74684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of PPC 

Broadband, Inc., within Subzone 90C, in 

Dewitt, New York. 

The notification was processed in 

accordance with the regulations of the 

FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400) including 

notice in the Federal Register inviting 

public comment (79 FR 51138, August 

27, 2014). The FTZ Board has 

determined that no further review of the 

activity is warranted at this time. The 

production activity described in the 

notification is authorized, subject to the 

FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.14. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29383 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 130214141–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–XC515 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on Petitions To List the Northwest 

Atlantic Population of the Dusky 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 of 12-month finding and 

availability of status review report. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on two petitions to list 

the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico population of dusky shark 

(Carcharhinus obscurus) as a threatened 

or endangered distinct population 

segment (DPS) under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We completed a 

comprehensive status review of the 

dusky shark in response to these 

petitions. Based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

including the status review report 

(McCandless et al., 2014), we have 

determined that the Northwest Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico (henceforth 

abbreviated as NWA) population 

constitutes a DPS but does not warrant 

listing at this time. We conclude that the 

NWA DPS is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and is not likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

December 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The status review document 

for the dusky shark is available 

electronically at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/pr/species/fish/duskyshark.htm. 

You may also receive a copy by 

submitting a request to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, Attention: Dusky Shark 12- 

month Finding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 14, 2012, we received 

a petition from WildEarth Guardians 

(WEG) to list the dusky shark 

(Carcharhinus obscurus) as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA 

throughout its entire range, or, as an 

alternative, to list the Northwest 

Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico DPS as 

threatened or endangered. The 

petitioners also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for the dusky 

shark under the ESA. On February 1, 

2013, we received a second petition 

from Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) to list the Northwest Atlantic 

DPS of dusky shark as threatened, or, as 

an alternative, to list the dusky shark 

range-wide as threatened, and a request 

that critical habitat be designated. On 

May 17, 2013, we published a positive 

90-day finding (78 FR 29100) 

announcing that the petitions presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action of listing may be warranted for 

the NWA population of dusky shark, but 

not for the species range-wide, and 

explained the basis for that finding. We 

also announced the initiation of a status 

review of the NWA population of dusky 

shark, as required by section 4(b)(3)(a) 

of the ESA, and requested information 

to inform the agency’s decision on 

whether the species warranted listing as 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. 

Listing Species Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species are threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). To make this 

determination, we consider first 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under section 3 

of the ESA, and then whether the status 

of the species qualifies it for listing as 

either threatened or endangered. Section 

3 of the ESA defines a ‘‘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.’’ 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 (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). 

The DPS policy identified two elements 

that must be considered 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 remainder of the species 

(or subspecies) to which it belongs. 

Section 3 of the ESA 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.’’ 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. 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). In addition, we interpret 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ as the horizon over 

which predictions about the 

conservation status of the species can be 

reasonably relied upon. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us 

to determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened due to any 

one or a combination of the following 

five threat 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. We are also required to make 

listing determinations based solely on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, after conducting a review of 

the species’ status and after taking into 

account efforts being made by any state 

or foreign nation to protect the species. 

If we determine that a petitioned 

species meets the ESA definition of a 

‘‘species’’ and warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered, we publish a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

and seek public comment on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74685 

proposed listing. To determine if a 

species warrants listing as threatened or 

endangered, first we determine if it is 

threatened or endangered throughout its 

entire range. If it is not, then we need 

to consider whether it may qualify as 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range per the 

Significant Portion of its Range Policy 

(79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). This policy 

clarifies the Services’ interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ (SPR) in the definitions of 

‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered 

species.’’ Under the policy, if we find 

that a species is threatened or 

endangered only in an SPR, individuals 

of the entire ESA species are listed 

wherever found. Under the SPR policy, 

the word ‘‘range’’ is defined as the range 

occupied by the species at the time the 

Services make a listing determination 

under section 4 of the ESA. A portion 

of a species’ range is defined as 

‘‘significant’’ if: ‘‘the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout all of its range, but the 

portion’s contribution to the viability of 

the species 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, throughout all of its range.’’ 

Finally, if the species is threatened or 

endangered in an SPR, and the 

population in that significant portion is 

a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather 

than the entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies. 

Status Review 

We convened a team of agency 

scientists to conduct the status review 

for the NWA dusky shark and prepare 

a report. The status review team (SRT) 

was comprised of two research fishery 

biologists from NMFS’ Northeast and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, a 

research mathematical statistician from 

the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, a 

fishery management specialist from 

NMFS’ Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division, and two fishery 

biologists from NMFS’ Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office and the Office 

of Protected Resources. The SRT had 

group expertise in dusky shark biology 

and ecology, population dynamics, 

highly migratory species management, 

and stock assessment science. 

The status review report of the NWA 

dusky shark (McCandless et al., 2014) 

compiles the best available information 

on the status of the NWA dusky shark 

as required by the ESA, provides an 

evaluation of the discreteness and 

significance of the NWA population in 

terms of the DPS policy, and assesses 

the current and future extinction risk for 

the NWA dusky shark, focusing 

primarily on the impacts of threats to 

the status of the species related to the 

five statutory factors set forth above. 

In assessing extinction risk, the SRT 

considered the demographic viability 

factors developed by McElhany et al. 

(2000) and the risk matrix approach 

developed by Wainwright and Kope 

(1999) to organize and summarize 

extinction risk considerations. The 

status review report presents the SRT’s 

professional judgment of the extinction 

risk facing the NWA dusky shark but 

makes no recommendation as to the 

listing status of the species. The status 

review report is available electronically 

at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

species/fish/duskyshark.htm. 

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). It was peer 

reviewed by three independent 

specialists selected from the academic 

and scientific community, with 

expertise in shark biology, conservation 

and management, stock assessment 

science, and knowledge of dusky sharks. 

The peer reviewers were asked to 

evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, 

and application of data used in the 

status review report as well to evaluate 

the methods to assess extinction risk 

and the conclusions of the report. All 

peer reviewer comments were addressed 

prior to dissemination of the final status 

review report and publication of this 

determination. 

We subsequently reviewed the status 

review report, its cited references, and 

peer review comments, and believe the 

status review report, upon which this 

listing determination is based, provides 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information on the NWA 

dusky shark. Much of the information 

discussed below on dusky shark 

biology, distribution, abundance, 

threats, and extinction risk is 

attributable to the status review report. 

However, in making the listing 

determination, 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; our DPS policy; and our 

SPR Policy. 

Life History, Ecology, and Abundance 

of the Petitioned Species 

Species Description 

The dusky shark is classified as a 

requiem shark within the family 

Carcharhinidae. This family falls under 

the largest order of sharks, 

Carcharhiniformes, also known as 

ground sharks. Dusky sharks, like many 

requiem sharks, appear gray or bluishgray in color dorsally and white 

ventrally. The sharks within the genus 

Carcharhinus also have an internal 

nictitating eyelid, lack a spiracle, have 

a second dorsal fin that is less than half 

the height of the first, have welldeveloped pre-caudal pits, and a 

heterocercal caudal fin (Castro, 2011). 

Range and Distribution 

Dusky sharks are coastal-pelagic 

sharks inhabiting temperate and tropical 

waters worldwide ranging from the surf 

zone, across continental and insular 

shelves, and adjacent oceanic waters 

from the surface down to 400 meters (m) 

depth (Compagno, 1984). In the NWA, 

dusky sharks range from off Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts and Georges Bank south 

to Florida, and also occur within the 

Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea 

(Kohler et al., 1998; Kohler and Turner, 

2010). This species does not use waters 

with reduced salinities and rarely enters 

estuarine environments (Compagno, 

1984; Musick et al., 1993). During the 

summer months, small juveniles use 

nearshore coastal waters as nursery 

habitat in the NWA from off New Jersey 

to South Carolina (Castro, 1993; 

McCandless et al., 2007; NMFS, 

unpublished data). 

Movement and Habitat Use 

The dusky shark is a highly migratory 

species that begins moving north during 

the spring and returns south during the 

fall months, often traveling the full 

extent of its range during these seasonal 

migrations (Compagno, 1984; Musick 

and Colvocoresses, 1986; Kohler et al., 

1998, Kohler and Turner, 2010). Mark/ 

recapture data from the NMFS 

Cooperative Shark Tagging Program 

between 1963 and 2013 show a 

maximum straight-line distance traveled 

of 2,052 nautical miles (nm; 3,800 

kilometers (km)), with a mean distance 

traveled of 572 nm (1,059 km) for dusky 

sharks tagged in the NWA (number 

tagged = 8,776 sharks; recaptures = 181 

sharks; Kohler and Turner, 2010; NMFS, 

unpublished data). Movements between 

the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM), as well as between the U.S. 

GOM and Mexican Gulf waters were 

common, but there were no recaptures 

in the southwest Atlantic, and only one 

recapture off Central America (Barra de 

Colorado, Costa Rica) in the Caribbean 

Sea (Kohler and Turner, 2010; NMFS, 

unpublished data). Satellite tagging data 

from an aggregation site in the north 

central GOM during the summer months 

revealed dusky shark movements in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

74686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

excess of 200 km (108 nm, Hoffmayer et 

al., 2014). These sharks primarily used 

offshore GOM waters associated with 

the continental shelf edge, spending 87 

percent of their time in waters between 

20 and 125 m depth and 23 °C and 30 

°C (Hoffmayer et al., 2014). Carlson and 

Gulak (2012) also tracked three dusky 

sharks off the U.S. Atlantic coast with 

pop up satellite tags and found that 

these sharks spent the majority of their 

time in water depths between 0 and 40 

meters with dives down to depths of 

400 m. These sharks spent nearly 60 

percent of their time in water 

temperatures between 20 °C to 24 °C. 

The dusky sharks generally traveled 

about 10 km per day. Two of the sharks 

were tagged near Key Largo, FL with 

one shark tagged in January traveling 

north to the North Carolina/Virginia 

border by June and the other tagged in 

March heading south towards Cuba two 

weeks later (Carlson and Gulak, 2012). 

Diet 

The dusky shark is an apex predator 

with a high trophic level and diverse 

diet including bony fishes, cephalopods, 

elasmobranchs, decapod crustaceans, 

mollusks, and occasionally marine 

mammals (Corte ́s, 1999). Juveniles 

primarily consume pelagic bony fishes 

and cephalopods with an increase in the 

consumption of elasmobranch prey as 

their body size increases (Gelsleichter et 

al., 1999; Simpfendorfer et al., 2001). 

Stable isotope analysis has also shown 

a shift to shelf edge foraging in large 

dusky sharks (Hussey et al., 2011). 

Reproduction and Growth 

The dusky shark is a placental, 

viviparous species, giving birth to 

between 2 and 16 pups per litter 

(Compagno, 1984; Romine, 2009; Castro, 

2011) with an average litter size of 7.13 

pups for NWA dusky sharks (Romine, 

2009). Size-at-birth for dusky sharks 

ranges from 85 to 100 centimeter (cm) 

fork length (FL, Castro, 1983; 

Compagno, 1984). Available data on 

reproduction suggests a 3-year 

reproductive cycle (Castro, 2009; 

Romine, 2009) with a gestation period of 

18 months (Castro, 2009). Female and 

male size at maturity in the NWA is 235 

and 231 cm FL (17.6 and 17.4 years of 

age), respectively (Natanson et al., 1995; 

Natanson et al., 2013). Maximum 

validated age estimates are between 38 

and 42 years, confirming longevity to at 

least 42 years of age (Natanson et al., 

2013). Logistic growth parameters 

derived from validated vertebral lengthat-age data are L ∞ = 261.5 cm FL, Lo = 

85.5 cm FL, to = 4.89 years and g = 0.15 

year¥1 for the sexes combined 

(Natanson et al., 2013). 

Genetics 

Genetic data can be used to provide 

information on a species’ range as well 

as stock structure. Global 

phylogeographic studies of the dusky 

shark using maternally inherited 

mitochondrial DNA and nuclear 

microsatellite DNA analyses detected 

significant differentiation between 

dusky sharks from the NWA and IndoPacific regions, with waters off South 

America serving as a possible historical 

connection between these populations 

(Benavides et al., 2011; Gray et al., 

2012). Despite the history of severe 

population declines in the NWA, dusky 

sharks from all regions showed 

remarkably similar allelic richness and 

gene diversity (Gray et al., 2012). 

The low nucleotide diversity for the 

dusky shark and the existence of a 

morphologically and genetically similar 

species (Galapagos shark, Carcharhinus 

galapagensis) indicates the dusky shark 

is recently derived on an evolutionary 

timescale (Naylor, 1992; Musick et al., 

2004; Benevides et al., 2011). An 

ongoing genetic study using 

mitochondrial DNA sequencing found 

that specimens identified as Galapagos 

sharks from oceanic islands in the NWA 

are indistinguishable from specimens 

identified as dusky sharks collected off 

the U.S. east coast from New Jersey to 

Florida (Gavin Naylor, College of 

Charleston, personal communication, 

2014). These findings could possibly be 

attributed to an ancient hybridization 

event where there was a directional 

transfer of mitochondrial DNA genes, 

which are maternally inherited, from 

one species to another. Alternatively, 

they could represent two forms of the 

same species, an offshore and an 

inshore form. However, at this time, the 

evolutionary genetic relationship 

between the NWA dusky shark and 

Galapagos shark remains unresolved. 

Work continues on this using a wider 

global sampling scheme and multiple 

nuclear markers, which reflects the 

genetics of both parents, to address the 

possibility that the observed pattern 

might be the consequence of an ancient 

hybridization event. Whether or not 

these two species have the ability to 

interbreed (e.g., if the timing and 

location of opposite sexes ever co-occur 

during mating season), or if they would 

produce viable offspring is unknown. 

Abundance Trends 

In 2011, the NWA dusky shark was 

assessed through the Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 

process, which is a cooperative Fishery 

Management Council process initiated 

in 2002 to improve the quality and 

reliability of fishery stock assessments 

in the South Atlantic, GOM, and 

Caribbean. Results from this SEDAR 

stock assessment base model indicated 

that NWA dusky shark abundance had 

declined 74 percent from virgin 

(unexploited) levels by 2004, but was 

gradually increasing throughout the 

remainder of the time series modeled 

through 2009 (NMFS, 2011a). The only 

two fishery-independent surveys that 

were used in this model, the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Coastal Shark 

Bottom Longline Survey (NELL) and the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

Shark Longline Survey (VIMS LL), were 

recently updated with data from 2010 to 

2012 (for NELL) and to 2013 (for VIMS 

LL) using the same methodology (deltalognormal generalized linear mixed 

modelling) as was conducted for the 

SEDAR stock assessment (NMFS, 2011a; 

McCandless et al., 2014). With these 

updates, the surveys show that the 

NWA relative abundance trends (based 

on numbers) have continued to increase. 

In addition, analysis of the University 

of North Carolina Shark Longline 

Survey (UNC LL) data, another fisheryindependent time series that is still 

being conducted, also shows an 

increasing trend in abundance in recent 

years (McCandless et al., 2014). 

Although NWA dusky sharks are only 

second to the blacknose shark 

(Carcharhinus acronotus) in terms of 

numbers caught in the UNC LL survey, 

dusky sharks are transient in the 

sampled area and could easily be 

missed by the two fixed sampling 

stations. Because of these limitations, 

the UNC LL time series was 

recommended for use only in the 

sensitivity model runs for the SEDAR 

stock assessment to examine uncertainty 

in data inputs and model configuration 

(NMFS, 2011a). Analysis of data from 

this time series through 2009, included 

in the sensitivity model runs, revealed 

a declining trend in abundance for 

dusky sharks from the mid-1970s to the 

mid-1990s, with abundance appearing 

to stabilize at low levels into the 2000s 

(Schwartz et al. 2010; NMFS, 2011a). 

However, the addition of recent data 

from 2010 to 2012 in the analysis has 

since given the model more information 

to determine a trend in recent years, and 

has, in fact, revealed an increasing trend 

in dusky shark abundance that began 

around 2006 (McCandless et al., 2014). 

In other words, with the data updates to 

all three of the above fisheryindependent surveys, it appears that the 

NWA dusky shark abundance has been 

on a positive trajectory for almost the 

past decade. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74687 

Species Finding 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information described 

above, we determined that Carcharinus 

obscurus is a taxonomically-distinct 

species and, therefore, meets the 

definition of ‘‘species’’ pursuant to 

section 3 of the ESA. As noted above, 

the ESA’s definition of ‘‘species’’ also 

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.’’ Below, we 

evaluate whether the petitioned NWA 

population of Carcharinus obscurus 

qualifies as a DPS based on the elements 

of discreteness and significance as 

defined in our DPS policy, to determine 

whether it is eligible for listing under 

the ESA. 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis 

According to the SRT, the NWA 

population can be considered a discrete 

segment because it is markedly separate 

from other populations of dusky sharks 

as a consequence of genetic and 

physical/behavioral factors. Dusky shark 

populations have been reported in 

temperate and tropical waters 

worldwide, including the western 

Atlantic in the north from Nova Scotia 

to Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico, and in 

the south from Nicaragua to southern 

Brazil. Dusky sharks are also found in 

the Mediterranean, Indian, and western 

Pacific waters including off Madagascar 

and Australia, and in the eastern Pacific 

from southern California to the Gulf of 

California. Genetic studies, using both 

mitochondrial and nuclear 

microsatellite DNA, showed significant 

genetic differentiation between the 

western North Atlantic, South African, 

and Australian dusky shark 

populations, with a low frequency of 

migration between these populations 

(Benavides et al., 2011; Gray et al., 

2012). Specifically, Benavides et al. 

(2011) found 25 mitochondrial control 

region haplotypes and rejected a null 

hypothesis of panmixia (analysis of 

molecular variance, FST = 0.55, p 

<0.000001), detecting significant 

differentiation between dusky sharks 

from the U.S. Atlantic, South Africa, 

and Australia. Work by Gray et al. 

(2012) supports these findings by 

identifying a strong divergence among 

NWA, South African, and Australian 

samples using microsatellite markers 

(FST = 0.01–0.15, p <0.05). 

Within the western Atlantic, there is 

qualitative evidence of population 

structure between the NWA dusky 

sharks and dusky sharks caught off 

Brazil. The most common haplotype 

from Brazil is intermediate to the NWA 

and Indo-Pacific haplotype clusters, 

indicating this region may have 

provided a historical connection 

between the NWA and Indo-Pacific 

regions (Benavides et al., 2011). 

However, there was no evidence of 

genetic differentiation between dusky 

sharks from waters off the U.S. east 

coast and the GOM based on analysis of 

mitochondrial control regions 

(Benavides et al., 2011), suggesting that 

these populations readily mix. 

These genetic findings of a discrete 

population occurring within northwest 

Atlantic waters are further supported by 

tagging data collected from the NMFS 

Cooperative Shark Tagging Program 

between 1963 and 2013 (Kohler et al., 

1998; Kohler and Turner, 2010). Mark/ 

recapture data from this program 

indicate that NWA dusky sharks 

commonly move between the U.S. 

Atlantic and GOM, as well as between 

the U.S. GOM and Mexican Gulf waters, 

but do not venture south of the 

Caribbean Sea (Kohler and Turner, 

2010; NMFS, unpublished data). 

Although populations of dusky sharks 

occur off Brazil and South America, to 

date, no recaptures of the 8,776 tagged 

NWA dusky sharks have been identified 

from these areas, and only one has been 

recaptured within the Caribbean Sea 

(Kohler and Turner, 2010; NMFS, 

unpublished data). Given this 

behavioral information, it is likely that 

the dusky sharks found off Brazil and 

South America are independent from 

the NWA population of dusky sharks. 

Overall, based on the genetic and 

tagging study findings discussed above, 

we consider the NWA population of 

dusky sharks to be a discrete 

population. 

In terms of significance, the SRT 

determined that loss of the NWA 

segment would translate to a significant 

gap in the current range of the species, 

specifically the entire northwest 

Atlantic. Although qualitative data in 

Benavides et al. (2011) show a potential 

historical connection between the NWA 

and Indo-Pacific populations through 

the southwest Atlantic waters, the study 

indicates that recovery of depleted 

NWA populations would likely rely on 

reproduction by surviving local females 

as opposed to replenishment from 

immigrant females from the southwest 

Atlantic or Indo-Pacific. In other words, 

loss of the NWA population would 

leave a significant gap in the range of 

the species, extending from the Gulf of 

Maine south to Florida, and including 

the GOM and Caribbean Sea. As such, 

we consider the discrete NWA 

population of dusky sharks to be 

significant to the taxon as a whole. 

In conclusion, we agree with the SRT 

that the best available information 

indicates that the NWA population 

segment of dusky shark qualifies as a 

DPS under our DPS policy. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the NWA 

DPS of Dusky Sharks 

We thoroughly reviewed the available 

information regarding historical, 

current, and potential threats to the 

NWA DPS of dusky sharks (McCandless 

et al., 2014). In the following section, we 

summarize information regarding each 

of these threats according to the factors 

specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 

and consider whether any one or a 

combination of the factors are 

contributing to the extinction risk of the 

NWA DPS of dusky sharks. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

Based on our review of the best 

available information regarding 

historical and current range and habitat 

of the NWA DPS (McCandless et al., 

2014), we found no evidence to suggest 

that the species has experienced a 

curtailment of its habitat or range, and 

there is little information that would 

suggest habitat destruction or 

modification is presently contributing or 

will contribute significantly to the NWA 

DPS’ risk of extinction. 

In the U.S. exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) requires us to identify and 

describe essential fish habitat (EFH) in 

fishery management plans (FMPs), 

minimize the adverse effects of fishing 

on EFH, and identify actions to 

encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of EFH. The MSA defines 

EFH as ‘‘those waters and substrate 

necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to 

maturity.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1802 (10)). 

Towards that end, we have funded two 

cooperative survey programs intended 

to help delineate shark nursery habitats 

in the Atlantic and GOM. The 

Cooperative Atlantic States Shark 

Pupping and Nursery Survey and the 

Cooperative Gulf of Mexico States Shark 

Pupping and Nursery Survey are 

designed to assess the geographical and 

seasonal extent of shark nursery habitat, 

determine which shark species use 

these areas, and gauge the relative 

importance of these coastal habitats for 

use in EFH determinations. We also 

used fishery observer data, tagging data 

and fishery-independent sampling data 

to determine EFH for dusky sharks, as 

described in Amendment 1 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

74688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

Species (HMS) FMP (the FMP which 

manages the conservation of the 

domestic fisheries for Atlantic 

swordfish, tunas, sharks, and billfish) 

(NMFS, 2006; NMFS, 2009). These data 

resulted in the designation of EFH areas 

for neonate, juvenile, and adult dusky 

sharks in coastal and offshore waters 

from Florida to Cape Cod, which could 

provide important nursery habitats and 

breeding areas for this species. 

Next, we analyzed fishing and nonfishing impacts on EFH in the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and concluded 

that while bottom longline gear (BLL), 

in general, may have an effect on EFH, 

shark BLL gear as currently used in the 

Atlantic shark fishery was not having 

more than a minimal and temporary 

effect on EFH. This BLL gear (which 

normally consists of a mainline between 

3 and 8 km long with 200–400 hooks 

attached and is set for 2 to 20 hours) is 

primarily used in sandy and/or muddy 

habitats where it is expected to have 

minimal to low impacts. Likewise, other 

HMS gears are not considered to have 

an impact on EFH. HMS gears do not 

normally affect the physical 

characteristics that define dusky shark 

habitat such as salinity, temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, and depth. Similarly, 

other state and federally managed gears 

were also determined not to have an 

impact on HMS EFH, with the possible 

exception of some bottom-tending gears 

in shark nursery areas in coastal bays 

and estuaries. However, we anticipate 

that any impacts resulting from these 

gears would be minimal and only 

temporary in nature (NMFS, 2009). 

We also found no information to 

suggest that non-fishing related 

activities are affecting dusky shark 

habitat in a significant way. Estuarine 

environments, which are most easily 

prone to degradation by human activity 

other than fishing, are rarely used by 

dusky sharks. Additionally, the NWA 

DPS is highly mobile throughout its 

range (as evidenced by results from 

tagging studies: Kohler and Turner, 

2010; Carlson and Gulak, 2012; 

Hoffmayer et al., 2014; NMFS, 

unpublished data), and we found no 

evidence to suggest its access to suitable 

habitat is or will be restricted in the 

future. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The NWA DPS of dusky shark is 

currently a prohibited species in U.S. 

Atlantic HMS fisheries (NMFS, 1999), 

meaning that neither U.S. commercial 

nor recreational fishermen are allowed 

to legally land this species; however, 

this was not always the case. During the 

late 1930s, a shark fishery developed off 

the east coast of Florida, in the GOM, 

and in the Caribbean Sea (Wagner, 

1966), areas where the NWA DPS is 

known to occur. The shark fishery grew 

in response to the demand for vitamin 

A obtained from shark livers, but by the 

1950s, most of these shark fisheries 

were abandoned due to the 

development of synthetic vitamin A 

(Wagner, 1966). In the late 1970s, the 

U.S. Atlantic shark fishery developed 

rapidly once again, this time due to 

increased demand for shark meat, fins, 

and cartilage worldwide. At the time, 

sharks were perceived to be 

underutilized as a fishery resource. The 

high commercial value of shark fins led 

to the controversial practice of 

‘‘finning,’’ or removing the valuable fins 

from sharks and discarding the 

carcasses during this time. Growing 

demand for shark products encouraged 

expansion of the commercial fishery 

throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. 

Tuna and swordfish vessels began to 

retain a greater proportion of their shark 

incidental catch and some directed 

fishery effort expanded as well. As 

catches accelerated through the 1980s, 

shark stocks started to show signs of 

decline. 

The NWA DPS of dusky shark was not 

immune to this exploitation and 

followed the same trend as many of the 

other shark stocks off the U.S. east coast. 

Historically, the fishing mortality of the 

NWA DPS was estimated to be low from 

1960 through the early 1980s, with the 

size of the NWA DPS predicted as being 

close to virgin levels until the late 1980s 

(NMFS, 2011a). Fishing mortality was 

then thought to have increased to 

unsustainably high levels in the 1990s, 

before declining following the 

prohibition of dusky shark landings in 

2000 (NMFS, 2011a). 

In 2006, we assessed the status of the 

NWA dusky shark stock under the MSA 

and found it to be ‘‘overfished’’ with 

‘‘overfishing’’ occurring (Corte ́s et al., 

2006; NMFS, 2007). The 2006 stock 

assessment predicted that dusky sharks 

could rebuild within 100 to 400 years 

(Corte ́s et al., 2006). In 2011, the NWA 

dusky shark stock was re-assessed 

through the more comprehensive 

SEDAR process (NMFS, 2011a). Based 

on the results from this SEDAR 

assessment, we declared that the NWA 

dusky shark stock was still overfished 

and continues to experience overfishing 

(76 FR 62331; October 7, 2011); 

however, there was considerable 

uncertainty in the SEDAR stock 

assessment model about whether 

overfishing has occurred during the last 

several years of the time series (NMFS, 

2011a; McCandless et al., 2014). 

The fishery management terms of 

‘‘overfishing’’ and ‘‘overfished’’ are 

defined under the MSA and are based 

on different criteria than threatened or 

endangered statuses under the ESA. As 

such, they do not automatically indicate 

that a species may warrant listing under 

the ESA because they do not necessarily 

have any relationship to a species’ 

extinction risk. Overutilization under 

the ESA means that a species has been 

or is being harvested at levels that pose 

a risk of extinction. Therefore, the 

analysis of the results from this most 

recent SEDAR stock assessment (NMFS, 

2011a), catch and bycatch trends, and 

new data that have become available 

since the terminal year of the SEDAR 

stock assessment, are evaluated below 

in terms of insight into threats to the 

DPS and its likelihood of extinction. 

Although the NWA DPS of dusky 

sharks is currently a prohibited species 

in U.S. waters, individuals are still 

incidentally caught in the U.S. 

commercial BLL and pelagic longline 

(PLL) fisheries and U.S. gillnet fisheries 

(although rarely), and they have also 

been reported as landed in NMFS 

recreational fishing survey data. The 

SRT identified this bycatch as potential 

overutilization of the NWA DPS because 

it is the primary source of 

anthropogenic mortality of the DPS in 

U.S. waters. In assessing the impact of 

this bycatch mortality on extinction 

risk, we examined the results from the 

SEDAR stock assessment because the 

model implicitly included bycatch 

mortality in the calculations of total 

fishing mortality of the species. Due to 

the uncertainty about the magnitude of 

total catches and discards, an alternative 

modeling methodology was used in the 

SEDAR stock assessment, the Agestructured Catch Free Model (ASCFM), 

which re-scales the model population 

dynamics as proportional to 

unexploited conditions. Fishing 

mortality rates were estimated by the 

ASCFM using a correlated random walk 

prior. Although estimates of commercial 

at-vessel and commercial and 

recreational post-release mortality for 

dusky sharks were included in the 

‘‘Data Workshop Report’’ section of the 

SEDAR stock assessment report, these 

estimates were not directly inputted in 

the actual model (NMFS, 2011a). Pup 

survival was also estimated and given 

an informative lognormal prior 

(median=0.81, CV=0.3, and was 

bounded between 0.50 and 0.99). 

Relative effort series for the three 

primary U.S. fishing fleets that 

incidentally catch the NWA DPS (BLL, 

PLL, and recreational fleets) were used 

to determine a single, annual weighted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74689 

selectivity vector for modeling fishing 

mortality. In other words, although the 

SEDAR stock assessment used an 

ASCFM modeling approach, it still 

factored in total mortality attributable to 

fishing for its projections, which 

implicitly includes both discard 

mortality as well as mortality of those 

sharks retained in the catch. For these 

reasons, the at-vessel and post-release 

mortality associated with current trends 

of catch and bycatch should not 

negatively impact future stock 

projections. As such, the ASCFM base 

model stock assessment allows us to 

examine whether overutilization is still 

considered a threat to the species by 

modeling the effect of historical and 

current fishing mortality rates, 

including bycatch mortality, on the 

abundance trends and spawning stock 

biomass of the population. 

As mentioned before, overutilization 

under the ESA means that a species has 

been or is being harvested at levels that 

pose a risk of extinction and is most 

often indicated by a declining 

abundance and a low likelihood of a 

reversal of this trend due to this threat, 

or a combination of threats, and 

demographic risks. However, based on 

the SEDAR stock assessment model 

outputs, this does not appear to be the 

case. Although recruitment and 

spawning stock biomass have declined 

rather substantially since the late 1980s, 

spawning stock biomass levels are 

projected to maintain near 15 percent of 

unexploited levels into the future, 

indicating that the level of bycatch and 

landings and associated mortality at the 

time of the model (i.e., 2008 levels) is 

sustainable. In other words, recent 

exploitation levels do not appear to pose 

a risk of extinction to the NWA DPS as 

its biomass is projected to remain stable 

through the future. 

In addition, based on the estimates 

and trends of dusky shark bycatch from 

the available U.S. commercial BLL, PLL, 

gillnet, commercial handgear, and 

recreational fisheries data, we do not 

foresee a significant reversal in this 

biomass trend in the future, at least not 

in the negative direction. In terms of 

bycatch on BLL gear, the primary 

commercial gear employed for targeting 

large coastal sharks in all regions, the 

U.S. National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 

2011b; NMFS 2013a) provides a 

comparison of estimates of dusky shark 

bycatch over the years from the GOM 

Reef Fish BLL commercial fishery. This 

comparison allows for insight into the 

bycatch trend for this fishery. For the 

time period of 2005 to 2006, the report 

estimated that annual dusky shark 

bycatch was approximately 798 

individuals in the GOM Reef Fish BLL 

fishery (NMFS, 2011b). In an update to 

the report, for the years covering 2006 

to 2010, the dusky shark bycatch in this 

fishery remained rather stable, with an 

annual estimate of 804 individuals 

(NMFS, 2013a). 

Dusky shark bycatch in the U.S. 

Atlantic and GOM shark BLL fishery 

was included in the U.S. National 

Bycatch Report in pounds only and for 

the years of 2005 and 2006, but with the 

caveat that the estimates given were 

being refined due to discrepancies in 

the calculation of total effort (NMFS, 

2011b). There was no reported dusky 

shark bycatch in the report update for 

the Atlantic and GOM shark BLL fishery 

so we are unable to evaluate the trend 

using this information (NMFS, 2013a). 

However, examination of observer data 

from the U.S. Atlantic and GOM shark 

BLL fishery indicates that NWA dusky 

sharks made up a small percentage of 

the total large coastal shark catch from 

2005 to 2009 and showed a relatively 

stable trend across years (Hale et al., 

2010). Out of 879 observed sets over the 

5 years, only 8.2 percent of these sets 

caught dusky sharks (n=192 

individuals). In the NMFS Shark 

Research Fishery, which has had 100 

percent observer coverage since its 

creation in 2008 (NMFS, 2007), very low 

numbers of dusky sharks have been 

caught as bycatch (average=161 

individuals from 2009 to 2012; Hale et 

al., 2010; NMFS, 2011c; NMFS, 2012a; 

NMFS, 2013b) compared to overall 

bycatch estimates (NMFS 2011b; NMFS 

2013a). Although there appears to be a 

minor increasing trend in the annual 

dusky shark bycatch in this fishery 

(y=38.9x¥78047.2, R2=0.45, 

McCandless et al., 2014), analysis of 

fishing effort indicates there has been 

little change in effort from 2009 through 

2012. In other words, the increase in the 

bycatch amounts may be more likely 

attributed to increases in the relative 

abundance of dusky sharks within the 

NMFS Shark Research Fishery area, 

suggesting potential recovery of the 

NWA DPS within this area. 

In terms of bycatch on U.S. PLL gear, 

analysis of reported dusky shark catches 

from U.S. PLL logbook and observer 

data from 1992–2009 showed similar 

trends, marked by an initial decrease in 

catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the 1990s 

followed by a more stable trend through 

the 2000s (Corte ́s, 2010), indicating that 

bycatch in the U.S. PLL fishery has 

potentially stabilized in recent years. 

The annual number of hooks deployed 

in the U.S. Atlantic PLL fishery, which 

is a representation of the level of fishing 

effort, has ranged from 5,662,000 to 

7,679,000 from 2003 to 2012, with no 

distinct pattern of increasing or 

decreasing effort (NMFS 2013a). 

In the U.S. gillnet fishery, NWA 

dusky shark bycatch is negligible. Since 

the implementation of Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

(NMFS, 2007), the directed large coastal 

shark (LCS) gillnet fishery has been 

greatly reduced. The 33-head LCS trip 

limit has essentially ended the strike net 

fishery and limited the number of 

fishermen targeting LCS with drift 

gillnet gear. As a result, many gillnet 

fishermen who historically targeted 

sharks are now targeting teleost species 

such as Spanish mackerel, king 

mackerel, and bluefish. In 2012, 316 sets 

comprising various gillnet fisheries 

were observed. During the strike gillnet 

trips, no dusky sharks were observed on 

trips that targeted king mackerel and 

only one dusky shark was caught during 

an observed sink net trip targeting 

smoothhound (Mathers et al., 2013). 

U.S. commercial handgears, including 

handline, harpoon, rod and reel, buoy 

gear and bandit gear, are also used to 

fish for Atlantic HMS by fishermen on 

private vessels, charter vessels, and 

headboat vessels. However, the shark 

commercial handgear fishery presently 

contributes very little to the overall 

dusky shark landings. The estimated 

annual NWA dusky shark bycatch in the 

GOM Reef Handline (vertical line) 

fisheries was approximately 256 

individuals from 2006 to 2010, based on 

updated data to the U.S. National 

Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2013a). This 

reflects an 87 percent decrease from the 

previous annual estimate of 

approximately 1,941 individuals in 

2006 (NMFS, 2011b) and was mainly 

attributed to the establishment and 

implementation of an individual fishing 

quota system for the GOM commercial 

red snapper fishery before the start of 

the 2007 fishing season. 

In terms of U.S. recreational catch, 

most Atlantic HMS are targeted by 

domestic recreational fishermen using a 

variety of handgear including rod and 

reel gear. Given that the NWA DPS is 

currently a prohibited species, only 

catch and release is allowed in the U.S. 

recreational fishery; however, landings 

of dusky sharks are still reported in 

NMFS recreational fishing survey data 

and, thus, are considered to be due to 

misidentification of the species (as 

dusky sharks are commonly confused 

with other Carcharhinid sharks (e.g., 

sandbar and silky sharks, Carcharhinus 

falciformis)) or fishermen not 

understanding the regulations. Given 

these issues, estimates of U.S. 

recreational catches of the NWA DPS 

are considered highly uncertain. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

74690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

Analysis of three data sources that 

estimated U.S. recreational dusky shark 

catches (the Marine Recreational 

Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS), the 

NMFS Headboat Survey (HBOAT) 

operated by the SEFSC Beaufort 

Laboratory, and the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department Recreational 

Fishing Survey (TXPWD)) shows that, 

by weight, the recreational landings and 

recreationally caught sharks that were 

killed but not landed appear to be of 

similar magnitude to the commercial 

discards in recent years, but shows no 

clear trend (Corte ́s and Baremore, 2010). 

When data from these three surveys are 

combined by number, the total 

estimated recreationally landed and 

killed sharks from 2000 to 2009 depicts 

an overall decreasing trend (y=- 

346.7+696865, R2=0.30; data from 

Corte ́s and Baremore, 2010). Although 

these data are highly uncertain, the 

available information indicates that 

mortality from recreational bycatch is 

not likely increasing. 

Analysis of the NMFS Large Pelagics 

Survey data from 1986 to 2009, where 

dusky sharks are primarily caught and 

released, shows that recreational NWA 

dusky shark catches exhibited a pattern 

of declines from the 1980s into the 

1990s and a recent pattern of slight 

increases since 2000. Analysis of effort 

(shark directed trips) from 2003 to 2009 

also suggests very little change in total 

effort in recent years (y=7.8214x-15139, 

R2=0.0525, data from Walter and Brown, 

2010), indicating that the increasing 

trend in catch rates may be attributed to 

increases in the relative abundance of 

dusky sharks within the areas fished 

(McCandless et al., 2014). 

Available data on Mexican shark 

landings and fishing effort indicate that 

even though Mexican fisheries likely 

contribute to dusky shark mortality, 

these impacts appear to have stabilized 

or be decreasing in recent years and are 

unlikely to lead to a significant reversal 

in the projected biomass trend of the 

NWA DPS. The Mexican shark fishery is 

part of a diverse multi-species artisanal 

fishery (Oviedo, 2010; SorianoVela ́squez, 2011). The fleet uses both 

gillnet and longline gear to harvest 

sharks (Oviedo, 2010). The PLL gear is 

a selective gear, with yellowfin tuna 

making up over 70 percent of the 

catches (Brown and Ramı ́rez-Lo ́pez, 

2012). In 2006, shark species made up 

only 1.4 percent of the catch by 

numbers, and no dusky sharks were 

caught that year (Oviedo, 2010). During 

spring and summer, fleet activity is 

concentrated in the central, southern, 

and western portions of the Mexican 

EEZ and expands into the northern and 

eastern portions of the Mexican EEZ in 

the fall and winter (Brown and Ramı ́rezLo ́pez, 2012). However, an analysis of 

PLL effort from 2001 to 2006 indicates 

that there has been very little change in 

fishing effort (y=30x-58212, R2=0.003, 

data from Brown and Ramı ́rez-Lo ́pez, 

2012). 

Based on an intensive monitoring 

study of Mexican artisanal shark 

landings from November 1993 to 

December 1994, Castillo-Ge ́niz et al. 

(1998) reported that the Campeche 

region in the southeastern Gulf had the 

highest landings and effort, where 

Bonfil (1997) reported that dusky shark 

catches are rare. In 2010, Oviedo 

reported that there were 1,813 fishing 

vessels documented fishing in Mexican 

waters in the GOM. Areas with the 

highest shark landings are reported to 

occur in Veracruz and Tamaulipas 

(Oviedo, 2010), where Bonfil (1997) 

reported that dusky shark catches were 

common with the addition of the 

Yucatan region. There is no known 

nursery habitat for dusky sharks in 

GOM waters within Mexico’s EEZ, with 

primarily large juveniles and adults >1.5 

m total length caught in the artisanal 

fisheries (Bonfil 1994, Bonfil 1997). 

In general, however, there has been an 

overall decline in Mexican shark 

landings from GOM fisheries in recent 

years (Soriano-Vela ́squez, 2011). A 

qualitative frequency analysis of 

landings from the southeastern GOM 

fisheries showed moderate dusky shark 

catches in the 1980s followed by low 

catches in the 1990s and no recorded 

dusky catches in the 2000s (Perez, 

2011). The decline in shark landings is 

thought to be a result of past fishing 

pressure as well as rising fuel costs and 

shifts to other targets, such as rays and 

octopi (Soriano-Vela ́squez, 2011; 

Excartı ́n, 2011). Socio-economic 

research on Mexican artisanal fisheries 

reports that the artisanal fisheries in 

general are ‘‘stagnant’’ as many of the 

fishermen are older and younger people 

are less attracted to fishing as a career 

(Excartı ́n, 2011). This study also 

indicates that the decline in shark 

catches within this region may be 

partially attributed to fishermen 

changing their target species to more 

profitable species such as the octopus, 

which is currently one of the most 

important commercial species and has 

increased landings in recent years 

(Excartı ́n, 2011). Therefore, based on the 

above information, it appears that the 

level of harvest of the NWA dusky shark 

by Mexican fishermen is likely minimal 

and also on the decline, as indicated by 

the decreasing trends in fishing effort. 

Overall, the combination of (1) the 

stable levels of the NWA DPS biomass 

into the future projected by the SEDAR 

stock assessment, indicating that the 

level of exploitation in 2008 was 

sustainable; (2) the evidence of stable 

and even decreasing NWA dusky shark 

bycatch, harvest trends, and fishing 

effort in U.S. commercial fisheries and 

Mexican fisheries; and (3) the catch 

rates from the NMFS Large Pelagics 

Survey, the NMFS Shark Research 

Fishery, and updated analyses of U.S. 

fishery-independent surveys (see 

Abundance Trends section), which all 

suggest increasing abundance trends in 

recent years, indicate that 

overutilization of the species in the form 

of U.S. bycatch and Mexican landings 

appears to no longer be a threat 

contributing significantly to the risk of 

the DPS’ extinction. 

In terms of illegal harvest of the DPS, 

we did not find evidence that this is 

significantly contributing to the 

overutilization of the DPS. Since the 

mid-1990s, the United States Coast 

Guard (USCG) has been aware of 

Mexican fishing vessels fishing for 

sharks and other species in the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the 

coast of Texas. The vessels originate 

from Matamoros, Mexico, and fish in 

the area surrounding South Padre 

Island, Texas, anywhere from zero to 20 

miles (32 km) offshore. These vessels, or 

lanchas, fish during the day with gillnet 

and longline gear in U.S. waters for 

shark and red snapper, which are 

believed to be more prevalent in the 

U.S. EEZ off Texas than in the Mexican 

EEZ near Matamoros (Brewster-Geisz et 

al., 2010). However, analysis of detected 

fishery-related lancha incursions from 

2000 to 2009 show a recent decreasing 

trend since 2004 (y=-22.6x+45470, 

R2=0.81, Brewster-Geisz et al., 2010). In 

fact, since 2005, there has been a 46 

percent decrease in the number of 

detected incursions (Brewster-Geisz et 

al., 2010). In addition, the majority of 

the sharks found on these lanchas are 

not dusky but rather blacktip and 

hammerhead sharks (Brewster-Geisz 

and Eytcheson, 2005). 

These illegally caught sharks are 

usually finned and the fins sold; 

however, the best available information 

on the international shark fin trade does 

not indicate that this level of utilization 

is likely of the magnitude to affect the 

status of the NWA DPS. In fact, a study 

by Clarke et al. (2006) estimated that 

dusky shark fins made up only 1.4 

percent (1.2–1.7 percent) of the 

auctioned fins in Hong Kong, the 

world’s largest fin trading center. It was 

the second least encountered species in 

the fin auction (the first being tiger 

shark fins, Galeocerdo cuvier, 

comprising 0.13 percent of the fins at 

market, Clarke et al., 2006). It is also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74691 

unclear what proportion of the total 

dusky shark fins belonged to the 

prohibited NWA DPS. In addition, the 

primer that was used in the study to 

genetically identify fins of dusky sharks 

was unable to distinguish between 

dusky shark fins and Galapagos shark 

(C. galapagensis) fins; therefore, it is 

likely the reported percentage of dusky 

sharks in the fin market is overestimated 

(Clarke et al., 2006). 

Therefore, although some illegal 

harvest for dusky shark fins in the NWA 

may occur, the available information 

indicates that the present level of such 

illegal activity, especially for the fin 

trade, is minimal and we find it is 

unlikely to contribute significantly to 

the risk of the DPS’ extinction. 

Disease or Predation 

Various parasitic copepods have been 

documented on dusky sharks, including 

Alebion carchariae, Paralebion 

elongates, Perrisoppus communis, 

Pandarus satyrus, Pandarus sinuatus, 

Pandarus smithii, Pandarus cranchii, 

Nessipus alatus, Nessipus gracilis, 

Nessipus orientalis, Nemesis pallida, 

Nemesis spinulosis, Eudactylina 

spinifera, Kroyeria gracilis, and Opimia 

exilis (Bere, 1936; Cressey, 1970). 

Though there are many different types 

of parasitic copepods associated with 

dusky sharks, there are also species of 

diskfishes (Echenidae) that rely on the 

dusky shark for the host-fish 

relationship they provide for feeding on 

those copepods. Cressey and Lachner 

(1970) found the Remora remora and 

the ‘‘white suckerfish’’ (R. albescens) 

feed on copepods attached to dusky 

sharks. The connection between the 

host fish and R. remora was noted to be 

a stable, long-term relationship and that 

the white suckerfish is rarely caught 

apart from the host fish, which may 

indicate that these fish maintain a 

relationship with and/or close 

proximity to the host-fish (Cressey and 

Lachner, 1970). 

Acanthocephala, cestodes and 

trematodes have also been documented 

on dusky sharks (Linton, 1901; Linton, 

1908; Linton, 1921; Bullard et al., 2004). 

Bullard et al. (2004) found a dusky 

shark in the Indian Ocean with 

Dermophthirius carcharhini, 

documenting the first record of the D. 

carcharhini distribution extending 

outside of the Atlantic Ocean. A dusky 

shark captured in the New York Bight 

and held in the New York Aquarium for 

5 months suffered a mortal infection 

with D. carcharhini that was thought to 

show host specificity as it did not infect 

the other sharks present in the same 

tank (Cheung and Ruggieri, 1983). Sea 

lampreys have also been documented on 

dusky sharks, though the extent of this 

occurrence is not known as sea 

lampreys tend to be opportunistic, 

feeding on a wide variety of bony and 

cartilaginous fish (Jensen and Schwartz, 

1994; Wilkie et al., 2004; Gallant et al., 

2006). 

Although dusky sharks experience 

some degree of parasitic disease, this 

does not appear to be a significant factor 

affecting the abundance or persistence 

of dusky shark populations in the wild, 

with the only mortality event due to 

parasitic disease recorded from a fish in 

captivity (Bullard et al., 2004). 

Additionally, as noted above, there are 

diskfishes that serve in a mutually 

beneficial relationship with dusky 

sharks feeding on the parasites. 

Like many other large coastal shark 

species, dusky sharks tend to be 

opportunistic feeders and occupy high 

trophic levels in the marine 

communities where they occur. 

Primarily a coastal species, but also 

found in the outer continental shelf and 

sometimes in pelagic waters (Castro, 

2011), dusky sharks have a wide trophic 

spectrum that includes mostly fishes, 

cephalopods (squid, octopuses), other 

elasmobranchs (rays, other sharks), and 

crustaceans (Corte ́s, 1999). Although 

some of their prey species may have 

experienced population declines, no 

information exists to indicate that 

depressed populations of these prey 

species are negatively affecting dusky 

shark population abundance. In 

addition, not much is known of resource 

partitioning and competition for 

resources in elasmobranch fishes in 

general, although both are likely to 

occur in marine communities of which 

sharks are a part (Wetherbee et al., 2012; 

Heithaus and Vaudo, 2012). It is 

possible that juvenile dusky sharks, in 

particular, may have to compete for food 

resources with other co-occurring sharks 

and teleosts, but it is unlikely that this 

competition for food would be 

important enough to affect their 

abundance, especially considering the 

high trophic plasticity and 

opportunistic behavior of large 

predatory species like the dusky shark 

(Corte ́s et al., 2008). 

It is also very unlikely that predation 

on dusky sharks is a factor influencing 

their abundance. Adult dusky sharks 

reach a size of almost 4 m and are 

considered the largest of the 

carcharhinid sharks (Castro, 2011), with 

no major predators known. Owing to 

their large size at birth of about 1 m, it 

is also unlikely that newborn and 

juvenile dusky sharks have major 

predators that would regulate 

population size. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The NWA dusky shark receives a 

significant degree of regulatory 

protection in U.S. waters. In 2000, the 

dusky shark was added to list of 

prohibited shark species in the U.S. 

Atlantic. Since that time, U.S. 

commercial fishermen have not been 

allowed to retain, possess, land, sell, or 

purchase NWA dusky sharks, and 

recreational retention has also been 

prohibited, essentially affording the 

NWA DPS the highest level of fisheries 

protection under the MSA. (A review of 

Federal regulations pertaining to the 

NWA DPS prior to 2000 can be found 

in McCandless et al. (2014).) Projected 

apical fishing mortality relative to 

maximum sustainable yield levels for 

the NWA DPS has declined dramatically 

since 2000, indicating that this 

prohibition on the U.S. commercial and 

recreational retention of dusky sharks 

has directly and significantly decreased 

fisheries-related mortality of the species. 

In terms of state regulations, state 

fishery management agencies have 

authority for managing fishing activity 

only in state waters (0–3 miles (0–5 km) 

in most cases; 0–9 miles (0–14 km) off 

Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida). In 

the case of federally permitted shark 

fisherman, fishermen are required to 

follow Federal regulations in all waters, 

including state waters, unless the state 

has more restrictive regulations. The 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission approved the Interstate 

FMP for Atlantic Coastal sharks in 

August 2008 to create consistent 

regulations across the Atlantic states 

from Maine to Texas. All Atlantic states, 

along with Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, have adopted the same 

prohibited status for the NWA DPS as 

the Federal regulations and those in the 

Interstate FMP for Coastal Sharks; 

therefore, commercial and recreational 

retention of NWA dusky sharks is 

prohibited in all U.S. Atlantic state and 

Federal waters. 

In addition to the prohibition, the 

NWA DPS also directly and indirectly 

receives a significant degree of 

protection from overutilization and 

fisheries-related mortality through the 

implementation of a number of other 

Federal regulations. For example, in 

2005, we created the Mid-Atlantic Shark 

Closure Area, which encompasses North 

Carolina habitat for many dusky sharks. 

The area was closed to protect both 

dusky sharks and juvenile sandbar 

sharks from January through July. Data 

collected in the Shark Research Fishery 

and by NMFS scientists conducting BLL 

surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Shark 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

74692 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

Closure Area indicate elevated 

interactions with dusky sharks during 

the time/area closure compared to 

outside the closed areas (NMFS, 2012b), 

suggesting that this Mid-Atlantic Shark 

Closure area is providing protection to 

NWA dusky sharks from incidental 

fishing mortality. 

In the U.S. directed shark BLL fishery, 

where dusky sharks are known to suffer 

quite high at-vessel mortality (with an 

81 percent at-vessel mortality rate 

estimate, Morgan and Burgess, 2007; 

Romine et al. 2009), commercial fishing 

impacts on dusky sharks have been 

greatly reduced since 2008 due to 

existing regulatory mechanisms. This is 

mainly a result of the U.S. management 

measure prohibiting the commercial 

harvest of sandbar sharks outside of the 

NMFS Shark Research Fishery (NMFS, 

2012b), as implemented by Amendment 

2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

(NMFS, 2007). This prohibition 

ultimately resulted in shark fishermen 

targeting other species of sharks (e.g., 

blacktip, lemon, and bull sharks) that 

tend to occur in areas closer to shore 

than sandbar and dusky sharks (NMFS, 

2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that 

in the Atlantic Ocean, vessels that 

targeted sandbar sharks were more 

likely to catch dusky sharks because of 

similar habitat preferences, including 

depth and water temperature (NMFS, 

2012b). Therefore, with the 

implementation of this regulation and 

the resultant shift in species targeted by 

commercial BLL fishermen, fisheryrelated mortality from the U.S. directed 

commercial BLL shark fishery has been 

significantly reduced and is considered 

to have only negligible impacts on the 

extinction risk of the species. This 

reduction has also likely led to the 

observed increase in the abundance of 

the species as indicated by the 

increasing trend in annual dusky shark 

bycatch in the NMFS Shark Research 

Fishery from 2009 through 2012 with 

little change in fishing effort 

(McCandless et al., 2014). 

Based on the findings above, the SRT 

concluded that the majority of current 

anthropogenic mortality of the NWA 

dusky shark can be attributed to U.S. 

PLL bycatch mortality, Mexican 

landings, and possibly mortality in the 

U.S. recreational fisheries from landings 

misidentifications and/or 

misunderstanding of the existing 

regulations. However, the U.S. PLL is a 

heavily managed gear type and the 

fishery is strictly monitored. Based on 

analyses using Pelagic Longline 

Observer Program data, the at-vessel 

mortality rate for dusky sharks in the 

U.S. PLL fishery has been estimated to 

be approximately 34 percent using data 

from 1992–2012 (NMFS, unpublished 

data) and 27.9 percent using data from 

1995 to 2012 (Gallagher et al., 2014), 

significantly lower than rates on BLL 

gear. In other words, there is a higher 

likelihood that incidentally caught 

individuals on PLL gear can be released 

alive and continue to contribute to the 

viability of the NWA DPS. Regardless, 

additional measures to reduce 

interactions (e.g., time/area closures) 

with dusky sharks in the U.S. PLL 

fishery were proposed in Draft 

Amendment 5 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, but were not implemented, 

with further analyses being conducted 

on these measures in another FMP 

Amendment (Amendment 5b; NMFS, 

2014). Management measures to correct 

the problems of misidentification or 

misunderstanding of U.S. recreational 

regulations have also not been 

implemented at this time; however, we 

have increased outreach efforts and 

education on proper identification and 

safe release practices for recreational 

shark fishing, including the publication 

of shark identification guides for U.S. 

recreational fishermen. Thus, although 

existing management measures may not 

suffice to further decrease the level of 

dusky shark mortality in the U.S. PLL 

and recreational fisheries, the current 

level of anthropogenic mortality 

experienced by the NWA DPS under 

these measures has been identified as 

sustainable (see Overutilization section) 

with the potential to decrease even 

further with current outreach efforts . 

Therefore, we do not find existing 

regulatory measures to be inadequate to 

the degree that they pose a threat to the 

species or contribute significantly to its 

risk of extinction. 

Additionally, states such as Delaware, 

Hawaii, Washington, California, Oregon, 

Illinois, New York, Maryland, and 

Massachusetts have implemented or are 

working towards the implementation of 

shark fin bans. These bans have been 

developed by states individually, but 

generally prohibit the purchase or sale 

of shark fin in the state. These bans may 

not have much of a direct impact on 

NWA DPS because of its prohibited 

status, but may have a broader impact 

on the shark fishing industry in general, 

especially if they lead to decreases in 

shark fishing effort which could 

indirectly lower the likelihood of dusky 

shark bycatch. 

In terms of Mexican regulations, the 

General Law of Sustainable Fishery and 

Aquaculture (Ley General de Pesca y 

Acuacultura Sustentables) regulates the 

use of living marine resources. Fishery 

management plans and regulations are 

implemented through the National 

Fishing Charter (CNP: Carta Nacional de 

Pesca). With authority under the CNP, 

and the National Plan of Action for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Sharks, Rays and Similar Species in 

Mexico (NPOA-Sharks), the National 

Fisheries Institute (INAPESCA: Instituto 

Nacional de Pesca) and the management 

agency, Comisio ́n Nacional de 

Acuacultura y Pesca (CONAPESCA), 

implemented NOM 029–PESC–2006 

(NOM: Norma Oficial Mexicana) called 

‘‘Responsible Fishery of Sharks and 

Rays; specifications for use.’’ NOM 029– 

PESC–2006 regulates harvesting, 

designates prohibited species, specifies 

fishing zones and seasons, authorizes 

gears, and requires permit holders to 

report data. It promotes full use of shark 

catch by prohibiting finning. The goals 

are to maintain sharks at sustainable 

levels and reduce incidental catch of sea 

turtles and marine mammals. 

Additionally, CONAPESCA recently 

implemented an annual shark fishing 

prohibition in Mexican jurisdictional 

waters which began on the date of 

publication of the Agreement (June 11, 

2012) through June 30, 2012, and in 

subsequent years is in effect during the 

period of May 1 to June 30 of each year. 

The prohibition extends to August 31 of 

each year in the Campeche Bank region. 

This regulation should help protect the 

NWA DPS from harvest mortality and 

may also deter future illegal fishing by 

Mexican fishermen, at least during the 

prohibition period. 

Challenges with existing Mexican 

regulations include poor enforcement, 

lack of compliance, and inaccurate 

logbook reporting due to its complex 

format. In response, CONAPESCA and 

INAPESCA prepared a shark ID guide, 

and are working to create a friendlier 

format. Overall, vast improvements in 

monitoring and regulating Mexican 

fisheries have been made in recent 

years, but many challenges still exist 

that may jeopardize the ability of NWA 

dusky shark populations to increase 

beyond current sustained levels. 

However, based on the evidence of 

stable and even decreasing NWA dusky 

shark fishing effort in Mexican fisheries 

coupled with low to no levels of catch 

in recent years, at this time, we do not 

find these existing regulatory measures 

to be inadequate to the point where they 

are contributing or will contribute 

significantly to the NWA DPS’ risk of 

extinction. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Many sharks are considered to be 

biologically vulnerable to 

overexploitation due to their life history 

traits, with demographic analyses often 

the tool used to assess this vulnerability. 

Productivity expressed as the intrinsic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74693 

rate of population increase (r) is the key 

parameter estimated from these 

analyses, with low estimates of r 

indicating a species that will be slow to 

recover from depletion. Musick (1999) 

suggested the following ranges for 

evaluating the productivity of marine 

species based on r (yr¥1) values: High 

= >0.50, medium = 0.16–0.50, low = 

0.05–0.15, and very low = <0.05. Given 

the late age at maturity, slow growth 

rate, long life span, and low fecundity 

of many elasmobranchs, sharks are often 

at the low to very low end of this scale. 

In 2010, Corte ́s et al. conducted an 

ecological risk assessment (ERA) of 

sharks caught in Atlantic PLL fisheries. 

The International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

recently updated this ERA in 2012 by 

adding five previously unassessed 

sharks, including the dusky shark. In 

this ERA (ICCAT, 2012), productivity 

for the dusky shark was modeled using 

updated life history information on age 

and growth from Natanson et al. (2013) 

and a 3-year reproductive cycle (Castro, 

2009; Romine, 2009). Out of the 20 

Atlantic shark stocks assessed by ICCAT 

(2012), the dusky shark stock had the 

fifth lowest intrinsic rate of population 

increase (r = 0.043 per year). Generation 

time was estimated at 29.6 years 

(ICCAT, 2012), which is 10 years shorter 

than the estimate that was used in the 

recent SEDAR dusky shark stock 

assessment (NMFS, 2011a). Although 

the productivity estimated by ICCAT 

(2012) nearly doubles the r (yr¥1) values 

estimated during previous studies (r = 

0.020, Smith et al., 1998; r = 0.028, 

Corte ́s, 1998; r = 0.018, Romine et al., 

2009), bringing the relative rating of 

productivity from very low to borderline 

between very low and low (Musick, 

1999), it still depicts a species 

vulnerable to overexploitation and 

susceptible to demographic and densityindependent risks in the face of 

significant depletion. However, based 

on the evidence of increasing 

abundance and sustainable levels of 

exploitation of the NWA DPS, and the 

assessment of its current demographic 

and density-independent risks 

(discussed below in the ‘‘Assessment of 

Demographic Viability Factors’’), we do 

not find this biological vulnerability as 

currently inhibiting recovery or a threat 

that will contribute significantly to the 

NWA DPS’ risk of extinction. 

Another factor that was evaluated as 

a potential threat to the NWA DPS was 

climate change. The effects of climate 

change are a growing concern for 

fisheries management as the 

distributions of many marine organisms 

are shifting in response to their 

changing environment. Factors having 

the most potential to affect marine 

species are changes in water 

temperature, salinity, ocean 

acidification, ocean circulation, and sea 

level rise. Two recent studies have 

addressed the vulnerability of dusky 

sharks to climate change. Chin et al. 

(2010) conducted a vulnerability 

assessment of sharks and rays on 

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and 

we are in the process of finalizing a 

vulnerability assessment of U.S. 

northeast fish stocks (Jon Hare, NEFSC, 

personal communication, 2014). These 

studies identified similar factors for use 

in their vulnerability assessments, 

ranked the level of exposure and 

sensitivity to these factors using current 

knowledge and expert opinion, and 

based the resulting relative vulnerability 

for each species on simple logic rules. 

Dusky shark exposure rankings were 

highly influenced by water temperature, 

but sensitivity to this factor was ranked 

low for both the NWA and Australia’s 

GBR sharks. NWA dusky sharks were 

assessed a high vulnerability ranking 

with respect to climate change, but this 

was primarily influenced by its MSAdefined stock status and population 

growth rate. Although the population 

growth rate was taken into account in 

the GBR study, little is known about the 

population status of sharks in this area 

(Chin et al., 2010; McAuley et al., 2012). 

GBR dusky sharks were assessed a low 

vulnerability ranking with respect to 

climate change. If the factor of stock 

status is removed from the NWA climate 

vulnerability analysis (or status is 

significantly improved) the overall 

vulnerability of dusky sharks to climate 

change would be assessed as low (Jon 

Hare, NEFSC, personal communication, 

2014). 

Dusky sharks are not reliant on 

estuarine habitats, which are the 

habitats thought to be the most 

vulnerable to climate change. In 

addition, dusky sharks appear to prefer 

warmer temperatures and are frequently 

found in temperate to tropical water 

temperatures between 23 °C and 30 °C. 

Although at-vessel mortality rates of 

dusky sharks were found to positively 

correlate with bottom water 

temperatures on BLL gear (Morgan and 

Burgess, 2007; Gallagher et al., 2014), 

the effects of climate change on 

increased fishery-related mortality of 

the NWA DPS are likely to be minimal 

as previously discussed regulatory 

mechanisms have significantly reduced 

the likelihood of dusky shark capture in 

the U.S. commercial shark BLL fishery. 

Dusky sharks are also highly migratory 

and opportunistic predators, which 

gives them the ability to shift their range 

or distribution to remain in an 

environment conducive to their 

physiological and ecological needs. 

Based on the above information and 

analysis, we do not find that the impacts 

of warming water temperature from 

climate change will significantly 

contribute to the species’ risk of 

extinction. 

Assessment of Demographic Viability 

Factors 

In addition to the identification of 

threats, we also considered the 

collective condition of individual 

populations at the species level 

according to demographic viability 

factors but did not find evidence to 

indicate that these factors are 

appreciably reducing the fitness of the 

species. The NWA DPS is highly 

migratory and is not spatially restricted 

during any life stage, which contributes 

to its dispersal and re-colonization 

ability. The NWA DPS also exhibits 

high genetic diversity, with no 

indication that it is experiencing 

reduced reproductive fitness, fecundity, 

or survival due to loss of phenotypic 

diversity. Although the life history 

characteristics of the NWA DPS (long 

lived, late sexual maturity, low 

fecundity) limit the productivity of the 

species, rendering it less resilient to 

high levels of exploitation, its maximum 

rate of population increase is not 

decreasing nor are there indications that 

this productivity level could lead to 

extinction. In terms of abundance, it is 

difficult to make absolute statements 

about the number of dusky sharks in the 

NWA DPS because of the lack of reliable 

retention and discard data; however, 

fishery-independent surveys suggest 

that there are still a large number of 

dusky sharks in the U.S. Atlantic and 

GOM. In addition, although its current 

abundance has been significantly 

reduced from unexploited levels, there 

are multiple lines of evidence that 

indicate this number could be 

increasing (see Abundance section and 

analyses of data from the NMFS Shark 

Research Fishery and NMFS Large 

Pelagics Survey in Overutilization 

section). Overall, the NWA DPS does 

not appear to be at a point where normal 

environmental changes, anthropogenic 

perturbations, current fisheries-related 

mortality, habitat destruction, or 

demographic stochasticity could lead to 

its extinction. 

Extinction Risk 

After considering the extent to which 

demographic viability factors may be 

indicating a risk of extinction and our 

evaluation of the ESA section 4(a) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

74694 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 

factors impacts on the status of the 

species as discussed above, we find that 

the NWA DPS is presently at a low risk 

of extinction. This finding is in 

agreement with the SRT conclusions 

(McCandless et al., 2014). The 2011 

SEDAR stock assessment for this DPS 

indicated the population was depleted 

to around 85 percent of pre-exploitation 

levels; however, this assessment also 

suggested that the prohibition on dusky 

shark retention has come close to 

ending overfishing, with the projected 

biomass under existing management 

measures stabilizing near current 

values. Fishing mortality has 

significantly decreased since the U.S. 

commercial and recreational retention 

prohibition in 2000, with the present 

mortality of dusky sharks mainly 

attributed to bycatch mortality in the 

U.S. PLL fisheries and harvest by 

Mexican fishermen. However, U.S. PLL 

bycatch and Mexican landings appear to 

have stabilized at low levels in recent 

years, with trends that do not indicate 

any increases in fishing effort that 

would lead to extinction of this 

population. Additionally, fisheryindependent survey indices (i.e., NELL, 

VIMS LL, UNC LL) and bycatch from 

the NMFS Shark Research Fishery and 

the NMFS Large Pelagic survey indicate 

that abundance trends for the NWA DPS 

have continued on a positive trajectory 

since the terminal year of the SEDAR 

stock assessment. There will always be 

some level of extinction risk associated 

with this DPS, given its inherent 

vulnerability to overexploitation and 

potential to suffer mortality when 

bycaught. However, based on the best 

available data that show stable to 

decreasing fishing effort, U.S. bycatch 

levels, and Mexican harvest, stabilizing 

spawning stock biomass, and increasing 

abundance trends, we consider the 

species to be at a low risk of extinction. 

In assessing the extinction risk of the 

species through the foreseeable future, 

the SRT defined the foreseeable future 

as the timeframe over which the threats 

to the species could be reliably 

predicted to impact the biological status 

of the species. Anthropogenic mortality 

from U.S. bycatch and Mexican landings 

and the species’ natural biological 

vulnerability to overexploitation were 

the main operative threats that were 

likely to contribute significantly to the 

extinction risk of the NWA DPS. Since 

the main sources of NWA dusky shark 

bycatch (U.S. BLL and PLL fisheries) 

and Mexican landings appear to have 

stable, if not decreasing, trends since the 

last assessment, and the only change to 

management measures in place since 

that time has been the Mexican seasonal 

closure implemented in 2012, the SRT 

relied on the 2011 SEDAR stock 

assessment projection using the fishing 

mortality estimated for the final year of 

the assessment (F = 0.055; NMFS, 

2011a) as a precautionary approach to 

determine the foreseeable future. As 

discussed previously, this SEDAR stock 

assessment model takes into account the 

species’ life history information and 

projects the effects of anthropogenic 

mortality on the biomass of the species. 

However, due to the exponential 

increase in uncertainty seen in the 

projections of spawning stock biomass 

beyond 2045 (i.e., Fcurrent projection; 

NMFS, 2011a), the SRT decided that 30 

years was the extent of time over which 

they could confidently predict the 

impact of the operative threats on the 

species status. Thus, foreseeable future 

was defined as 30 years. 

In terms of extinction risk, we find 

that the NWA DPS will be at a low risk 

of extinction through the foreseeable 

future. This is also in agreement with 

the SRT, who was fairly certain that the 

NWA dusky shark DPS will have a low 

to no risk of extinction in the 

foreseeable future and will likely show 

improvement from its current status. For 

all SEDAR projection scenarios using 

data from the most recent SEDAR stock 

assessment, spawning stock biomass is 

predicted to either stabilize through the 

foreseeable future (based on the 2008 

estimated fishing mortality) or increase 

(based on alternate projections taking 

into account potential changes in 

fishing mortality that likely would 

require changes to current management 

measures) (NMFS, 2011a). The SRT did 

note that the greatest source of 

uncertainty in the SEDAR stock 

assessment data was the amount of 

human induced removals, with the 

projections of NWA dusky shark status 

most sensitive to the inclusion of 

different abundance indices and the 

weighting of these indices. For example, 

if total fishing mortality was 

underestimated or productivity was 

overestimated, there could be some 

cause for concern regarding the future 

status of the species (as exhibited by the 

lower 5–10 percent quantiles of biomass 

projections; NMFS, 2011a). However, 

recent and sustained positive trends in 

dusky shark abundance indices with 

updated data that was not considered in 

the projection suggests that the point 

estimates for exploitation levels (fishing 

mortality) may have been biased high 

and estimates of stock biomass may 

have been biased low given that an 

increase in biomass was not predicted 

for 2010–2012 by the SEDAR stock 

assessment model (NMFS, 2011a). 

Additionally, estimates of the species’ 

productivity have increased, based on 

updated life history information since 

the last assessment was conducted, 

suggesting the potential biases 

mentioned above are not operative. 

Final Determination 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that we make listing determinations 

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 on the 90- 

day finding (78 FR 29100; May 17, 

2013), the status review report 

(McCandless et al., 2014), and other 

published and unpublished 

information, and have consulted with 

species experts and individuals familiar 

with the dusky shark. 

We conclude that the dusky sharks 

occurring in the NWA are discrete and 

significant from other members of their 

species and, therefore, we consider this 

population to be a DPS. Next, we 

considered each of the ESA section 

(4)(a)(1) factors to determine whether it 

presented an extinction risk to the NWA 

DPS on its own. We also considered the 

combination of those factors to 

determine whether they collectively 

contributed to the extinction of the 

species. 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 NWA DPS 

throughout its entire range. 

We conclude that the NWA DPS of 

dusky shark is not presently in danger 

of extinction, nor is it likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. We summarize the 

factors supporting this conclusion as 

follows: (1) The DPS is highly 

migratory, occurring throughout its 

range, with no barrier to dispersal; (2) 

its current range is indistinguishable 

from its historical range, and there is no 

evidence of habitat loss, destruction, or 

modification that is significantly 

contributing to the species’ extinction 

risk; (3) there is no evidence that 

disease, predation, or competition is 

contributing to increasing the risk of 

extinction of the species; (4) while the 

species possesses life history 

characteristics that increase its 

susceptibility to depletion, current 

abundance levels are sufficient to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Notices 74695 

maintain population viability now and 

into the foreseeable future; (5) stock 

assessment projections and trends in 

catch data and updated fisheryindependent time series indicate 

increasing abundance of the NWA DPS, 

with spawning stock biomass stabilizing 

through the foreseeable future; (6) while 

the main threat to the species is fisheryrelated mortality from bycatch in U.S. 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and Mexican landings, U.S. bycatch and 

Mexican harvest under existing 

management measures has decreased 

and/or stabilized at low levels in recent 

years, with current levels deemed 

sustainable through the foreseeable 

future; (7) existing regulatory 

mechanisms throughout the DPS’ range, 

including the U.S. retention prohibition 

as well as time and area closures in both 

U.S. and Mexican waters and strict 

management of the U.S. line fisheries, 

appear effective in addressing the most 

important threat to the species (i.e., 

exploitation through bycatch mortality 

and harvest); and (8) while the NWA 

DPS has declined from historical 

numbers, there is no evidence that the 

species 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. Accordingly, the NWA 

DPS of dusky shark does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species, and our listing determination is 

that the NWA DPS of dusky shark does 

not warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered at this time. 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

Because we find that the species does 

not warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered throughout its range, we 

must evaluate whether there is 

substantial information indicating that a 

portion of the species’ range is both 

significant and either threatened or 

endangered per the Significant Portion 

of its Range Policy (79 FR 37577; July 

1, 2014). However, after a review of the 

best available information, we could not 

identify a portion of the NWA DPS 

range where its contribution to the 

viability of the species is so important 

that, without the members in that 

portion, the NWA DPS would be at risk 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, throughout all of 

its range. The NWA DPS is highly 

mobile throughout its range. Loss of any 

portion of its range would not likely 

isolate the species to the point where 

the remaining portions would be at risk 

of extinction from demographic 

processes. Similarly, we did not find 

that loss of any portion would severely 

fragment and isolate the NWA DPS to 

the point where individuals would be 

precluded from moving to suitable 

habitats or have an increased 

vulnerability to threats. In fact, we 

found no information that would 

suggest that the remaining populations 

could not repopulate the lost portion. 

There are very few restrictions 

governing their movements, with 

individuals of the DPS commonly 

moving between the U.S. Atlantic, U.S. 

GOM and Mexican Gulf waters based on 

mark/recapture studies (Kohler and 

Tuner 2010; Carlson and Gulak, 2012; 

NMFS, unpublished data). Individuals 

of the species also tend to travel the 

extent of their range during their 

seasonal migrations (Compango, 1984; 

Musick and Colvocoresses, 1986; Kohler 

et al., 1998; Kohler and Turner, 2010). 

Areas exhibiting source-sink dynamics, 

which could affect the survival of the 

species, were not evident in any part of 

the NWA DPS range. 

There is no information that the loss 

of genetic diversity from one portion 

(such as the Atlantic Ocean) would 

result in the remaining population 

lacking enough genetic diversity to 

allow for adaptations to changing 

environmental conditions. Dusky sharks 

from all regions show remarkable 

similar allelic richness and gene 

diversity, and within the NWA there 

was no evidence of genetic 

differentiation between dusky sharks 

from waters off the U.S. east coast and 

the GOM (Benavides et al., 2011; Gray 

et al., 2012). 

There is also no evidence of a portion 

that encompasses aspects that are 

important to specific life history events 

but another portion that does not, where 

loss of the former portion would 

severely impact the growth, 

reproduction, or survival of the entire 

species. EFH areas, which could provide 

important nursery, breeding, and 

feeding grounds, have been identified 

along the length of the U.S. east coast, 

with smaller localized areas in the 

central GOM, southern Texas, the 

Florida Panhandle, mid-west coast of 

Florida, and Florida Keys (NMFS, 2009). 

Given that the environmental 

characteristics that constitute this EFH, 

such as warm waters with reduced 

salinities, nearshore coastal waters, and 

waters associated with the continental 

shelf edge, can be found throughout the 

species’ range, we do not consider them 

to be limiting factors for the species’ 

survival. In other words, the viability of 

the species does not appear to depend 

on the productivity of the population or 

the environmental characteristics in any 

one portion. 

Additionally, in our evaluation of the 

potential threats to the species, 

including the likelihood of fisheryrelated mortality, we did not find 

information to show that these threats 

are significantly concentrated or 

substantially greater in any specific 

portion of the species’ range. The dusky 

shark is susceptible to being caught as 

bycatch in U.S. commercial and 

recreational fisheries throughout the 

entire extent of its range and is landed 

in Gulf waters by Mexican fishermen; 

however, we found no information to 

suggest that increased effort in a certain 

area is leading to a higher risk of 

extinction for that portion. Again, there 

are no barriers to the shark’s movement 

and existing management measures 

appear adequate in protecting the NWA 

DPS from extinction throughout all 

portions of its range. 

In conclusion, we find that there is no 

portion of the NWA DPS range that can 

be considered significant under the SPR 

Policy. Therefore, we find that the NWA 

DPS is not presently in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, nor is it likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future, 

and, as such, does not warrant listing at 

this time. 

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: December 9, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29318 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD611 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; North Pacific 

Groundfish and Halibut Observer 

Program Standard Ex-Vessel Prices 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES