Alert Regions

Great Hammerhead Shark Petitioned for Listing as Threatened or Endangered

NACO Staff New England 26 April 2013

We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list the great hammerhead shark range-wide or, in the alternative, the Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS) or any other identified DPSs as threatened or endangered under the endangered Species Act (ESA), and to designate critical habitat. We find that the petitions and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party.

Information and comments on the subject action must be received by June 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this

document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0046, by any of the

following methods:

Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via

the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0046, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,

complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Fax: 301-713-4060, Attn: Maggie Miller.

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other

address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,

may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the

public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on

www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business

information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily

by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous

comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain

anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of

Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 21, 2012, we received a petition from WildEarth

Guardians (WEG) to list the great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran)

as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its entire range,

or, as an alternative, to list any identified DPSs as threatened or

endangered. The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be

designated for the great hammerhead under the ESA. On March 19, 2013,

we received a petition from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to

list the northwest Atlantic DPS of great hammerhead shark as

threatened, or, as an alternative, to list the great hammerhead shark

range-wide as threatened, and to designate critical habitat. The joint

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/NMFS Endangered Species Act

Petition Management Guidance (1996) states that if we receive two

petitions for the same species, the requests only differ in the

requested status of the species, and a 90-day finding has not yet been

made on the earlier petition, then the later petition will be combined

with the earlier petition and a combined 90-day finding will be

prepared. Since the initial petition requested listing of the species

as threatened or endangered and the second petition only requested a

threatened listing, and a finding has not been made on the initial

petition, we have combined the WEG and NRDC petitions and this 90-day

finding will address both. Copies of the petitions are available upon

request (see ADDRESSES, above).

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation

Framework

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90

days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or

endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that

petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information

indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly

publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).

When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information

in a petition indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted (a

``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a

review of the status of the species concerned during which we will

conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and

commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a

finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted

within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the

12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available

information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day

stage, a finding that the ``petition presents substantial scientific or

commercial information that the action may be warranted'' at this point

does not predetermine the outcome of the status review.

Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which

is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,

any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint

NMFS-USFWS (jointly, ``the Services'') policy (DPS Policy) clarifies

the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population

segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a

species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species,

subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and

``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and

(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we

determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one

or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any other natural

or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C.

1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR

424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of

reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the

amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe

that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In

evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,

the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates

the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any

common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative

justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on

available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the

species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides

information regarding the status of the species over all or a

significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the

appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic

references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or

letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).

Judicial decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and

limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding

stage, in making a determination that a petition presents substantial

information indicating the petitioned action ``may be'' warranted. As a

general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish

a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability'' that a species is

either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.

We evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in

the petition including its references and the information readily

available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we

do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us

in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and

characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be

based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific

information in our files that indicates the petition's information is

incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the

requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one

interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information

will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is

reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the

petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information

indicating that the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing

is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude

that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day

finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown

information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the

species at issue.

To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we

evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that the subject species may be

either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we

evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with

the information readily available in our files, indicates that the

petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under

the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the

species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be

indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and

trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the

species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors

pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g.,

population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age

structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat

integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of

identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We

then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and

the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to

the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these

factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species

to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad

statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification

of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute

substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We

look for information indicating that not only is the particular species

exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a

negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that

negative response.

Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-

governmental organizations, such as the International Union on the

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or

NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk

classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or

state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may

not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.

For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a

species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by

NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because

NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence

requirements, purposes and taxonomic

coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species,

and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to

coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such

classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the

classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction

risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

Distribution and Life History of the Great Hammerhead Shark

The great hammerhead shark is a circumtropical species that lives

in coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic waters from latitudes of 40[deg] N

to 35[deg] S (Compagno, 1984; Denham et al., 2007). It occurs over

continental shelves as well as adjacent deep waters, and may also be

found in coral reefs and lagoons (Compagno, 1984; Denham et al., 2007;

Bester, n.d.). Great hammerhead sharks are highly mobile and seasonally

migratory (Compagno, 1984; Denham et al., 2007; Hammerschlag et al.,

2011; Bester, n.d.). In the western Atlantic Ocean, the great

hammerhead range extends from Massachusetts (although the species is

rare north of North Carolina), in the United States, to Uruguay,

including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. In the eastern

Atlantic, it can be found from Morocco to Senegal, including in the

Mediterranean Sea. The great hammerhead shark can also be found

throughout the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea and in the Indo-Pacific

region from Ryukyu Island south to New Caledonia and east to French

Polynesia (Bester, n.d.). Distribution in the eastern Pacific Ocean

extends from southern Baja California, including the Gulf of

California, to Peru (Compagno, 1984).

The general life history pattern of the great hammerhead shark is

that of a long lived (oldest observed maximum age = 44 years; Piercy et

al., 2010), large, and relatively slow growing species. The great

hammerhead shark has a laterally expanded head that resembles a hammer,

hence the common name ``hammerhead,'' and belongs to the Sphyrnidae

family. The great hammerhead shark is the largest of the hammerheads,

characterized by a nearly straight anterior margin of the head and

median indentation in the center in adults, strongly serrated teeth,

strongly falcate first dorsal and pelvic fins, and a high second dorsal

fin with a concave rear margin (Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d.). The body

of the great hammerhead is fusiform, with the dorsal side colored dark

brown to light grey or olive that shades to white on the ventral side

(Compagno, 1984; Bester, n.d.). Fins of adult great hammerheads are

uniform in color, while the tip of the second dorsal fin of juveniles

may appear dusky (Bester, n.d.).

The oldest aged great hammerhead sharks had lengths of 398 cm total

length (TL) (female--44 years) and 379 cm TL (male--42 years) (Piercy

et al., 2010), but they can reach lengths of over 610 cm TL (Compagno,

1984). However, individuals greater than 400 cm TL are rare (Compagno,

1984; Stevens and Lyle 1989), which Piercy et al. (2010) suggest may be

attributed to growth overfishing. Estimates for size at maturity range

from 234 to 269 cm TL for males and 210 to 300 cm TL for females

(Compagno, 1984; Stevens and Lyle 1989). Male great hammerhead sharks

have also been shown to grow faster than females (with a growth

coefficient, k, of 0.16/year for males and 0.11/year for females) but

reach a smaller asymptotic size (335 cm TL for males versus 389 cm TL

for females) (Piercy et al., 2010).

The great hammerhead shark is viviparous (i.e., give birth to live

young), with a gestation period of 10-11 months, and likely breeds

every other year (Stevens and Lyle, 1989). Litter sizes range from 6 to

42 live pups (Compagno, 1984; Stevens and Lyle, 1989). Length at birth

estimates for great hammerheads range from 50-70 cm TL (Compagno, 1984;

Stevens and Lyle, 1989).

The great hammerhead shark is a high trophic level predator

(Cort[eacute]s, 1999) and opportunistic feeder, with a diet that

includes a wide variety of teleosts, cephalopods, and crustaceans, with

a preference for stingrays (Compagno, 1984; Denham et al., 2007).

Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

We evaluated the information provided in the petition and readily

available in our files to determine if the petitions presented

substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the

petitioned actions may be warranted. The petitions contain information

on the species, including the taxonomy, species description, geographic

distribution, and habitat, with some information on population status

and trends in certain locations, and factors contributing to the

species' decline. The petitions state that commercial fishing, both

targeted and bycatch, is the primary threat to the great hammerhead

shark. The petitioners also assert that current habitat destruction,

deposition of pollutants, lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms

nationally and worldwide, global climate warming, as well the species'

biological constraints, increase the susceptibility of the great

hammerhead shark to extinction.

According to the WEG petition, all five causal factors in section

4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of

the great hammerhead shark: (A) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade

factors affecting its continued existence. The focus of the NRDC

petition is mainly on the northwest Atlantic population and it

identified the threats of: (B) overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (D) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade

factors affecting its continued existence. In the following sections,

we use the information presented in the petition and in our files to

determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted. If requested

to list a global population and, alternatively, a DPS, we first

determine if the petition presents substantial information that the

petitioned action is warranted for the global population. If it does,

then we make a positive finding on the petition and will revisit the

question of DPSs during a status review, if necessary. If the petition

does not present substantial information that the global population may

warrant listing, and it has requested that we list any populations of

the species as threatened or endangered, then we consider whether the

petition provides substantial information that the requested

population(s) may qualify as DPSs under the discreteness and

significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and if listing any of

those DPSs may be warranted. We summarize our analysis and conclusions

regarding the information presented by the petitioners and in our files

on the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that we find may be

affecting the species' risk of global extinction below.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Information from the petitions and in our files suggests that the

primary threat to the great hammerhead shark is from fisheries. Great

hammerhead sharks are both targeted and taken as bycatch in many global

fisheries (e.g., bottom and pelagic longlines, coastal gillnet

fisheries, artisanal fisheries). Because of their large fins with high

fin needle

[[Page 24704]]

content (a gelatinous product used to make shark fin soup), hammerheads

fetch a high commercial value in the Asian shark fin trade (Abercrombie

et al., 2005). However, the WEG petition overstates the contribution of

great hammerheads in the Hong Kong fin trade market by presenting

information on the trade of scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead

fins together. According to a genetic study that examined the

concordance between assigned Hong Kong market categories and the

corresponding fins, the great hammerhead market category ``Gu pian''

had an 88 percent concordance rate, indicating that traders are able to

accurately identify and separate great hammerhead fins from the other

hammerhead species (Abercrombie et al., 2005; Clarke et al., 2006a). As

such, here we provide the information on a finer scale level (down to

the species level) to evaluate the extent that the fin trade may

contribute to the overutilization of the great hammerhead shark.

According to Clarke et al. (2006a), S. mokarran is estimated to

comprise approximately 1.5 percent of the total fins traded annually in

the Hong Kong fin market. As mentioned above, great hammerhead fins are

primarily traded under the ``Gu pian'' market category, where the

market value for the average, wholesale, unprocessed fin is around

$135/kg, the most for any of the hammerhead fins (Abercrombie et al.,

2005). Extrapolating the fin data to numbers of sharks, Clarke et al.

(2006b) estimates that around 375,000 (95 percent confidence interval =

130,000-1.1 million) individuals of this species (equivalent to a

biomass of around 21,000 metric tons, (mt)) are traded annually in the

Hong Kong fin market. Given their high price in the Hong Kong market,

there is concern that many great hammerheads caught as incidental catch

may be kept for the fin trade as opposed to released alive.

In the United States, great hammerhead sharks are mainly caught as

bycatch in commercial longline and net fisheries and by recreational

fishers using rod and reel. A recent stock assessment by Jiao et al.

(2011) used a Bayesian hierarchical approach to assess the data-poor

hammerhead species and found that the northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico great hammerhead population likely became overfished in the mid-

1980s and experienced overfishing periodically from 1983 to 1997.

However, after 2001, the models showed that the risk of overfishing was

very low and that this population is probably still overfished but no

longer experiencing overfishing (Jiao et al., 2011), likely a result of

the implementation of stronger fishery management regulations since the

early 1990s. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSA), the term ``overfishing'' is defined as occurring

when a stock experiences ``a level of fishing mortality that

jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY

[maximum sustainable yield] on a continuing basis'' (50 CFR 600.310).

An ``overfished'' stock is defined as a stock whose biomass has

declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock to

produce MSY on a continuing basis (50 CFR 600.310). However, it is

important to note that these MSA classifications are based on different

criteria (i.e., achieving MSY) than threatened or endangered statuses

under the ESA. As such, ``overfished'' and ``overfishing''

classifications do not necessarily indicate that a species may warrant

listing because they do not evaluate a species' extinction risk.

However, they are relevant considerations for us to consider when we

evaluate potential threats to the species from overutilization for

commercial or recreational purposes.

In Central America and the Caribbean, there are very little data on

great hammerhead catches. The WEG petition references Denham et al.

(2007) which states that hammerheads were heavily fished by longlines

off the coast of Belize in the 1980s and early 1990s, leading to an

observed decline in the abundance and size of hammerheads and prompting

a halt in the Belize-based shark fishery. Fishing pressure on

hammerheads still continues as a result of Guatemalan fishermen

entering Belizean waters (Denham et al., 2007). However, catch records

from the Cuban directed shark fishery show a small increase in the mean

size of great hammerheads since 1992, suggesting partial recovery of

the species in this region (Denham et al. 2007).

The WEG petition also references a study (Feretti et al., 2008)

that indicated that the population of smooth, scalloped, and great

hammerheads in the Mediterranean Sea has experienced a greater than 99

percent decline in abundance and biomass; however, the authors of this

study note that only Sphyrna zygaena (smooth hammerhead) was assessed

because the other hammerhead species occurred only sporadically in

historical records. As such, this is not an appropriate index of the

abundance of the other hammerhead species in the Mediterranean Sea and

does not indicate overutilization of the great hammerhead shark in this

region.

In the Eastern Atlantic, off West Africa, the WEG petition states

that the ``great hammerhead population is believed to have fallen 80

percent as a result of unmanaged and unmonitored fisheries,'' but we

could not verify the original source of this statistic. Data from the

European pelagic freezer-trawler fishery that operates off Mauritania

shows hammerhead species, including S. mokarran, constitute a

significant component of the fishery's bycatch. Between 2001 and 2005,

42 percent of the retained pelagic megafauna bycatch from over 1,400

freezer-trawl sets consisted of hammerhead species, with around 75

percent of the hammerhead catch juveniles of 0.50-1.40 m in length

(Zeeberg et al., 2006). According to Denham et al. (2007), the sub-

regional plan of action for sharks of West Africa identified S.

mokarran as particularly threatened in the region, with a noticeable

decline in the population and collapse of landings. Citing unpublished

data and anecdotal evidence, Denham et al. (2007) suggests that S.

mokarran is ``almost extirpated'' from waters off Mauritania to Angola

after previously being abundant in these areas in the early 1980s. The

growth of fisheries targeting sharks in this region for the lucrative

fin trade has likely contributed to the great hammerhead decline. By

the 1980s, many fishers were specializing in catching sharks (Denham et

al., 2007), with some artisanal fisheries in West Africa specifically

specializing in catching sphyrnid species (CITES, 2010).

In the Indian Ocean, pelagic sharks, including the great

hammerhead, are targeted in various fisheries, including semi-

industrial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries. Countries that fish

for sharks include: Egypt, India, Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,

United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, where the probable or actual status of

shark populations is unknown, and Maldives, Kenya, Mauritius,

Seychelles, South Africa, and United Republic of Tanzania, where the

actual status of shark population is presumed to be fully to

overexploited (de Young, 2006). Analysis of fishery-independent data

from the KwaZulu-Natal beach protection program off South Africa

revealed declines in the catch rates of S. mokarran since the late

1970s. Specifically, from 1978-2003, annual catch per unit effort

(CPUE; in number of sharks per km net year) of S. mokarran declined by

79 percent, from 0.44 to 0.09 (Dudley and Simpfendorfer, 2006). The

results were statistically significant, with the slope of the linear

[[Page 24705]]

regression = -0.014, and the majority of the catch (greater than 64

percent) being immature great hammerhead sharks (Dudley and

Simpfendorfer, 2006).

In Australian waters, sharks are caught by commercial, recreational

and traditional fishers as targeted catch, retained catch, and bycatch.

Almost all sharks landed in Australia are used for domestic

consumption. According to Bensley et al. (2010), the annual commercial

Australian shark catch from 1996 to 2006 ranged from about 8,600 mt to

11,500 mt; however, the reporting of catch weights varied due to the

state of processing (e.g., whole weight, processed weight, landed

weight, etc.). Data from protective shark meshing programs off beaches

in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland suggest declines in hammerhead

populations off the east coast of Australia. Over a 35-year period, the

number of hammerheads caught per year in NSW beach nets decreased by

more than 90 percent, from over 300 individuals in 1973 to less than 30

in 2008, although the majority of the hammerhead catch was likely S.

zygaena (Williamson, 2011). Similarly, data from the Queensland shark

control program indicate declines of around 79 percent in hammerhead

shark abundance between 1986 and 2010 (although it was estimated that

S. lewini made up the majority of this catch) (Queensland Department of

Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (QLD DEEDI), 2011). S.

mokarran abundance in the nets fluctuated over the years, but remained

below 20 individuals per year, until 2008/2009 when a peak of 33

individuals was caught in the net (QLD DEEDI, 2011). Abundance has

since declined by around 48 percent to 17 individuals in 2011/2012 (QLD

DEEDI, 2011). In Australia's northwest marine region, Heupel and

McAuley (2007) analyzed CPUE data from the northern shark fisheries for

the period of 1996-2005 and reported hammerhead abundance declines of

58-76 percent.

Given the value and contribution of great hammerhead fins in the

international fin trade and the evidence of historical and current

fishing pressure and subsequent population declines, we conclude that

the information in the petitions and in our files suggests that global

fisheries are impacting great hammerhead shark populations to a degree

that raises concerns of a risk of extinction.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The petitions assert that the existing international and domestic

management measures of several nations have failed to adequately

protect the great hammerhead or stop ongoing population declines and

present information on some of the current national and international

shark regulations. Although the WEG petition mentions the International

Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

Recommendation 10-08, prohibiting the retention, transshipment,

landing, storing, or offering for sale any part or carcass of

hammerhead sharks of the family Sphyrnidae (except for bonnethead

shark), the petition states that ``these are merely recommendations and

do not do enough to bind the relevant actors.'' On the contrary, the

``relevant actors,'' of which we assume the petitioner is referring to

ICCAT Contracting Parties, are bound to implement management measures

consistent with achieving ICCAT recommendations under Article VIII of

the ICCAT Convention. On August 29, 2011, we finalized the

implementation of Recommendation 10-08 through passage of a final rule

that prohibits the retention, possession, transshipment, landing,

storing, selling or purchasing of oceanic whitetip sharks or scalloped,

smooth, or great hammerheads by U.S. commercial highly migratory

species (HMS) pelagic longline fishery and recreational fisheries for

tunas, swordfish, and billfish in the Atlantic Ocean, including the

Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico (76 FR 53652; August 29, 2011).

However, the exemption available to developing coastal States in this

ICCAT recommendation, which allows them to retain hammerhead sharks for

local consumption as long as no hammerhead parts enter international

trade, is troubling. As this exception provides a lesser degree of

protection for hammerhead sharks in some developing coastal States, it

may be a cause for concern for great hammerhead populations in the

Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, the petitions note that there is limited international

management of the great hammerhead shark, which is generally allowed to

be harvested outside of U.S. waters and ICCAT fisheries. The other

regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) do not have any

species-specific regulations for great hammerhead sharks, but have

addressed the controversial practice of shark finning (which involves

harvesting sharks, severing their fins and returning their remaining

carcasses to the sea) by adopting shark finning bans to reduce the

number of sharks killed solely for their fins. However, as the WEG

petition points out, these finning bans are enforced by monitoring the

fin-to-carcass weight ratio, with this ratio set at 5 percent (i.e.,

onboard fins cannot weigh more than 5 percent of the weight of sharks

onboard, up to the first point of landing). In a study that looked at

species-specific shark-fin-to-body-mass ratios, the great hammerhead

shark had an average wet-fin-to-round-mass ratio of 1.96 percent (Biery

and Pauly, 2012), much lower than the designated 5 percent. These

results suggest that fishers of great hammerhead sharks would be able

to land more fins than bodies and still pass inspection, essentially

allowing them to continue the wasteful practice of shark finning at sea

in these RFMO convention areas.

Domestic laws and regulations for other nations may also be lacking

in certain areas of the great hammerhead range. For example, in Central

America and the Caribbean, Kyne et al. (2012) notes that due in large

part to the number of autonomous countries found in this region, the

management of shark species remains largely disjointed, with some

countries lacking basic fisheries regulations, and weak enforcement of

those they do have. Off West Africa, weak fisheries management has led

to many of their fish stocks being declared fully exploited to

overexploited (FAO, 2012). Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)

(2012) notes that even countries with stricter fishing regulations in

this region lack the resources to provide effective or, for that

matter, any enforcement, with some countries lacking basic monitoring

systems. In addition, reports of illegal, unregulated, and unreported

fishing are prevalent in the waters off West Africa and account for

around 37 percent of the region's catch, the highest regional estimate

of illegal fishing worldwide (Agnew et al., 2009; EJF, 2012). Illegal

fishing is also common in the western central Pacific and eastern

Indian Ocean (Agnew et al., 2009), with many reports of vessels being

caught with illegal shark carcasses and fins onboard (Paul, 2009). As

the NRDC petition notes, ``as recently as 2011, illegal fishing and

finning of hammerhead sharks was documented in the Galapagos Marine

Reserve,'' suggesting that illegal shark fishing may still be an

impediment to conservation despite increasing international efforts to

protect sharks. Without stricter fishery regulations or enforcement,

there is concern that captures of great hammerhead sharks, both legal

and illegal, may be kept, especially considering the high price that

great hammerhead fins fetch in the international fin trade market. The

information in the petitions and in our

[[Page 24706]]

files suggests that while there is increasing support for national and

international shark conservation and regulation, the existing

regulatory mechanisms in some portions of the S. mokarran range may be

inadequate to address threats to the global great hammerhead

population.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors

The WEG petition contends that ``biological vulnerability'' in the

form of long gestation periods, late maturity, and large size makes

great hammerheads especially susceptible to overutilization. The

species has low productivity (intrinsic rate of population increase per

year = 0.070; Cort[eacute]s et al., 2012), which makes it generally

vulnerable to depletion and slow to recover from overexploitation. In

addition, both petitions mention the great hammerhead sharks' high

capture mortality rate on bottom longline (BLL) gear. This high at-

vessel mortality makes the shark vulnerable to fishing pressure, with

any capture of this species, regardless of whether the fishing is

targeted or incidental, contributing to its fishing mortality. In the

northwest Atlantic, at-vessel fishing mortality on BLL gear (averaged

for all age groups) was estimated to be 93.8 percent for great

hammerhead sharks (Morgan and Burgess, 2007). However, in an ecological

risk assessment of 20 shark stocks, Cortes et al. (2012) found that the

great hammerhead ranked 14th in terms of its susceptibility to pelagic

longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. This information suggests

that the species' biological vulnerability (low productivity and high

at-vessel mortality) may be a threat in certain fisheries, possibly

contributing to an increased risk of extinction, but may not be a cause

for concern in other fisheries.

Conclusion

We conclude that the information in the petition and in our files

suggests that fisheries, inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and

other natural factors may be impacting great hammerhead shark

populations to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of extinction,

with evidence of population depletions throughout the entire range of

the great hammerhead shark. We find that the WEG petition's discussion

of the present and threatened destruction, modification, and

curtailment of the great hammerhead's habitat and range due to growing

human populations and both petitions' discussions of climate change

threats to habitats do not constitute substantial information

indicating that listing may be warranted. The petitioners fail to show

if the great hammerhead shark is responding in a negative fashion to

those specific threats. For example, neither petition provides

evidence, nor is there information in our files, to indicate that

hypoxic occurrences and dead zones, a result of growing human

populations, urban pollution, and climate warming, negatively impact

shark populations. In fact, shark abundance can be very high in dead

zones (Driggers and Hoffmayer, personal communication, 2013). In

addition, both petitions assert that the loss of coral reef habitat due

to climate change puts great hammerheads at risk of extinction;

however, great hammerhead sharks are highly migratory species and are

not limited to reef habitats. Additionally, another interpretation of

the information could be that as ocean temperatures warm, more adequate

habitat for great hammerheads would become available as they are a

tropical species. The WEG petition also does not provide substantial

information indicating that listing may be warranted due to the

presence of mercury, PCBs, and arsenic in the great hammerhead shark's

environment. The WEG petition references studies that examined the

concentrations of these metals and organic compounds in different shark

species, but it does not provide information, nor is there information

in the references or in our files, on the effects of these substances

and concentrations on great hammerhead sharks. In fact, the petition

quotes a reference, stating that ``scientists found that `[a]ll life-

history stages [of the great white shark] may be vulnerable to high

body burdens of anthropogenic toxins; how these may impact the

population is not known.' '' In addition, one of the petition's

references, Storelli et al. (2003), states ``[i]t is hypothesed [sic]

that the large size of elasmobranch liver provides a greater ability to

eliminate organic toxicants than in other fishes.'' The reference also

mentions that in marine mammals selenium has a detoxifying effect

against mercury intoxication when the molar ratio between the two

metals is close to one, and observed similar ratios in shark liver

``indicating that this particular mechanism may also be valid for

sharks'' (Storelli et al., 2003). We conclude that given the

information in the petition, references, and in our files, the petition

fails to show that the great hammerhead may be responding in a negative

fashion to these proposed threats.

Summary of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

We conclude that the petitions present substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be

warranted due to a combination of the following three ESA section

4(a)(1) factors that may be causing or contributing to an increased

risk of extinction for the great hammerhead shark: Overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,

inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural factors.

However, we conclude that the WEG petition does not present substantial

scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned

action may be warranted based on the remaining two ESA section 4(a)(1)

factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; or disease or predation.

Petition Finding

After reviewing the information contained in the petitions, as well

as information readily available in our files, and based on the above

analysis, we conclude that the petitions present substantial scientific

information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the great

hammerhead shark range-wide as threatened or endangered may be

warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA

and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will

commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we

will first determine whether the species is in danger of extinction

(endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. If it is not, then we will consider

whether any populations meet the DPS policy criteria, and if so,

whether any of these are threatened or endangered throughout all or a

significant portion of their ranges. We now initiate this review, and

thus, the great hammerhead shark is considered to be a candidate

species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of the receipt

of the petition (December 21, 2013), we will make a finding as to

whether listing the species (or any identified DPSs) as endangered or

threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.

If listing the species (or any identified DPSs) is found to be

warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments

before developing and publishing a final rule.

Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is based on the best available

scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on

whether the great hammerhead shark is endangered or

[[Page 24707]]

threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the

following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance

of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current

population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, including

identified nursery grounds; (4) historical and current data on great

hammerhead shark bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial,

artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and

current data on great hammerhead shark discards in global fisheries;

(6) data on the trade of great hammerhead shark products, including

fins, jaws, meat, and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that

may adversely impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to

protect and restore the species and their habitats; (9) population

structure information, such as genetics data; and (10) management,

regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all

information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as

maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications;

and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association,

institution, or business that the person represents.

We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list

the great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) range-wide or, in the

alternative, the Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS)

or any other identified DPSs as threatened or endangered under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to designate critical habitat. We

find that the petitions and information in our files present

substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the

petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of

the species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To

ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting

scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from

any interested party.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received

by June 25, 2013.