                                Distinct Populations Segments (DPS)                      migratory species (tunas, sharks) are                 all porbeagle sharks return to their
                                                under the ESA, and that we designate                     known to move in and out of the                       birthplace to breed). For example, pups
                                                critical habitat for the species. The                    Mediterranean Sea. Given that porbeagle               born from Northwest Atlantic mothers
                                                petition from the HSUS requested we                      sharks are widely distributed and highly              may move into the Northeast Atlantic as
                                                list a Northwest Atlantic DPS of                         migratory, it is reasonable to expect that            they mature. More tagging and genetic
                                                porbeagle shark as endangered.                           porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean                 studies are needed to determine the
                                                   In the Status Review, the ERA team                    Sea would mix with porbeagle sharks in                pathway and to better assess mixing
                                                considered the available information to                  other parts of the Northeast Atlantic.                rates (Curtis et al., 2016); however, the
                                                assess whether there are any porbeagle                   There is no information to indicate that              current available evidence indicates that
                                                population segments that satisfy the                     porbeagle sharks in the Mediterranean                 porbeagle sharks in the Northeast and
                                                DPS criteria of both discreteness and                    Sea are a discrete population. As there               Northwest Atlantic are not discrete.
                                                significance. Rather than limit the                      is no evidence that the Mediterranean                    In the North Atlantic, the porbeagle
                                                analysis to only the potential DPSs                      Sea population of porbeagle sharks is                 shark does cross international
                                                identified by the petitioners, the ERA                                                                         governmental boundaries. There are
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                         discrete, it was considered as part of the
                                                team considered whether any DPSs                         Northeast Atlantic stock for the                      regulatory mechanisms in place across
                                                could be determined for porbeagle                        remainder of the analysis.                            the species’ range with respect to
                                                sharks. Data relevant to the discreteness                   Both tagging and genetic data can                  conserving and recovering porbeagle
                                                question included physical, ecological,                  provide insight into whether a                        stocks. Similar regulatory mechanisms
                                                behavioral, tagging, and genetic data. As                population is discrete. Conventional                  have been implemented on both sides of
                                                described above, porbeagle sharks occur                  and satellite tagging data suggest                    the Atlantic. These mechanisms include
                                                in the North Atlantic and in a                           limited, but occasional movements of                  regulating directed catch and bycatch


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                            50471

                                                and are described further below. Given                   identified in the DPS policy, which can               further define the thresholds for when a
                                                the lack of genetic differentiation                      inform the significance determination:                species is endangered or threatened. We
                                                between the North Atlantic stocks and                    (a) Persistence of the discrete segment in            consider the best available information
                                                the lack of significant differences in                   an ecological setting unusual or unique               and apply professional judgment in
                                                control of exploitation, management of                   for the taxon; (b) evidence that loss of              evaluating the level of risk faced by a
                                                habitat, conservation status, or                         the discrete segment would result in a                species in deciding whether the species
                                                regulatory mechanisms across                             significant gap in the range of the taxon;            is currently in danger of extinction
                                                international borders, we have                           (c) evidence that the discrete segment                throughout all or in a significant portion
                                                determined that the two stocks in the                    represents the only surviving natural                 of its range (endangered) or likely to
                                                North Atlantic are not discrete from one                 occurrence of a taxon that may be more                become so in the foreseeable future
                                                another.                                                 abundant elsewhere as an introduced                   (threatened). We evaluate both
                                                   Tagging data in the Southern                          population outside its historical range;              demographic risks, such as low
                                                Hemisphere are very limited. Porbeagle                   and (d) evidence that the discrete                    abundance and productivity, and threats
                                                sharks have a continuous distribution                    segment differs markedly from other                   to the species, including those related to
                                                throughout the Southern Hemisphere                       populations of the species in its genetic             the factors specified by the ESA Section
                                                (Semba et al., 2013). As described                       characteristics. A discrete population                4(a)(1)(A)–(E).
                                                above, Southwest and Southeast                           segment needs to satisfy only one of
                                                Atlantic stocks have been defined for                                                                          Methods
                                                                                                         these criteria to be considered
                                                management purposes, and there may                       significant.                                             As described above, we convened an
                                                also be an Indo-Pacific stock (including                    The range of each discrete population              ERA team to evaluate extinction risk to
                                                Australia, New Zealand, and the greater                  (i.e., the North Atlantic and Southern                the species. This section discusses the
                                                Southwest Pacific). Potential stock                      Hemisphere populations) represents a                  methods used to evaluate demographic
                                                boundaries have been difficult to define                 large portion of the species’ range, as               factors, threats, and overall extinction
                                                and remain unclear (CITES, 2013). The                    well as a unique ecosystem that has                   risk to the species now and in the
                                                available genetics data have not                         influenced the population. The North                  foreseeable future. For this assessment,
                                                revealed any clear differentiation among                 Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere                      the term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ was
                                                samples throughout the region (Pade et                   ecosystems are unique with different                  defined as two generation times (40
                                                al., 2006; Testerman et al., 2007;                       physical (e.g., currents), chemical (e.g.,            years), consistent with other recent
                                                Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010). Similar                   salinity), and biological (e.g., species              assessments for shark species. A
                                                to the North Atlantic, porbeagle sharks                  size, longevity) properties. Each                     generation time is defined as the time it
                                                in the Southern Hemisphere cross                         population is in a separate hemisphere,               takes, on average, for a sexually mature
                                                jurisdictional boundaries. As described                  and the loss of either segment would                  female porbeagle shark to be replaced by
                                                below, regulatory measures restricting                   result in a significant gap in the range              offspring with the same spawning
                                                harvest are also in place across the range               of the species. That is, if the North                 capacity. As a late-maturing species,
                                                of this population. There is no                          Atlantic population were extirpated, the              with slow growth rate and relatively low
                                                information indicating that the                          only porbeagle sharks would be in the                 productivity, it would likely take more
                                                populations in the Southern                              Southern Hemisphere. As porbeagle                     than a generation time for conservative
                                                Hemisphere are discrete from one                         sharks do not move between                            management actions to be realized and
                                                another. Therefore, there is no                          hemispheres and equatorial waters are                 reflected in population abundance
                                                information to indicate there are                        too warm to support the species, it is                indices. The ERA team reviewed other
                                                separate DPSs in the Southern                            not reasonable to expect that porbeagle               comparable assessments (which used
                                                Hemisphere. Based on the best available                  sharks would move from the Southern                   generation times of either one or two
                                                information, the ERA team concluded                      Hemisphere into the North Atlantic, and               generations) and discussed the
                                                that that there are two discrete                         the result would be a significant gap in              appropriate timeframe for porbeagle
                                                populations; one in the North Atlantic                   the range of the species. In evaluating               sharks. The ERA team determined that,
                                                and the other in the Southern                            the factors above, factors a and b                    for porbeagle sharks, there was
                                                Hemisphere.                                              indicate that the two discrete                        reasonable confidence across this time
                                                   In accordance with the DPS policy,                    population segments are significant.                  period (40 years) that the information on
                                                the ERA team also reviewed whether                       Therefore, we concur with the ERA                     threats and management is accurate.
                                                these two population segments                            team that the two discrete population                    Often the ability to measure or
                                                identified in the discreteness analysis                  segments are also significant. As such,               document risk factors is limited, and
                                                were significant. If a population                        we are identifying two DPSs of                        information is not quantitative or very
                                                segment is considered discrete, its                      porbeagle shark. The extinction risk to               often lacking altogether. Therefore, in
                                                biological and ecological significance                   the North Atlantic and Southern                       assessing risk, it is important to include
                                                relative to the species or subspecies                    Hemisphere DPSs was evaluated                         both qualitative and quantitative
                                                must then be considered. We must                         separately for each DPS.                              information. In previous NMFS’ status
                                                consider available scientific evidence of                                                                      reviews, Biological Review Teams have
                                                the discrete segment’s importance to the                 Assessment of Extinction Risk                         used a risk matrix method, described in
                                                taxon to which it belongs. Data relevant                    The ESA (Section 3) defines                        detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999),
                                                to the significance question include                     endangered species as ‘‘any species                   to organize and summarize the
                                                morphological, ecological, behavioral,                   which is in danger of extinction                      professional judgement of a panel of
                                                                                                         throughout all or a significant portion of            knowledgeable scientists. The approach
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                and genetic data, as described above.
                                                The ERA team found that the loss of                      its range.’’ A threatened species is ‘‘any            of considering demographic risk factors
                                                either population segment would result                   species which is likely to become an                  to help frame the consideration of
                                                in a significant gap in the range of the                 endangered species within the                         extinction risk has been used in many
                                                taxon and, therefore, both were                          foreseeable future throughout all or a                of our status reviews (see http://
                                                significant. We considered the                           significant portion of its range.’’ Neither           www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links
                                                information presented in the status                      we nor the USFWS have developed any                   to these reviews). In this approach, the
                                                review and the following factors,                        formal policy guidance about how to                   collective condition of individual


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50472                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                populations is considered at the species                 Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The scoring               resilience that place its persistence in
                                                level according to four demographic                      for the threats correspond to the                     question. Demographic risk may be
                                                viability factors: Abundance, growth                     following values: 1—very low, 2—low,                  strongly influenced by stochastic
                                                rate/productivity, spatial structure/                    3—medium, 4—high, and 5—very high.                    (random events or processes that may
                                                connectivity, and diversity.                             A threat was given a rank of very low                 affect the population) or depensatory
                                                Connectivity refers to rates of exchange                 if it is very unlikely that the particular            (resulting from a depressed breeding
                                                among populations of organisms. These                    threat contributes or will contribute to              population) processes. Similarly, a
                                                viability factors reflect concepts that are              the decline of the species. That is, it is            species may be at high risk of extinction
                                                well-founded in conservation biology                     very unlikely that the threat will have               if it faces clear and present threats (e.g.,
                                                and that individually and collectively                   population-level impacts that reduce the              confinement to a small geographic area,
                                                provide strong indicators of extinction                  viability of the species. A threat was                imminent destruction, modification, or
                                                risk.                                                    ranked as low if it was unlikely the                  curtailment of habitat; or disease
                                                   Using these concepts, the ERA team                    threat contributes or will contribute to              epidemic) that are likely to create
                                                evaluated demographic risks by                           the decline of the species. A threat was              imminent demographic risks (e.g., low
                                                individually assigning a risk score to                   ranked as medium if it was likely that                abundance, genetic diversity,
                                                each of the four demographic criteria                    it contributes or will contribute to the              resilience). A species is at moderate risk
                                                (abundance, growth rate/productivity,                    decline of the species and high if it                 of extinction due to projected threats
                                                spatial structure/connectivity,                          highly likely that it contributes or will             and its likely response to those threats
                                                diversity). The scoring for the                          contribute to the decline of the species.             (i.e., declining trends in abundance/
                                                demographic risk criteria correspond to                  A threat was given a rank of very high                population growth, spatial structure and
                                                the following values: 1—very low, 2—                     if it was very highly (extremely) likely              connectivity, and/or diversity and
                                                low, 3—medium, 4—high, and 5—very                        that the particular threat contributes or             resilience) if it exhibits a trajectory
                                                high. A demographic factor was ranked                    will contribute to the decline of the                 indicating that it is more likely not to be
                                                very low if it is very unlikely the factor               species. Detailed definitions of the risk             at a high level of extinction. A species
                                                contributes or will contribute                           scores can be found in the status review              is at low risk of extinction due to
                                                significantly to the risk of extinction. A               report. Similar to the demographic                    projected threats and its likely response
                                                factor was ranked low if it is unlikely it               parameters, the ERA team was asked to                 to those threats (i.e., stable or increasing
                                                contributes or will contribute                           identify other threat(s) and/or                       trends in abundance/population growth,
                                                significantly to the risk of extinction. A               demographic factor(s) that may interact               spatial structure and connectivity, and/
                                                factor was ranked medium if it is likely                 to increase the species extinction risk.              or diversity and resilience) if it exhibits
                                                it contributes to or will contribute                     The ERA team also considered the                      a trajectory indicating it is not at
                                                significantly to the risk of extinction. A               ranking with respect to the interactions              moderate level of extinction risk. Lastly,
                                                factor was ranked high if it is highly                   with other factors and threats. For                   a species is not at risk of extinction due
                                                likely that it contributes or will                       example, team members identified that                 to projected threats and its response to
                                                contribute significantly to the risk of                  threats due to the inadequacy of existing             those threats (i.e., long-term stability,
                                                extinction, and a factor was ranked very                 regulatory mechanisms may interact                    increasing trends in abundance/
                                                high if it is very highly (extremely)                    with the threat of overutilization and                population growth, spatial structure and
                                                likely that the factor contributes or will               slow population growth rates (a                       connectivity, and/or diversity and
                                                contribute significantly to the risk of                  demographic factor) to increase the risk              resilience) if it exhibits a trajectory
                                                extinction.                                                                                                    indicating that it is not at a low risk of
                                                                                                         extinction. When potential interactions
                                                   Each team member scored each
                                                                                                         such as these were identified, the team               extinction.
                                                demographic factor individually. Each
                                                team member identified other                             then evaluated those interactions (in                    The ERA team adopted the
                                                demographic factors and/or threats that                  this case interactions between the                    ‘‘likelihood point’’ method for ranking
                                                would work in combination with factors                   regulatory mechanisms, overutilization,               the overall risk of extinction to allow
                                                ranked in the higher categories to                       and growth rates) to determine whether                individual team members to express
                                                increase risk to the species. After scores               they would significantly change the                   uncertainty. For this approach, each
                                                were provided, the team discussed the                    ranking of the threat (in this case                   team member distributed 10 ‘likelihood
                                                range of perspectives and the supporting                 inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms).                 points’ among the extinction risk
                                                data for these perspectives. Team                        Team members again discussed their                    categories (that is, each team member
                                                members were given the opportunity to                    rankings and the supporting data and                  had 10 points to distribute among the
                                                adjust the scores, if desired, after                     were given a chance to revise scores                  four extinction risk categories).
                                                discussion. The scores were then tallied,                based on the discussion. These scores                 Uncertainty is expressed by assigning
                                                reviewed, and considered in the overall                  were considered with the demographic                  points to different risk categories. For
                                                risk determination. As noted above, this                 scores in the overall risk assessment.                example, a team member would assign
                                                scoring was carried out for each of the                     The ERA team members were then                     all 10 points to the ‘not at risk’ category
                                                two identified DPSs.                                     asked to use their informed professional              if he/she was certain that the definition
                                                   The ERA team also performed a                         judgment to make an overall extinction                for ‘not at risk’ was met. However, he/
                                                threats assessment for the porbeagle                     risk determination for the porbeagle                  she might assign a small number of
                                                shark by evaluating the impact that a                    shark. The results of the demographic                 points to the ‘low risk’ category and the
                                                particular threat was currently having                   risks analysis and threats assessment,                majority to the ‘not at risk’ category if
                                                on the extinction risk of the species.                   described below, informed this ranking.               there was a low level of uncertainty
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                Threats considered included habitat                      For this analysis, the ERA team defined               regarding the risk level. The more points
                                                destruction, modification, or                            four levels of extinction risk: Not at risk,          assigned to one particular category, the
                                                curtailment; overutilization; disease or                 low risk, moderate risk, and high risk.               higher the level of certainty. This
                                                predation; inadequacy of existing                        A species is at high risk of extinction               approach has been used in previous
                                                regulatory mechanisms; and other                         when it is at or near a level of                      NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific
                                                natural or manmade threats, because                      abundance, spatial structure and                      salmon, Southern Resident killer whale,
                                                these are the five factors identified in                 connectivity, and/or diversity and                    Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00013   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                            50473

                                                black abalone, and common thresher                       population abundance and trends of                       Diversity: The ERA team also
                                                shark) to structure the team’s thinking                  porbeagle sharks throughout the                       evaluated the diversity within both
                                                and express levels of uncertainty when                   Southern Hemisphere are stable or                     DPSs. They concluded that this is a very
                                                assigning risk categories. Although this                 increasing. The declines in the Southern              low risk factor because diversity is high
                                                process helps to integrate and                           Hemisphere appear to be halted and, in                within each DPS. Genetic studies
                                                summarize a large amount of diverse                      some regions, the abundance has                       indicate high diversity in both DPSs,
                                                information, there is no simple way to                   increased in recent years (ICES/ICCAT,                and there is connectivity across the
                                                translate the risk matrix scores directly                2009; Pons and Domingo, 2010; Semba                   ocean basins. The high genetic diversity
                                                into a determination of overall                          et al., 2013; Francis et al., 2014; WCPFC,            indicates that, within hemispheres, the
                                                extinction risk. The team scores were                    2014; Curtis et al., 2016).                           populations are not isolated. Significant
                                                tallied (mode, median, range),                              Targeted removal from a population                 differentiation within either DPS has
                                                discussed, and summarized for each                       can result in a population structure (e.g.,           not been identified, meaning that while
                                                DPS.                                                     size and sex composition) that has been               diversity is high within each DPS
                                                   The ERA team did not make                             modified from unfished conditions. If                 (indicative of a large population), each
                                                recommendations as to whether the                        fisheries remove certain age classes or               stock within a DPS has similar genetics
                                                species should be listed as threatened or                sexes (e.g., selectively target the largest           that are not distinct. The species does
                                                endangered. Rather, the ERA team drew                    individuals in the population), the                   not appear to be at risk due to
                                                scientific conclusions about the overall                 structure of the population will be                   substantial changes or loss of variation
                                                risk of extinction faced by the North                    modified. Porbeagle sharks are                        in life history characteristics,
                                                Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere                         overfished and, therefore, it is likely the           population demography, morphology,
                                                populations of porbeagle shark under                     population structure (e.g., the number of             behavior, or genetic characteristics.
                                                present conditions and in the                            large females) has been reduced,
                                                foreseeable future (as noted above,                                                                            Evaluation of Threats
                                                                                                         resulting in a truncated size/age
                                                defined as two generation times or 40                                                                            Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
                                                                                                         distribution. However, declines have
                                                years) based on an evaluation of the                                                                           Curtailment: The ERA team ranked this
                                                                                                         been halted, and stocks are rebuilding.
                                                species’ demographic risks and                                                                                 threat as very low for both DPSs. As
                                                                                                         As the stocks rebuild, the population
                                                assessment of threats.                                                                                         described above, porbeagle sharks are
                                                                                                         structure will return to its more natural
                                                                                                                                                               highly mobile generalists. That is, they
                                                Evaluation of Demographic Risks                          state with a robust size/age composition.
                                                                                                                                                               are not substantially dependent on any
                                                   Abundance: The ERA team evaluated                        Growth rate/productivity: The ERA                  particular habitat type. Occurring in
                                                the available information on population                  team evaluated the information                        coastal and offshore waters, this shark is
                                                abundance and trends. They concluded                     available on the porbeagle shark’s                    not dependent during any life stage on
                                                that a ranking of low was warranted for                  growth rate/productivity. They                        more vulnerable estuarine habitats, and
                                                both DPSs, as this factor is unlikely to                 determined that this is a medium risk                 there are no indications that its range
                                                contribute significantly to the porbeagle                factor for both DPSs. Life history                    has contracted or is expected to contract
                                                shark’s risk of extinction. Kitamura and                 characteristics of late age to maturity,              in the future (Curtis et al., 2016). While
                                                Matsunaga (2010) analyzed mtDNA                          low fecundity, slow population growth                 their distribution is influenced by
                                                from sharks in the North and South                       rates, and long generation time                       temperature and prey distributions, they
                                                Atlantic. The research found high                        contribute to low productivity in                     have broad temperature tolerances (1–26
                                                genetic diversity, indicative of a large                 porbeagle sharks. These characteristics               °C) and an opportunistic diet, feeding
                                                population. Campana et al. (2012)                        make both DPSs vulnerable to                          on a wide range of species, depending
                                                reports that the large population size of                overexploitation and slow to recover                  on what is available (Joyce et al., 2002).
                                                the porbeagle shark in the Northwest                     from depletion. This vulnerability is                 Both factors make them less vulnerable
                                                Atlantic should make it such that                        characteristic of species with this type              to impacts from habitat changes.
                                                random factors would not pose a major                    of life history.                                        The literature review found no
                                                risk to the species. The ERA team                           Spatial structure/connectivity: The                information to indicate that there has
                                                concluded that the best available                        ERA team evaluated the porbeagle                      been a change in distribution of
                                                information does not indicate a decrease                 shark’s spatial structure and                         porbeagle sharks due to climate change
                                                in the productivity of the porbeagle                     connectivity (i.e., rates of exchange                 or that porbeagle sharks would be
                                                shark and that both DPSs exhibit                         among populations). They concluded                    unable to adapt to potential changes in
                                                significant diversity indicative of large                that this factor is very unlikely to                  prey distribution. Changes in
                                                populations (Curtis et al., 2016).                       contribute to the risk of extinction for              temperature in the range of those
                                                   Both DPSs have declined significantly                 either the North Atlantic or Southern                 predicted under various climate
                                                from historical levels. In the North                     Hemisphere DPS. While there is not                    scenarios (Hare et al., 2016) are unlikely
                                                Atlantic, these declines appear to have                  mixing across the equator, tagging                    to have a significant impact on
                                                been halted and the DPS’ abundance                       studies show that the species is highly               porbeagle sharks (Curtis et al., 2016).
                                                and biomass are increasing (ICES/                        mobile, and there are movements over                  Fabry et al., (2008) indicate that
                                                ICCAT, 2009; Campana et al., 2010b;                      long distances within the North Atlantic              increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) have
                                                Campana et al., 2012). Further declines                  and the Southern Hemisphere. Genetic                  the potential to affect pH levels in
                                                are unlikely due to improved and                         studies show that within each DPS,                    marine animals. Active animals have a
                                                continuing management. As described                      mixing occurs, and there is connectivity              higher capacity for buffering pH
                                                in the status review, the North Atlantic                 within each of the two DPSs. There is                 changes, and the tolerance of CO2 by
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                population is overfished, but                            no evidence of isolation of any stock                 marine fish appears to be very high
                                                overfishing is not occurring (Curtis et                  within either DPS. There is also no                   (Fabry et al., 2008). Porbeagle sharks are
                                                al., 2016). Estimates of the population                  evidence that the range of the species                an active and highly mobile species.
                                                size are in the hundreds of thousands of                 has contracted over time or is likely to              Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that
                                                individuals for just the Northwest                       contract in the future (Curtis et al.,                porbeagle sharks will tolerate changes in
                                                Atlantic portion of the DPS (DFO, 2005;                  2016). The ERA team ranked this factor                CO2 and buffer pH (Compagno, 2001;
                                                Camapana et al., 2010, 2012). The                        as very low.                                          Fabry et al., 2008; Curtis et al., 2016).


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50474                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                As detailed in the status review, they                   There are strict regulations in the                   analyses indicate that the porbeagle
                                                also appear to have low exposure to                      pelagic longline fishery including                    shark population can recover at modest
                                                pollution and do not appear to be                        restrictions on hook size, hook type, and             fishing mortalities but that the time
                                                threatened by it. The National Shark                     bait type. There are no mesh restrictions             horizon for recovery is sensitive to the
                                                Research Consortium (2007) determined                    in the shark gillnet fishery under the                amount of human-induced mortality.
                                                that it was unlikely that infertility rates              management plan for highly migratory                  They note that the known cause of
                                                were associated with contaminant                         species. However, incidental gillnet                  human-induced mortality is bycatch,
                                                exposure. The available information                      landings of porbeagle sharks have                     and it is under management controls
                                                indicates that the fitness of porbeagle                  occurred in the Gulf of Maine. Gillnet                (Campana et al., 2012). Generally, the
                                                sharks is not likely to be negatively                    fisheries operating in this area are                  vulnerable biomass is that portion of the
                                                impacted by mercury or other                             subject to the requirements of other                  population that is biologically available
                                                contaminants to any significant degree                   fishery management plans such as the                  to the fishery to catch. That is, it is of
                                                (Curtis et al., 2016). Therefore, this                   Northeast multispecies and monkfish                   a size that can be caught in the gear used
                                                threat is considered to be very low to                   plans. These plans restrict the mesh                  in the fishery; the vulnerable biomass is
                                                both the North Atlantic and Southern                     sizes and overall fishing effort in the               not the amount that they are allowed to
                                                Hemisphere DPSs.                                         Gulf of Maine. The commercial                         catch. The gears used in the shark
                                                   Overutilization: Overutilization was                  porbeagle shark fishery is regulated by               fisheries select for larger fish. In 2009,
                                                ranked as medium in the threats                          a TAC of 11.3 mt dressed weight (dw)                  the vulnerable biomass in the Northwest
                                                assessment by each member of the ERA                     (24,912 lb dw) and a commercial quota.                Atlantic assessment was estimated to be
                                                team. In evaluating the status of the                    The U.S. commercial quota is the                      between 4,406 and 5,092 mt (9,713,568
                                                species, Curtis et al. (2016) reviewed                   portion of the TAC that can be landed                 and 11,228,143 lbs) (Campana et al.,
                                                population dynamics, including                           by fishermen with a commercial fishing                2012).
                                                population size, abundance trends,                       permit and is adjusted annually based                    There are restrictions on catch in the
                                                recruitment and depensation, and the                     on any overharvest from previous years.               EU. In 2010, regulations set the EU TAC
                                                effects of trade as most shark landings                  In recent years, the commercial quota                 at zero in domestic waters and
                                                enter international trade. Porbeagle                     was reduced due to overharvest from                   prohibited EU vessels from fishing for,
                                                sharks have historically been fished                     previous fishing years. The commercial                retaining on board, transferring from
                                                commercially, and overutilization is                     quota was 1.5 mt (3,307 lb) dw in 2010,               one ship to another, and landing
                                                considered the primary threat to                         1.6 mt (3,479 lb) dw in 2011, and 0.7 mt              porbeagle sharks in international waters.
                                                porbeagle shark populations. They have                   (1,585 lb) dw in 2012. In 2013, the                   Since 2010, the TAC has been at zero
                                                primarily been harvested incidentally in                 fishery was closed due to overharvest in              (SCRS, 2014). Under the older TAC of
                                                longline fisheries targeting other highly                the previous years. It reopened in 2014               436 mt (961,200 lbs), the Northeast
                                                migratory species. Incidental harvest                    with a quota of 1.2 mt (2,820 lb) dw;                 Atlantic stock was projected to remain
                                                occurs when the species is caught in a                   however, by early December 2014, 198                  stable (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The
                                                fishery targeting other species. Directed                percent of the quota (2.5 mt dw or 5,586              elimination of directed and bycatch
                                                fisheries for porbeagle sharks have                      lb dw) had been reported landed and                   fisheries is expected to allow the
                                                occurred in Canada, France, Norway,                      triggered a commercial fishery closure                population to rebuild.
                                                Faroe Islands, and Uruguay (Curtis et                    for the rest of 2014 and all of 2015. This               Data in the Southern Hemisphere are
                                                al., 2016). Porbeagle stocks are                         reported overharvest represents                       more limited. Since 2000, the CPUE in
                                                overfished. Being overfished is not, by                  approximately 27 individual fish if the               the Uruguayan fleet has been stable or
                                                itself, equivalent to having a high risk of              catch consisted of large adults (Curtis et            slightly increasing (Pons and Domingo,
                                                extinction. Currently, overfishing is not                al., 2016). It is unlikely that this                  2010); and Uruguay prohibited retention
                                                occurring and populations of porbeagle                   overharvest represents a significant                  of porbeagle sharks in 2013. Argentinian
                                                sharks appear to be stable or increasing,                threat to the species as it represents only           and Chilean fisheries have also
                                                and further declines are considered                      a small fraction of the estimated                     harvested porbeagle sharks as incidental
                                                unlikely, given conservation and                         abundance (i.e., 27 fish out of hundreds              catch. In Argentina, catches ranged from
                                                management measures. Declines in                         of thousands). The 2016 commercial                    19–70 mt (41,890–154,300 lbs) from
                                                catch in recent years are largely due to                 quota in the U.S. is 1.7 mt dw (3,594 lbs             2003–2006. Live sharks greater than 4.9
                                                greater regulatory controls, especially in               dw). There have been no landings in                   ft (1.5 m) are required to be released
                                                nations that had directed fisheries (DFO,                2016 so far. In the past, most of the                 (CITES, 2013). In Chilean fisheries,
                                                2005; ICCAT, 2009).                                      landings occurred in the fall.                        landings are mostly unreported but are
                                                   In the United States, commercial                         Landings in Canada have                            thought to comprise less than two
                                                fishermen can land porbeagle under a                     progressively decreased from a peak of                percent of harvests (Hernandez et al.,
                                                directed or incidental shark permit. In                  1,400 mt (3,086,471 lbs) in 1995 to 92                2008). Semba et al., (2013) analyzed
                                                the past, most porbeagle sharks have                     mt (202,825 lbs) in 2007, corresponding               distribution and abundance trends in
                                                been landed via pelagic longline, but                    with decreasing TAC levels. Canadian                  the Southern Hemisphere using CPUE
                                                there have also been some incidental                     landings have been below the TAC since                data from the southern bluefin tuna
                                                landings in Gulf of Maine fisheries                      2007. There were no landings in the                   longline fishery (see above). During this
                                                targeting other species. According to                    directed fishery in 2012, and the                     study, they found that the fishery occurs
                                                logbook data, pelagic longline fishermen                 directed fishery has been closed since                primarily on the edge of porbeagle shark
                                                have not reported landing any porbeagle                  2013.                                                 habitat and that the majority of the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                sharks in the last few years (2013–2015)                    At mortality rates less than four                  shark’s distribution is located outside of
                                                and reported landing only between 3                      percent of the vulnerable biomass,                    where the fishery operates. The authors
                                                and 23 sharks each year from 2010                        recovery for the Northwest Atlantic                   also assert that there is only a small
                                                through 2012 (NMFS, unpublished                          stock was estimated to be achievable in               overlap between porbeagle sharks and
                                                data). The majority of porbeagle sharks                  5 to 100 years (Campana et al., 2012).                the eastern Pacific purse seine fisheries.
                                                caught by pelagic longline fishermen                     Estimated recovery times vary based on                Catches in Australia and New Zealand
                                                from 2010 through 2015 were released                     assumed productivity and harvest rates.               have also declined significantly due to
                                                alive (on average 78 percent per year).                  The authors concluded that all the                    reductions in fishing effort and


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                             50475

                                                protective regulations. The available                       Underreporting of incidental catch is              observed or reported as released dead
                                                data indicate that this stock has                        often noted as a concern (ICES/ICCAT,                 (NMFS, 2015).
                                                stabilized (ICES/ICCAT, 2009; Pons and                   2009; CITES, 2013; Simpson and Miri,                     When animals are captured and
                                                Domingo, 2010; Semba et al., 2013;                       2013), particularly in high seas fisheries.           released, whether in commercial or
                                                Curtis et al., 2016). Bycatch in non-                    The level of capture of porbeagle sharks              recreational fisheries, it is important to
                                                directed fisheries could be an ongoing                   in the high seas longline fisheries is                understand at-vessel and post-release
                                                source of fishing mortality (Simpson                     unclear as there is non-reporting and                 mortality. At-vessel mortality rate is the
                                                and Miri, 2013).                                         generic reporting of sharks. However,                 percentage of animals that are dead
                                                   Although catch on the high seas,                      the ICES/ICCAT (2009) assessment                      when retrieved from the fishing gear;
                                                including the Japanese catch of                          estimated the potential porbeagle shark               post-release mortality refers to the
                                                porbeagle sharks outside of the                          catch based on observed catch ratios of               percentage of animals that die after
                                                Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone,                        porbeagle sharks to tuna and swordfish.               being released from fishing gear alive.
                                                was once considered a significant factor                 For the Northwest Atlantic, this analysis             Several researchers have evaluated at-
                                                in total catch from the Northwestern                     indicated that unaccounted high seas                  vessel mortality, and mortality rates
                                                Atlantic stock of porbeagle sharks, the                  longline catches were a minor portion of              have varied. In several of the studies, at-
                                                ICES/ICCAT (2009) assessment found                       the total reported catch historically and             vessel mortality in longline gear
                                                that catch levels on the high seas                       that catches have been even smaller in                averaged around 20 percent (Marshall et
                                                occurred at low levels, indicating that                  recent years (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The                  al., 2012; Griggs and Baird, 2013;
                                                bycatch and directed catch in this area                  data on non-reporting in Southern                     Gallagher et al., 2014; NMFS HMS
                                                is minor and does not pose a significant                 Hemisphere fisheries are less certain,                Logbooks), while other studies have
                                                risk to the species (ICES/ICCAT, 2009).                  but there is little evidence that these               found higher rates up to approximately
                                                Information on catch ratios indicated                    catches would significantly alter stock               44 percent (Francis et al., 2004; Coelho
                                                that the relative abundance of porbeagle                 assessments (Semba et al., 2013; Francis              et al., 2012; Campana et al., 2015),
                                                shark in the catch tended to be greatest                 et al., 2014).                                        meaning that of the porbeagle sharks
                                                on or near the continental shelf and                        Recreational catch is minimal (NMFS,               caught, 20–44 percent are dead when
                                                declined markedly in the high seas                       2013). Harvests are extremely low in the              retrieved from the gear. Campana et al.,
                                                (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). There were                           United States, Canada, and New                        (2015) also evaluated post-release
                                                differences in the catch ratios among                    Zealand (CITES, 2009; WCPFC, 2014).                   mortality rates as determined from
                                                                                                         Regulations in Canada and the United                  PSAT studies. Healthy porbeagle sharks
                                                fisheries from different nations, but the
                                                                                                         States limit the gear that is allowed to              had a 10 percent post-release mortality
                                                relative proportion of porbeagle sharks
                                                                                                         be used for sharks. Most porbeagle                    rate, while injured porbeagle sharks had
                                                in the high seas catch was almost
                                                                                                         sharks caught in recreational fisheries               a 75 percent mortality rate. The overall
                                                always less than 2 percent (ICES/ICCAT,
                                                                                                         are released with a small percentage                  mortality due to capture and discard
                                                2009). Bycatch of porbeagle sharks
                                                                                                         being retained. In the United States,                 mortality was then calculated as the
                                                within some major ICES and Northwest
                                                                                                         porbeagle sharks must be at least 4.5 ft              sum of the post-release mortality rates
                                                Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
                                                                                                         (137 cm) fork length and one shark                    for healthy and injured sharks, weighted
                                                longline fisheries was reported to be
                                                                                                         (porbeagle or other) per vessel per trip              by the frequency of injury as recorded
                                                very rare, and bycatch in the North and
                                                                                                         can be landed. Recreational gears in the              by fisheries observers from 2010–2014,
                                                South Atlantic swordfish pelagic                         United States are restricted to rod and               plus the observed frequency of dead
                                                longline fisheries was very low (ICES/                   reel and handline.                                    sharks. Of porbeagle sharks reported by
                                                ICCAT 2009). Because North Atlantic                         Estimates of the catch in the United               the observers, the mean annual
                                                porbeagle stocks are increasing in                       States vary depending on the data                     percentage of injured sharks at release
                                                abundance, any ongoing discards or                       source analyzed. Data on recreational                 from pelagic longlines was 14.6 percent.
                                                additional unreported mortality does                     catch are available through the Marine                Healthy sharks accounted for 41.6
                                                not appear to be of a magnitude that is                  Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey              percent. Applying the 75 percent
                                                negatively impacting the stocks.                         (MRFSS) and from the large pelagic                    mortality rate to the 14.6 percent injury
                                                   In addition to bycatch in pelagic                     survey (LPS). MRFSS is a generalized                  rates and the 10 percent mortality rate
                                                longline gear, incidental catch in                       angler survey; LPS is a specialized                   to the 41.6 percent healthy sharks
                                                Canada and the United States occurs in                   survey focused on highly migratory                    resulted in an overall post-release
                                                trawl, gillnet, and bottom longline                      species such as pelagic sharks and                    mortality rate of 27.2 percent. Total
                                                fisheries for various groundfish species                 tunas. This specialization allows for a               mortality includes both hooking and
                                                (Simpson and Miri, 2013; NAFO,                           higher level of sampling needed to                    post-release mortality. In this study of
                                                unpublished data: www.nafo.int). Using                   obtain more precise estimates. However,               the Canadian pelagic longline fishery,
                                                fisheries data and observer data,                        because of limited overlap in species                 the mean at-vessel mortality was 43.8
                                                Simpson and Miri (2013) estimated                        distribution and recreational fishery                 percent. When combined with an
                                                bycatch in Canada’s Newfoundland/                        effort, some species such as porbeagle                overall post release mortality of live
                                                Grand Banks Region (NAFO Division                        sharks are less commonly encountered                  (healthy and injured sharks), this
                                                3LNOP). From 2006–2010, bycatch                          by recreational anglers (Curtis et al.,               yielded an overall non-landed fishing
                                                averaged 19 mt (41,890 lb) per year                      2016). During the summer when fishing                 mortality of 59 percent (Campana et al.,
                                                (Simpson and Miri, 2013). Total                          effort is higher, porbeagle sharks are                2015).
                                                reported landings, which includes                        distributed farther north and offshore.                  Applying the 27 percent mean post-
                                                directed and incidental catch, from
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                         Due to these lower encounters, even the               release mortality rate to the mean 20
                                                NAFO fisheries averaged 43.2 mt                          specialized surveys are not able to                   percent mortality rate from the other
                                                (95,240 lb) per year from 2010–2014                      produce precise estimates of overall                  studies suggests an average total
                                                (NAFO unpublished data as cited in                       catch. Data from the LPS survey from                  mortality of approximately 47 percent.
                                                Curtis et al., 2016). These data are                     2010 through 2015 indicate that 15                    These studies suggest that there is great
                                                included in assessment and                               porbeagle sharks were observed or                     deal of variability in mortality rates.
                                                management of the Northwest Atlantic                     reported as kept and 103 were observed                Survival rates are dependent on
                                                stock.                                                   or reported as released alive; none were              numerous factors, including soak time,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50476                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                handling, water temperature, shark size,                 DPSs. Porbeagle sharks are distributed                management. Listings under Annex II of
                                                shark sex, degree of injury, etc.                        broadly across both the North Atlantic                the Barcelona Convention, Appendix III
                                                (Campana et al., 2015). The studies                      and the Southern Hemisphere. The                      of the Bern Convention, and Annex V of
                                                indicate a moderate to high risk of                      species is highly mobile, and, as                     the OSPAR Convention are intended to
                                                mortality to a porbeagle shark once it is                described above, the available data                   protect porbeagle sharks and their
                                                hooked on longline gear (Curtis et al.,                  indicate that there is connectivity                   habitats in the Northeast Atlantic and
                                                2016). The elimination of most directed                  within each DPS. The genetic studies                  the Mediterranean Sea. The CMS
                                                fisheries and reductions in catches are                  also indicate that there is high genetic              Migratory Shark Memorandum of
                                                likely reducing overall fishing mortality.               diversity and reproductive connectivity               Understanding and Appendix II of CMS
                                                The status review concluded that, while                  within each DPS. Genetic diversity                    aim to enhance conservation of
                                                it had been the primary threat,                          appears to be sufficiently high and not               migratory sharks and require range
                                                overutilization no longer appears to be                  indicative of isolated or depleted                    states to coordinate management efforts
                                                a threat to the species’ survival                        populations. Overutilization does not                 for trans-boundary stocks. Inclusion
                                                anywhere in its range. The ERA team                      appear to have reduced the genetic                    under Appendix II of CITES results in
                                                ranked the threat as medium as it is                     diversity or limited the spatial                      regulation of trade and close
                                                likely that it contributes or will                       distribution and connectivity. Given                  monitoring. International trade must be
                                                contribute to the decline of the species.                this and that the risk from both these                non-detrimental to the survival of the
                                                Continued fishery management efforts                     factors is considered very low,                       stock. CCAMLR implemented a
                                                are necessary to rebuild populations and                 interactions between these factors and                moratorium on all directed shark fishing
                                                prevent future declines (Curtis et al.,                  overutilization would not increase the                in the Antarctic region in 2006 and
                                                2016).                                                   ranking from medium.                                  encourages the live release of
                                                   The ERA team also considered                            Disease and Predation: Disease and                  incidentally caught sharks. Under these
                                                whether any of the demographic factors                   predation were ranked as very low risk                governments, organizations and
                                                or other threats would interact with this                for both DPSs. Porbeagle sharks are an                conventions, porbeagle sharks are
                                                threat to increase its overall threat level.             apex predator residing at the top of the              currently one of the most widely
                                                As described above, stocks have been                     food web. Rarely, white sharks and                    protected sharks in the world.
                                                overfished; however, fishing pressure                    orcas will prey on porbeagle sharks.                     Management efforts and regulations
                                                has decreased, and overfishing is no                     However, predation on the species is                  that benefit porbeagle sharks have
                                                longer occurring. Stocks have stabilized,                very low. In general, sharks may be                   increased in the United States, Canada,
                                                and some are increasing. Under current                   susceptible to diseases, but there is no              and other waters in recent years. In the
                                                management, stocks are projected to                      evidence that disease has ever caused                 United States, the shark must be landed
                                                continue to recover. Therefore, this                     declines in shark populations (Curtis et              with its fins naturally attached (which
                                                threat was ranked as medium. The                         al., 2016). Sharks have shown                         helps prevent the illegal practice of
                                                threat from overutilization would be                     occurrences of cancer, but rates are                  finning, as species identification is
                                                higher if there were threats due to                      unknown (National Geographic, 2003).                  enhanced by the presence of fins which
                                                inadequate regulation coupled with the                   There is no evidence that either of these             may facilitate identification for
                                                life history of porbeagle sharks (low                    threats is negatively impacting either                enforcement and data collection), a
                                                productivity). As described below, the                   DPS.                                                  commercial fishing permit is required,
                                                inadequacy of existing regulations                         Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory                   and the fishery is regulated by a TAC
                                                measures was determined to be a low                      Mechanisms: This threat was ranked as                 that is adjusted annually based on any
                                                risk by the ERA team for the North                       low for the North Atlantic DPS and as                 overharvests. Other measures in highly
                                                Atlantic DPS and medium for the                          medium for the Southern Hemisphere                    migratory species fisheries in the United
                                                Southern Hemisphere DPS. Regulatory                      DPS. Porbeagle sharks are managed by                  States include retention limits, time/
                                                mechanisms to protect porbeagle sharks                   Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO),                    area closures, observer requirements,
                                                are widespread and improving                             NMFS, and the EU. Australia, New                      and reporting requirements. These
                                                throughout their range. The porbeagle                    Zealand, Argentina, and Uruguay also                  measures are designed to prevent
                                                shark’s inherently low productivity                      manage porbeagle sharks in their waters.              overfishing and allow an increase in
                                                indicates that recovery from                             Several international organizations,                  biomass. Canada has closed the mating
                                                overutilization will take a long time, on                including the North East Atlantic                     grounds to directed fisheries, and catch
                                                the order of decades. After considering                  Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), NAFO,                   is regulated by a TAC limit that has
                                                these factors, the ERA team concluded                    WCPFC, CCAMLR, and ICCAT, also                        been lowered in recent years. In 2013,
                                                that the threat from overutilization                     work collaboratively on the science and               Canada suspended the directed
                                                would not significantly increase due to                  management of this species. Porbeagle                 porbeagle shark fishery and will not
                                                interactions with other risk factors.                    sharks are listed under several                       resume it until the stock has sufficiently
                                                Therefore, the ERA team maintained the                   international conventions, including the              recovered (Canada/ICCAT 2014, Doc.
                                                ranking of medium.                                       UN Convention on the Law of the Sea                   No. PA4–810). Canada also has a
                                                   The only interactions with                            (UNCLOS), the Barcelona Convention                    national plan for the conservation and
                                                overutilization identified by the status                 Protocol, the Bern Convention on the                  management of sharks and their long-
                                                review team were the inadequacy of                       Conservation of European Wildlife and                 term sustainable use. This plan outlines
                                                regulatory mechanisms and the                            Habitats, the Convention for the                      monitoring and management measures,
                                                porbeagle shark’s growth rate/                           Protection of the Marine Environment of               including observer coverage and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                productivity. However, we also                           the North-east Atlantic (OSPAR), the                  dockside monitoring. New Zealand and
                                                evaluated potential interactions between                 Bonn Convention on the Conservation                   Australia have harvest quotas, and
                                                overutilization and spatial structure/                   of Migratory Species (CMS), and CITES.                catches have been greatly reduced.
                                                connectivity and overutilization and                       Porbeagle sharks are listed under                   Uruguay has also implemented fishing
                                                diversity. Risks associated with spatial                 Annex I of UNCLOS which establishes                   regulations for porbeagle sharks.
                                                structure/connectivity and diversity are                 conservation for highly migratory fish                   An ICCAT working paper from the
                                                both ranked very low for the North                       stocks on the high seas and encourages                19th Special Meeting of ICCAT (CPC/
                                                Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere                         cooperation between nations on their                  ICCAT, 2015; Doc. No. COC 314/2014)


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                             50477

                                                summarizes how ICCAT members are                         fishery restrictions, etc.) had been                  vulnerable) to pelagic longline gear. The
                                                implementing shark measures. Belize                      implemented effectively. With respect                 Ecological Risk Assessment conducted
                                                reported that they do not conduct                        to the conservation measures described                by the committee was a quantitative
                                                scientific research for porbeagle sharks                 here, the measures have been                          assessment consisting of a risk analysis
                                                or catch them in the convention area;                    implemented. Despite some                             to evaluate productivity and
                                                Japan reports that no tuna longline                      uncertainties around the monitoring and               susceptibility of stocks in the Atlantic to
                                                vessels are targeting porbeagle sharks                   enforcement of the measures in the                    being caught in pelagic longline gear
                                                and incidental catch is retained with all                Southern Hemisphere, both DPSs have                   (SCRS, 2014; Cortes et al., 2015).
                                                parts or released alive. The United                      stabilized and, in some areas are                        The results of an ecological risk
                                                Kingdom indicated that porbeagle                         increasing. Therefore, regulations to                 assessment are used to determine a
                                                sharks are rarely caught. Porbeagle                      reduce the threat of overutilization                  species’ vulnerability to a specific
                                                sharks are a prohibited species in the                   appear to be effective and are positively             fishery and can be a first step in the
                                                EU and Turkey; there is no permitted                     affecting the status of the porbeagle                 assessment process. Although a risk
                                                harvest in these countries. Retention of                 sharks in both DPSs.                                  assessment considering a specific
                                                porbeagle sharks has been prohibited in                                                                        vulnerability may rank porbeagle sharks
                                                                                                         Other Natural or Manmade Factors
                                                Uruguay since 2013. In 2015, ICCAT                                                                             higher than other sharks in some
                                                                                                         Affecting the Porbeagle’s Continued
                                                adopted additional measures that                                                                               respects, this is not necessarily an
                                                                                                         Existence
                                                require all vessels promptly release                                                                           indicator of a high risk of extinction.
                                                unharmed porbeagle sharks when                              Overall, this threat was ranked low for            Thus, results of stock assessments,
                                                brought alive alongside the vessel and                   both DPSs. Genetic studies indicate that              which incorporate additional and more
                                                improved reporting, and encouraged                       isolation is not a factor affecting this              quantitative sources of information than
                                                research and monitoring to improve                       species in the North Atlantic. In the                 ERAs, should generally outweigh the
                                                assessments. Similarly, NEAFC                            Southern Hemisphere, the population is
                                                                                                                                                               qualitative outputs from ERAs when
                                                prohibited all directed fishing for                      widespread in a continuous
                                                                                                                                                               available.
                                                porbeagle in the NEAFC area (high seas)                  circumglobal band, and there is no
                                                                                                         evidence that any of the populations in                  Global climate change, including
                                                by vessels flying their flag. Incidentally                                                                     warming and acidification, is unlikely
                                                caught porbeagle sharks must be                          the Southern Hemisphere might be
                                                                                                         isolated. Given its migratory nature,                 to substantially impact porbeagle
                                                promptly released unharmed.                                                                                    populations. The species has an
                                                   Domestic, regional, and international                 isolation does not appear to be a factor
                                                                                                         impacting the porbeagle shark.                        inherently high adaptive capacity. They
                                                regulation designed to reduce catch and
                                                                                                            Low productivity has the potential to              are highly mobile, have a broad
                                                rebuild stocks have been broadly
                                                                                                         make the species more vulnerable to                   temperature tolerance, and have a
                                                implemented. Directed porbeagle shark
                                                                                                         threats, but is considered in modelling               generalist diet. They are highly likely to
                                                fisheries have been mostly eliminated,
                                                                                                         and assessment and in management and                  adapt to changing conditions. Chin et
                                                many fisheries require live release of
                                                                                                         conservation actions. Several Ecological              al., (2010) found that continental shelf-
                                                incidentally caught animals, and trade
                                                restrictions have been implemented.                      Risk Assessments have evaluated the                   and pelagic sharks have a low overall
                                                This improved management has                             productivity of the porbeagle shark in                vulnerability to climate change.
                                                resulted in declining catches, and                       terms of its vulnerability to certain                    In an assessment of 82 Northeast U.S.
                                                overfishing is not occurring. The ERA                    fisheries. Results from these                         fishery species, Hare et al., (2016) found
                                                team ranked this factor as low for the                   assessments have varied. Cortes et al.,               that porbeagle sharks have, on a scale of
                                                North Atlantic population and as                         (2010) and Murua et al., (2012) found                 low to very high, a high vulnerability to
                                                medium for the Southern Hemisphere,                      porbeagle sharks less vulnerable than                 climate change. Exposure to warming
                                                where there is less rigorous monitoring,                 other shark species to pelagic longline               ocean temperatures and ocean
                                                reporting and enforcement of                             fisheries in the Atlantic and Indian                  acidification was considered high for
                                                regulations resulting in more                            Oceans, respectively. Cortes et al.,                  most species in this region (Hare et al.,
                                                uncertainty in their effectiveness.                      (2010) conducted a quantitative                       2016). This high sensitivity was
                                                   In both DPSs, this threat could                       assessment that consisted of a risk                   influenced by the porbeagle shark’s low
                                                interact with the medium threat of                       analysis to evaluate the productivity of              productivity and overfished status. Most
                                                overutilization to increase the risk of                  the stocks and a susceptibility analysis              other sensitivity attributes, including
                                                extinction and with the demographic                      to assess their propensity to capture and             habitat and prey specificity, mobility,
                                                factor of slow population growth rates to                mortality in pelagic longline fisheries.              early life history requirements, were
                                                increase the risk of extinction. The                     In this assessment, vulnerability                     considered to be low for porbeagle
                                                threat of overutilization has been                       considered both productivity and                      sharks (Hare et al., 2016). Therefore, we
                                                reduced through improved management                      susceptibility to evaluate relative risk.             expect the overall vulnerability to drop
                                                as has this threat. The shark’s inherently               They found that porbeagle sharks were                 as populations rebuild. Hare et al.,
                                                low productivity means that recovery                     less vulnerable than other shark species              (2016) indicated that the overall climate
                                                from past utilization will take decades,                 to pelagic longlines in the Atlantic                  vulnerability ranking would drop to
                                                but this would not significantly increase                Ocean (Cortes et al., 2010). Murua et al.,            moderate if the poor stock status is
                                                the ranking of this threat as the current                (2012) also ranked the vulnerability of               removed as a factor. In addition, the
                                                regulations have ended overfishing and                   porbeagle sharks based on the                         mobility and temperature tolerances of
                                                stocks are rebuilding. The ERA team                      productivity and susceptibility to                    the species are expected to limit the
                                                                                                         fishing gear. In the Indian Ocean,                    impacts from climate change. The
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                found that the significant interacting
                                                threats are being simultaneously                         porbeagle ranked eight (rankings 1–16                 distribution of porbeagle sharks may
                                                reduced, supporting the low and                          with lower numbers being more                         shift away from the northeast United
                                                medium rankings for the North Atlantic                   vulnerable (Murua et al., 2012)). SCRS                States with climate change; its overall
                                                and Southern Hemisphere DPSs,                            (2014) reported on a risk assessment                  population is likely to persist (Curtis et
                                                respectively.                                            carried out for 20 stocks of pelagic                  al., 2016). Due to their high mobility
                                                   We also considered whether measures                   sharks, finding porbeagle sharks to rank              and temperature tolerances, the overall
                                                to protect the species (e.g., closed areas,              fourth in vulnerability (1 being most                 directional effect of climate changes was


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50478                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                considered to be neutral (Hare et al.,                   Overall Risk Summary                                  assigned one point to the not at risk
                                                2016).                                                                                                         category.
                                                  This threat may interact with the                         As described, the ERA team used a                     The ERA team determined that,
                                                threat of overutilization and the                        ‘‘likelihood analysis’’ to evaluate the               overall, both DPSs are at low risk of
                                                demographic factor of low population                     overall risk of extinction. The ERA team              extinction. While the overall risk is low,
                                                growth rates. Since overutilization is                   did not find either DPS to be at high risk            there is some likelihood of a moderate
                                                being reduced through improved                           of extinction as no team members                      risk of extinction, especially in the
                                                management, which takes into account                     assigned points to this category. For the             Southern Hemisphere DPS. The scoring,
                                                the porbeagle shark’s life history (e.g.,                North Atlantic DPS, the current level of              along with the information in the status
                                                restricting directed fishing in mating                   extinction risk was 7.5 percent                       review, indicates that the moderate level
                                                areas), this threat is expected to remain                likelihood of moderate risk, 80 percent               of risk in the Southern Hemisphere
                                                as low for both DPSs.                                    likelihood of low risk, and 12.5 percent              population is due to the uncertainty in
                                                                                                         likelihood of not at risk. For the                    current stock status and projections for
                                                Summary of Demographic Factors and                       foreseeable future, the ERA team found                the Southern Hemisphere, and more
                                                Threats Affecting Porbeagle Sharks                       that the level of moderate risk remained              uncertainty about the adequacy of
                                                   Both demographic factors and threats                  the same, the level of low risk decreased             current and future regulatory
                                                were ranked on a scale from very low                     to 62.5 percent and the not-at-risk level             mechanisms, including fishery
                                                to very high by the ERA team members.                    increased to 30 percent. For the                      monitoring, reporting, and enforcement
                                                For the demographic factors, diversity                   Southern Hemisphere population, the                   in that region. In addition, generation
                                                and spatial structure/connectivity were                  current levels were 25 percent                        times are longer in the Southern
                                                ranked very low for each DPS,                            likelihood of moderate risk, 72.5 percent             Hemisphere and the DPS is potentially
                                                abundance was ranked low for each                        likelihood of low risk, and 2.5 percent               more vulnerable to depletion.
                                                DPS, and growth rate/productivity was                    likelihood of not at risk. Similar to the             Populations with longer generation
                                                ranked medium for each DPS. For the                      North Atlantic DPS, the level of                      times and low productivity cannot
                                                threats, habitat destruction,                            moderate risk for the Southern                        rebound as quickly as populations with
                                                modification, or curtailment and disease                 Hemisphere DPS remained at 25 percent                 short generation times and high
                                                or predation were both ranked very low                   in the foreseeable future; the low risk               productivity. Considering the factors
                                                for each DPS; inadequacy of existing                     decreased to 70 percent, and the not at               and despite the uncertainty, each team
                                                regulation mechanisms was ranked low                     risk category increased to 5 percent.                 member assigned the majority of the
                                                for the North Atlantic DPS and other                        While these numbers reflect the                    points to the low risk category, resulting
                                                natural or manmade threats was ranked                    percentage of risk assigned to each                   in 75 percent of the points being
                                                low for each DPS; overutilization was                    category, we also evaluated the points                assigned to the low/not at risk
                                                ranked medium for each DPS and                           assigned to each category by individual               categories. Based on this, we conclude
                                                inadequacy of existing regulation                        team members to better understand the                 that, while there is some uncertainty,
                                                mechanisms was ranked medium for the                     risk. Each individual team member                     the Southern Hemisphere DPS is at low
                                                Southern Hemisphere DPS. No                              assigned 10 points across the risk                    risk of extinction currently and in the
                                                demographic factors or threats were                      categories. As described above, no                    foreseeable future. We also conclude
                                                ranked high or very high.                                points were assigned to the high risk                 that the North Atlantic DPS is at low
                                                   The only demographic factor ranked                    category for the North Atlantic DPS for               risk of extinction currently and in the
                                                above low was growth rate/productivity.                  the current or foreseeable future                     foreseeable future.
                                                The porbeagle shark’s life history traits                categories of risk. In the North Atlantic                The ERA team noted that there is a
                                                make the populations vulnerable to                       DPS, no more than 1 point was assigned                higher likelihood that the North Atlantic
                                                threats and slow to recover from                         by any individual to the moderate risk                DPS is at low risk of extinction than the
                                                depletion. The only threats ranked                       currently or in the foreseeable future.               Southern Hemisphere DPS. Despite
                                                above low are overutilization (both                      Each team member assigned eight points                these concerns, they still agreed that
                                                DPSs) and inadequacy of existing                         to the low risk category and one or two               there was a much greater likelihood of
                                                regulatory mechanisms (Southern                          points to the not at risk category for the            Southern Hemisphere porbeagle sharks
                                                Hemisphere DPS). These threats are                       current risk. For the foreseeable future,             having an overall low risk of extinction.
                                                ranked as medium. Recent management                      team members assigned 4 to 8 points to                For both DPSs, the ERA team
                                                efforts across the globe have reduced                    the ‘low risk’ and 1 to 6 to the ‘not at              determined that overall extinction risk
                                                fishing mortality. There are a number of                 risk’ categories.                                     is likely to be lower in the foreseeable
                                                countries or organizations that restrict                    As with the North Atlantic DPS, each               future (40 years) than it is currently, due
                                                the harvest of porbeagle sharks. Due to                  team member assigned 10 points across                 to improved management and recent
                                                these efforts, stocks are no longer                      the four categories for the Southern                  indications of population recoveries.
                                                declining and most have begun to                         Hemisphere DPS. No team member                        This decrease in risk in the foreseeable
                                                recover. Given their life history traits,                assigned points to the high risk category             future is reflected in the decrease in the
                                                recovery is likely to take decades, but                  for this DPS for either the current or                percentages in the low level category
                                                demographic risks are mostly low and                     foreseeable future level of risk. For the             and the increases in the not at risk
                                                significant threats have been reduced.                   current level of extinction risk, team                category. This shift, while relatively
                                                The inadequacy of existing regulatory                    members each assigned 2–3 points to                   small in the Southern Hemisphere,
                                                mechanisms for the Southern                              the moderate category and 7–8 points to               indicates that the porbeagle population
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                Hemisphere DPS was ranked medium                         the low category; one team member                     will face fewer threats and populations
                                                due to uncertainties in monitoring,                      assigned a single point to the not at risk            will grow, provided effective
                                                reporting, and enforcement of                            category. For the level of risk through               management continues to be
                                                regulations when compared to the North                   the foreseeable future, team members                  implemented. Recovery is likely to take
                                                Atlantic, suggesting the Southern                        assigned 1–4 points to the moderate                   decades, but the demographic risks are
                                                Hemisphere DPS may be more                               category and 6–8 points to the low                    mostly low, and significant threats have
                                                vulnerable to this threat.                               category; two team members each                       been reduced.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                            50479

                                                   We have independently reviewed the                    management measures have been                         affirmative is not a determination that
                                                best available scientific and commercial                 implemented to minimize this threat                   the species is endangered or threatened
                                                information, including the status review                 and, given that abundance and biomass                 throughout a significant portion of its
                                                report (Curtis et al., 2016) and other                   have stabilized, these measures appear                range—rather, it is a step in determining
                                                published and unpublished                                to be effective in addressing the threat.             whether a more detailed analysis of the
                                                information. We concluded that the two                   In addition, the available information                issue is required (79 FR 37578, July 1,
                                                DPSs are not in danger of extinction or                  indicates that the current population,                2014). Making this preliminary
                                                likely to become so in the foreseeable                   while reduced from known historical                   determination triggers a need for further
                                                future throughout their ranges. As                       levels, is sufficient to maintain                     review, but does not prejudge whether
                                                described earlier, an endangered species                 population viability. We agree with the               the portion actually meets these
                                                is ‘‘any species which is in danger of                   ERA Team’s conclusions, and, therefore,               standards such that the species should
                                                extinction throughout all or a significant               we conclude that this DPS does not                    be listed.
                                                portion of its range’’ and a threatened                  warrant listing as threatened or                         If this preliminary determination
                                                species is one ‘‘which is likely to                      endangered under the ESA at this time.                identifies a particular portion or
                                                become an endangered species within                         We also considered the risk of                     portions for potential listing, those
                                                the foreseeable future throughout all or                 extinction of porbeagle sharks                        portions are then fully evaluated under
                                                a significant portion of its range.’’ The                throughout their range. As described                  the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
                                                ERA team ranked the demographic                          above, porbeagle sharks are found in                  authority as to whether the portion is
                                                criteria and the five factors identified in              both the Northern and Southern                        both biologically significant and
                                                the ESA and completed an assessment                      Hemispheres. There is no evidence that                endangered or threatened. In making a
                                                of overall risk of extinction. The ERA                   this range has contracted or that there               determination of significance, we
                                                team provided this information to us to                  has been any loss of habitat. The                     consider the contribution of the
                                                determine whether listing is warranted.                  abundance and biomass have stabilized                 individuals in that portion to the
                                                We reviewed the results of the ERA and                   and in many areas are increasing. As                  viability of the species. That is, we
                                                concurred with the team’s conclusions                    indicated above, overfishing is the                   determine whether the portion’s
                                                regarding extinction risk. We then                       primary threat to the species throughout              contribution to the viability is so
                                                applied the statutory definitions of                     its range. Regulations, both domestic                 important that, without the members in
                                                ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered                  and international, have been put in                   that portion, the species would be in
                                                species’’ to determine if listing either of              place across the range and overfishing is             danger of extinction or likely to become
                                                the DPSs based on the ERA results and                    not occurring. As the primary threat has              so in the foreseeable future.
                                                other available information is                           been reduced, the population has                         The SPR policy further explains that,
                                                warranted.                                               stabilized, and neither of the DPSs are               depending on the particular facts of
                                                   The ERA team concluded that the                       threatened or endangered, we have                     each situation, NMFS may find it is
                                                level of extinction risk to the North                    concluded that the species as a whole is              more efficient to address the
                                                Atlantic DPS is low, with 92.5 percent                   not threatened or endangered.                         significance issue first, but in other
                                                of its likelihood points allocated to the                                                                      cases it will make more sense to
                                                                                                         Significant Portion of Its Range                      examine the status of the species in the
                                                ‘‘low risk’’ or ‘‘not at risk’’ category,
                                                both now and in the foreseeable future.                     Though we find that the porbeagle                  potentially significant portions first.
                                                Furthermore, the percentage assigned to                  shark, the North Atlantic DPS of the                  Whichever question is asked first, an
                                                the ‘‘not at risk’’ category increased for               porbeagle shark, and the Southern                     affirmative answer is required to
                                                the foreseeable future, while the                        Hemisphere DPS of the porbeagle shark                 proceed to the second question. Id. ‘‘[I]f
                                                percentage assigned to the ‘‘low risk’’                  (all of which are considered ‘‘species’’              we determine that a portion of the range
                                                category decreased. The ERA team                         under the ESA) are not in danger of                   is not ‘significant,’ we will not need to
                                                allocated only 7.5 percent of its                        extinction now or in the foreseeable                  determine whether the species is
                                                likelihood points to the ‘‘moderate                      future, under the SPR Policy, we must                 endangered or threatened there; if we
                                                extinction risk’’ category, both now and                 go on to evaluate whether these species               determine that the species is not
                                                in the foreseeable future. Given this low                are in danger of extinction, or likely to             endangered or threatened in a portion of
                                                level of risk and an evaluation of the                   become so in the foreseeable future, in               its range, we will not need to determine
                                                demographic parameters and threats, we                   a ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (79            if that portion is ‘significant’’’ (79 FR
                                                have determined that this DPS does not                   FR 37578; July 1, 2014).                              37587). Thus, if the answer to the first
                                                meet the definition of an endangered or                     When we conduct an SPR analysis,                   question is negative—whether it
                                                threatened species and, as such, listing                 we first identify any portions of the                 addresses the significance question or
                                                under the ESA is not warranted at this                   range that warrant further consideration.             the status question—then the analysis
                                                time.                                                    The range of a species can theoretically              concludes, and listing is not warranted.
                                                   The ERA team concluded that the                       be divided into portions in an infinite                  As described elsewhere, the ERA team
                                                Southern Hemisphere DPS was at low                       number of ways. However, there is no                  determined that there are two DPSs of
                                                risk of extinction, though their                         purpose to analyzing portions of the                  porbeagle shark. Therefore, we will
                                                distribution of likelihood points                        range that are not reasonably likely to be            apply the SPR policy to the North
                                                indicates that there was some                            significant or in which a species may                 Atlantic DPS, the Southern Hemisphere
                                                uncertainty about this. However, 75                      not be endangered or threatened. To                   DPS, and the taxonomic species
                                                percent of the likelihood points were                    identify only those portions that warrant             separately. The first step in applying the
                                                                                                         further consideration, we determine
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                allocated to the ‘‘low risk’’ or ‘‘not at                                                                      SPR policy is to identify portions of the
                                                risk of extinction’’ category. The ERA                   whether there is substantial information              range that may be significant and in
                                                Team’s uncertainty about the level of                    indicating that (1) the portions may be               which the species may be threatened or
                                                risk is due to some uncertainty in the                   significant and (2) the species may be in             endangered.
                                                stock status, projections, and fishery                   danger of extinction in those portions or                In the North Atlantic DPS, we
                                                monitoring/enforcement. Described in                     likely to become so within the                        preliminarily identified two portions for
                                                detail elsewhere, the primary threat to                  foreseeable future. We emphasize that                 further consideration—the western
                                                porbeagle sharks is overfishing. Strict                  answering these questions in the                      North Atlantic and the Mediterranean


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50480                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                Sea. Porbeagle sharks in the western                     in the Northeast Atlantic, these areas                rates are low. However, the available
                                                North Atlantic may be more susceptible                   have not yet been described. In                       data suggest that porbeagle sharks were
                                                to threats than those in the eastern                     addition, the loss of porbeagle sharks in             historically uncommon in this area. In
                                                North Atlantic given that the western                    the western North Atlantic would result               addition, the Mediterranean Sea
                                                area includes known and suggested                        in a significant gap in the distribution              represents a small portion of the range
                                                locations for mating and pupping                         of the North Atlantic DPS as this is a                of the North Atlantic DPS, which is
                                                (birthing). In addition, Campana et al.                  relatively large area relative to the                 found in the Mediterranean Sea and the
                                                (2015b) identify Emerald Basin off Nova                  spatial distribution throughout the                   North Atlantic. Given that porbeagle
                                                Scotia, Canada, as a potential sensitive                 North Atlantic. We have concluded that                sharks are widely distributed and highly
                                                life history area at least in the fall.                  the western North Atlantic portion is a               mobile within the North Atlantic, we
                                                Emerald Basin is an area with high                       significant portion of the North Atlantic             did not find that the loss of the
                                                densities of juveniles (Campana et al.,                  DPS under the SPR policy.                             Mediterranean Sea portion of the range
                                                2015b). The available research indicates                    Next, we examined whether porbeagle                would severely fragment and isolate the
                                                that mating occurs in at least two                       sharks were endangered or threatened in               population to a point where individuals
                                                locations. The first mating ground                       the western North Atlantic portion. As                would be prevented from moving to
                                                identified is on the Grand Banks, off                    described elsewhere, the primary threat               suitable habitats or would have an
                                                southern Newfoundland and at the                         to porbeagle sharks is fishing. In the                increased vulnerability to threats. We
                                                entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A                  mating areas, there is no directed fishery            also did not find that the loss of this
                                                second mating ground was identified on                   for porbeagle sharks. Similarly, there is             portion would result in a level of
                                                Georges Bank, based on high catch rates                  no directed fishing in the area of                    abundance for the remaining North
                                                and similar aggregations of mature                       Emerald Basin. Porbeagle sharks may be
                                                                                                                                                               Atlantic population that would to be so
                                                females that did not appear to be                        incidentally caught in other fisheries. In
                                                                                                                                                               low or variable that it would cause the
                                                feeding (Campana et al., 2010b).                         the Sargasso Sea (presumed to be a
                                                                                                                                                               DPS to be at an increased risk of
                                                Research also suggests that there may be                 pupping area), tagged sharks undertook
                                                                                                                                                               extinction due to environmental
                                                a pupping ground in the Sargasso Sea                     multiple ascents and descents between
                                                                                                                                                               variation, anthropogenic perturbations,
                                                (Campana et al., 2010a). Transmissions                   50 and 850 m (164 and 2,789 ft) in
                                                                                                                                                               or depensatory processes. With mixing
                                                were received from 21 PSATs applied in                   waters between 8 and 23 °C (46 and
                                                                                                                                                               between the Northeast Atlantic and
                                                the summer to porbeagle sharks off the                   73 °F). The mean daily depth in April
                                                                                                                                                               Mediterranean Sea animals, we would
                                                eastern coast of Canada between 2001                     and May was 480 m (1,575 ft) indicating
                                                                                                         that most of the pupping period was                   also expect that increases in the
                                                and 2008. While males and immature                                                                             population in the Northeast Atlantic
                                                sharks remained in the cool temperate                    spent at depth (Campana et al., 2010),
                                                                                                         which would limit the interactions with               would have positive impacts on the
                                                water, all tagged mature females exited                                                                        population in the Mediterranean Sea as
                                                these waters by December, swimming to                    anthropogenic threats. While individual
                                                                                                         porbeagle sharks may be caught as                     individuals may move from the
                                                the Sargasso Sea. Pupping was strongly                                                                         Northeast Atlantic to the Mediterranean
                                                suggested based on the observation that                  bycatch in fisheries on the mating
                                                                                                         grounds or in fisheries in the Sargasso               Sea. There is no substantial evidence
                                                only the sexually mature females made                                                                          that the loss of the Mediterranean
                                                the migration and the residency in the                   Sea, the population in the Northwest
                                                                                                         Atlantic is increasing (see abundance                 portion of its range would isolate the
                                                Sargasso Sea overlapped with the                                                                               North Atlantic DPS such that the
                                                                                                         and trends above). If fisheries in these
                                                known pupping period (Campana et al.,                                                                          remaining populations would be at risk
                                                                                                         areas were impacting the species to the
                                                2010a). However, pupping was not                                                                               of extinction from demographic
                                                                                                         extent that they are threatened or
                                                directly observed, only logically                                                                              processes. As described elsewhere,
                                                                                                         endangered, we would not expect the
                                                inferred from the tagging data. Both the                                                                       genetic data show that there is mixing
                                                                                                         population to continue to grow. That is,
                                                mating and pupping stages of the life                                                                          between the populations across the
                                                                                                         impacting essential life history needs
                                                history can concentrate the species in                                                                         North Atlantic. If this portion were lost,
                                                                                                         such as mating or pupping would result
                                                specific areas making them more                                                                                we would not expect it to result in a loss
                                                                                                         in less recruitment to the population,
                                                vulnerable to threats in those areas.                                                                          of genetic diversity in the DPS as a
                                                                                                         which would be reflected in the overall
                                                   In order to determine whether the                     population trend. Accordingly, the                    whole. Overall, we did not find any
                                                western North Atlantic constitutes a                     primary threat in these areas is being                evidence to suggest that this portion of
                                                significant portion of the North Atlantic                addressed by existing regulatory                      the range has increased importance over
                                                DPS’ range, we first examined whether                    measures, precluding directed fisheries               any other with respect to the species’
                                                this portion of the range is biologically                in the areas. There are no other known                survival. Given that porbeagle
                                                significant. A portion of the range of a                 significant threats in these areas. Based             abundance is historically low in the
                                                species is ‘‘significant’’ if the portion’s              on an evaluation of threats in the areas,             Mediterranean Sea, that the
                                                contribution to the viability of the                     the population data, and life history of              Mediterranean Sea represents a small
                                                species is so important that, without the                the species, we have determined that                  portion of the North Atlantic DPS’
                                                members of that portion, the species                     porbeagle sharks in the western North                 range, that mixing occurs between the
                                                would be in danger of extinction, or                     Atlantic are not threatened or                        Mediterranean Sea and the Northeast
                                                likely to become so in the foreseeable                   endangered.                                           Atlantic, and that there is no evidence
                                                future, throughout all of its range. As                     The second portion of the North                    to suggest that the loss of the
                                                described above, this portion of the                     Atlantic DPS’ range identified as                     Mediterranean Sea portion would result
                                                porbeagle range includes known mating                                                                          in the remainder of the North Atlantic
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                         potentially significant under the SPR
                                                and presumed pupping areas. These                        Policy is the Mediterranean Sea.                      DPS being endangered or threatened, we
                                                areas are important to the continued                     Porbeagle shark abundance in the                      have determined that this area does not
                                                existence of the North Atlantic DPS as                   Mediterranean Sea is low, making them                 represent a significant part of the North
                                                they allow for recruitment into the                      more vulnerable to threats in this area.              Atlantic DPS’ range. Given that the
                                                population. Recruitment into the                         As described elsewhere, the main threat               portion is not significant, the question
                                                population must occur for it to increase.                to the species in the North Atlantic is               of whether it is endangered or
                                                While similar mating areas likely exist                  fishing. In the Mediterranean Sea, catch              threatened in this area is not addressed.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00021   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices                                              50481

                                                   The other DPS considered under the                    report (Curtis et al., 2016), and other               (8) porbeagle shark’s high mobility,
                                                SPR policy is the Southern Hemisphere                    published and unpublished                             broad temperature tolerance, and
                                                DPS. Porbeagle sharks in the Southern                    information, and we have consulted                    generalist habitat and opportunistic diet
                                                Hemisphere are found in a continuous                     with species experts and individuals                  limit potential impacts from climate
                                                band around the globe, and the genetic                   familiar with porbeagle sharks. We                    change; (9) directional effects of climate
                                                data indicate that this population is                    identified two DPSs of the porbeagle                  change are expected to be neutral; (10)
                                                mixing. For management purposes,                         shark: The North Atlantic DPS and the                 there is no evidence that disease or
                                                ICCAT has identified two stocks in the                   Southern Hemisphere DPS. We                           predation is contributing to increasing
                                                South Atlantic. There may also be an                     considered each of the Section 4(a)(1)                the risk of extinction of either DPS; and
                                                Indo-Pacific stock. However, stock                       factors to determine whether it                       (11) there is no evidence that either DPS
                                                boundaries in the Southern Hemisphere                    contributed significantly to the                      is currently suffering from depensatory
                                                remain unclear (Curtis et al., 2016). As                 extinction risk of each DPS on its own.               processes (such as reduced likelihood of
                                                with the North Atlantic DPS, the                         We also considered the combination of                 finding a mate or mate choice or
                                                greatest threat to porbeagle sharks in the               those factors to determine whether they               diminished fertilization and recruitment
                                                Southern Hemisphere is fishing. Threats                  collectively contributed significantly to             success) or is at risk of extinction due
                                                from fishing are likely more                             the extinction risk of the DPSs. As                   to environmental variation or
                                                concentrated closer to the coast.                        previously explained, we could not                    anthropogenic perturbations.
                                                However, there is no evidence that                       identify any portion of either DPS’ range                Based on these findings, we conclude
                                                porbeagle sharks face a higher risk of                   that met both criteria of the SPR policy.             that the North Atlantic and Southern
                                                extinction in one area of the Southern                   Therefore, our determination set forth                Hemisphere DPSs of the porbeagle shark
                                                Hemisphere over any other. Under the                     below is based on a synthesis and                     are not currently in danger of extinction
                                                SPR policy, we could not identify, in                    integration of the foregoing information,             throughout all or a significant portion of
                                                the preliminary analysis, any portion of                 factors and considerations, and their                 their ranges, nor are they likely to
                                                the porbeagle shark’s range in the                       effects on the status of the species                  become so within the foreseeable future.
                                                Southern Hemisphere DPS that may be                      throughout each DPS.                                  We have further concluded that the
                                                significant and in which members of the                     We conclude that neither the North                 species as a whole is not currently in
                                                species may be endangered or                                                                                   danger of extinction throughout all or a
                                                                                                         Atlantic nor Southern Hemisphere DPS
                                                threatened. As we did not find evidence                                                                        significant portion of its range nor is it
                                                                                                         of porbeagle shark is presently in danger
                                                to suggest that any one portion of the                                                                         likely to become so in the foreseeable
                                                                                                         of extinction, nor is it likely to become
                                                range has increased importance over                                                                            future. Accordingly, the porbeagle shark
                                                                                                         so in the foreseeable future throughout
                                                any other with respect to that species’                                                                        does not meet the definition of a
                                                                                                         all or a significant portion of its range.
                                                survival, no further analysis under the                                                                        threatened or endangered species and,
                                                                                                         We summarize the factors supporting
                                                SPR policy was conducted.                                                                                      thus, does not warrant listing as
                                                   Finally, we also considered whether                   this conclusion as follows: (1) The
                                                                                                         species is broadly distributed over a                 threatened or endangered at this time.
                                                there is any portion of the range of the                                                                          Porbeagle sharks from Newfoundland,
                                                taxonomic species that could be                          large geographic range within each
                                                                                                         hemisphere, with no barrier to dispersal              Canada to Massachusetts, and
                                                considered significant under the SPR                                                                           seasonally to New Jersey, were
                                                Policy and that is threatened or                         within each DPS; (2) genetic data
                                                                                                         indicate that, within each DPS,                       identified as a NMFS ‘‘species of
                                                endangered. Two portions of the range                                                                          concern’’ in 2006. A species of concern
                                                of the species could be considered                       populations are not isolated, have high
                                                                                                         genetic diversity, and reproductive                   is one for which we have concerns
                                                significant: The North Atlantic DPS and                                                                        regarding status and threats but for
                                                the Southern Hemisphere DPS.                             connectivity; (3) there is no evidence of
                                                                                                         a range contraction, and there is no                  which insufficient information is
                                                However, as we described above in our                                                                          available to indicate a need to list the
                                                extinction risk analysis, these two DPSs                 evidence of habitat loss or destruction;
                                                                                                         (4) while the species possesses life                  species under the ESA. In identifying
                                                are not in danger of extinction                                                                                species of concern, we consider
                                                throughout their ranges or likely to                     history characteristics that increase its
                                                                                                         vulnerability to overutilization,                     demographic and genetic diversity
                                                become so in the foreseeable future.                                                                           concerns; abundance and productivity;
                                                Therefore, there is no need to consider                  overfishing is not currently occurring
                                                                                                         within the range of either the North                  distribution; life history characteristics
                                                further whether any of these two DPSs                                                                          and threats to the species. Given the
                                                constitute significant portions of the                   Atlantic or Southern Hemisphere DPS;
                                                                                                         (5) the best available information                    information presented in the status
                                                species’ range.                                                                                                review and the findings of this listing
                                                                                                         indicates that abundance and biomass
                                                Final Determination                                      has stabilized in the Southern                        determination, we are removing the
                                                   Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires                   Hemisphere and is increasing in the                   designation of species of concern for
                                                that listing determinations be based                     North Atlantic; (6) while the current                 porbeagle sharks in the North Atlantic
                                                solely on the best scientific and                        population size in both DPSs has                      DPS. This is a final action, and,
                                                commercial data available after                          declined from historical numbers, the                 therefore, we do not solicit comments
                                                conducting a review of the status of the                 population sizes are sufficient to                    on it.
                                                species and taking into account those                    maintain population viability into the                Classification
                                                efforts, if any, being made by any state                 foreseeable future and consist of at least
                                                or foreign nation, or political                          hundreds of thousands of individuals;                 National Environmental Policy Act
                                                subdivisions thereof, to protect and                     (7) the main threat to the species is                   The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                conserve the species. We have                            fishery-related mortality from incidental             section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
                                                independently reviewed the best                          catch; however, there are strict                      information that may be considered
                                                available scientific and commercial                      management requirements in place to                   when assessing species for listing. Based
                                                information, including the petition,                     minimize this threat in many areas of                 on this limitation of criteria for a listing
                                                public comments submitted in response                    the North Atlantic and Southern                       decision and the opinion in Pacific
                                                to the 90-day finding (80 FR 16356;                      Hemisphere, and these measures appear                 Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d
                                                March 27, 2015), the status review                       to be effective in addressing this threat;            825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1


                                                50482                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Notices

                                                that ESA listing actions are not subject                 ADDRESSES:   Application kits are specific            applications from http://
                                                to the environmental assessment                          to each advisory council. As such,                    americansamoa.noaa.gov/.
                                                requirements of the National                             application kits must be obtained from                   • Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
                                                Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA                       and returned to the council-specific                  Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory
                                                Administrative Order 216–6).                             addresses noted below.                                Council: Allison Ikeda, NOAA Inouye
                                                                                                            • Channel Islands National Marine                  Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/PMNM/
                                                References                                               Sanctuary Advisory Council: Jessica                   Allison Ikeda, 1845 Wasp Boulevard,
                                                  A complete list of all references cited                Morten, NOAA Channel Islands                          Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 808–
                                                herein is available upon request (see FOR                National Marine Sanctuary, University                 725–5818; email Allison.Ikeda@
                                                FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).                            of California, Santa Barbara, Ocean                   noaa.gov; or download applications
                                                                                                         Science Education Building 514, MC                    from www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/
                                                Authority
                                                                                                         6155, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; 805–                   council.
                                                  The authority for this action is the                   893–6433; email Jessica.Morten@                          • Stellwagen Bank National Marine
                                                Endangered Species Act of 1973, as                       noaa.gov; or download applications                    Sanctuary Advisory Council: Elizabeth
                                                amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).                        from http://channelislands.noaa.gov/                  Stokes, Stellwagen Bank National
                                                  Dated: July 25, 2016.                                  sac/council_news.html.                                Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster
                                                Samuel D. Rauch III,                                        • Cordell Bank National Marine                     Road, Scituate, MA 02066; 781–545–
                                                                                                         Sanctuary Advisory Council: Lilli                     8026 extension 201; email
                                                Deputy Assistant Administrator for
                                                Regulatory Programs, National Marine                     Ferguson, Cordell Bank National Marine                Elizabeth.Stokes@noaa.gov; or
                                                Fisheries Service.                                       Sanctuary, P.O. Box 159, Olema, CA                    download applications from http://
                                                [FR Doc. 2016–18101 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                         94950; 415–464–5265; email                            stellwagen.noaa.gov/.
                                                                                                         Lilli.Ferguson@noaa.gov; or download                  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
                                                BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
                                                                                                         applications from http://                             further information on a particular
                                                                                                         cordellbank.noaa.gov.                                 national marine sanctuary advisory
                                                DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                      • Florida Keys National Marine
                                                                                                                                                               council, please contact the individual
                                                                                                         Sanctuary Advisory Council: Beth
                                                                                                                                                               identified in the ADDRESSES section of
                                                National Oceanic and Atmospheric                         Dieveney, Florida Keys National Marine
                                                                                                                                                               this notice.
                                                Administration                                           Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, Key
                                                                                                         West, FL 33040; 305–809–4710; email                   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ONMS
                                                Availability of Seats for National                       Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov; or download                   serves as the trustee for a network of
                                                Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils                       applications from http://                             underwater parks encompassing more
                                                                                                         floridakeys.noaa.gov/sac/                             than 170,000 square miles of marine and
                                                AGENCY:  Office of National Marine                       welcome.html?s=sac.                                   Great Lakes waters from Washington
                                                Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean                          • Greater Farallones National Marine               state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake
                                                Service (NOS), National Oceanic and                      Sanctuary Advisory Council: Carolyn                   Huron to American Samoa. The network
                                                Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),                       Gibson, Greater Farallones National                   includes a system of 13 national marine
                                                Department of Commerce (DOC).                            Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Drive,                   sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea
                                                ACTION: Notice and request for                           The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129;                and Rose Atoll marine national
                                                applications.                                            415–970–5252; email Carolyn.Gibson@                   monuments. National marine
                                                                                                         noaa.gov; or download applications                    sanctuaries protect our nation’s most
                                                SUMMARY:   ONMS is seeking applications                                                                        vital coastal and marine natural and
                                                for vacant seats for eight of its 13                     from http://farallones.noaa.gov/
                                                                                                         manage/sac.html.                                      cultural resources, and through active
                                                national marine sanctuary advisory
                                                                                                            • Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale                  research, management, and public
                                                councils and Northwestern Hawaiian                                                                             engagement, sustain healthy
                                                                                                         National Marine Sanctuary Advisory
                                                Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve                                                                           environments that are the foundation for
                                                                                                         Council: Shannon Ruseborn, NOAA
                                                Advisory Council (advisory councils).                                                                          thriving communities and stable
                                                                                                         Inouye Regional Center, NOS/ONMS/
                                                Vacant seats, including positions (i.e.,                                                                       economies. One of the many ways
                                                                                                         HIHWNMS/Shannon Ruseborn, 1845
                                                primary member and alternate), for each                                                                        ONMS ensures public participation in
                                                                                                         Wasp Boulevard, Building 176,
                                                of the advisory councils are listed in                                                                         the designation and management of
                                                                                                         Honolulu, HI 96818; 808–725–5905;
                                                this notice under SUPPLEMENTARY                                                                                national marine sanctuaries is through
                                                                                                         email Shannon.Ruseborn@noaa.gov; or
                                                INFORMATION. Applicants are chosen                                                                             the formation of advisory councils.
                                                                                                         download applications from http://
                                                based upon their particular expertise                                                                          National marine sanctuary advisory
                                                                                                         hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/
                                                and experience in relation to the seat for                                                                     councils are community-based advisory
                                                                                                         council/council_app_accepting.html.
                                                which they are applying; community                          • Monitor National Marine Sanctuary                groups established to provide advice
                                                and professional affiliations; views                     Advisory Council: William Sassorossi,                 and recommendations to the
                                                regarding the protection and                             Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, 100                superintendents of the national marine
                                                management of marine or Great Lake                       Museum Drive, Newport News, VA                        sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea
                                                resources; and possibly the length of                    23606; 757–591–7329; email                            Marine National Monument on issues
                                                residence in the area affected by the                    William.Sassorossi@noaa.gov; or                       including management, science, service,
                                                sanctuary. Applicants chosen as                          download applications from http://                    and stewardship; and to serve as
                                                members or alternates should expect to                   monitor.noaa.gov/advisory/news.html.                  liaisons between their constituents in
                                                serve two or three year terms, pursuant                     • National Marine Sanctuary of                     the community and the sanctuary.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES




                                                to the charter of the specific national                  American Samoa Advisory Council:                      Additional information on ONMS and
                                                marine sanctuary advisory council or                     Joseph Paulin, National Marine                        its advisory councils can be found at
                                                Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral                      Sanctuary of American Samoa, Tauese                   http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. Materials
                                                Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory                          P.F. Sunia Ocean Center, P.O. Box 4318,               related to the purpose, policies, and
                                                Council.                                                 Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799;                      operational requirements for advisory
                                                DATES: Applications are due before or by                 684–633–6500 extension 226; email                     councils can be found in the charter for
                                                Wednesday, August 31, 2016.                              Joseph.Paulin@noaa.gov; or download                   a particular advisory council (http://


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   20:16 Jul 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00023   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM   01AUN1



Document Created: 2016-07-30 06:25:47
Document Modified: 2016-07-30 06:25:47
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice; 12-month finding and availability of status review document.
DatesThis finding was made on August 1, 2016.
ContactJulie Crocker, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8480 or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8469.
FR Citation81 FR 50463 
RIN Number0648-XD74

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR