73978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No 101004485–4999–03] 

RIN 0648–XZ50 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Endangered Listing 

of Five Species of Sawfish Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue this final 

rule implementing our determination 

that the narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis 

cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (Pristis 

clavata), largetooth sawfish (collectively 

Pristis pristis; formerly Pristis pristis, 

Pristis microdon, and Pristis perotteti), 

green sawfish (Pristis zijsron), and the 

non-U.S. distinct population segment 

(DPS) of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata) are endangered species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, as amended. We also include a 

change in the scientific name for 

largetooth sawfish in this final rule to 

codify the taxonomic reclassification of 

P. perotteti to P. pristis. We are not 

designating critical habitat because the 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species are entirely outside U.S. 

jurisdiction and we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas within U.S. 

jurisdiction that are essential to the 

conservation of any of the five species. 

We have reviewed the status of the five 

species of sawfish, considered public 

and peer review comments, and 

conservation efforts being made to 

protect all five species, and we have 

made our determination based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data that all five species of sawfish—the 

narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis 

cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (Pristis 

clavata), largetooth sawfish (collectively 

Pristis pristis; formerly Pristis pristis, 

Pristis microdon, and Pristis perotteti), 

green sawfish (Pristis zijsron), and the 

non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata)—are at risk of 

extinction throughout all of their ranges 

and should be listed as endangered 

species. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Information regarding this 

final rule may be obtained by contacting 

NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 

263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, 

Florida, 33701. The final rule and 

citation list are located on our Web site 

at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_

resources/sawfish/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast 

Regional Office (727) 824–5312 or Dr. 

Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 10, 2010, we received 

a petition from the WildEarth Guardians 

(WEG) requesting we list six sawfish 

species—knifetooth, narrow, or pointed 

sawfish (A. cuspidata), hereinafter the 

narrow sawfish; dwarf or Queensland 

sawfish (P. clavata), hereinafter the 

dwarf sawfish; largetooth sawfish (P. 

pristis and P. microdon); green sawfish 

(P. zijsron); and the non-listed 

population(s) of smalltooth sawfish (P. 

pectinata)—as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA; or alternatively, list any 

distinct population segments (DPS) that 

exist under the ESA. On March 7, 2011, 

we published a 90-day finding (76 FR 

12308) stating the petitioned action may 

be warranted for five of the six species. 

The five species were A. cuspidata, P. 

clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and the 

non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata. 

Information in our records at the time 

indicated that P. pristis, as described in 

the petition, was not a valid species. 

Our 90-day finding requested 

information to inform our decision, and 

announced the initiation of status 

reviews for the five species. On June 4, 

2013, we published a proposed rule (78 

FR 33300) to list A. cuspidata, P. 

clavata, P. pristis (formerly P. pristis, P. 

microdon, and P. perotteti), P. zijsron, 

and the non-U.S. DPS of P. pectinata as 

endangered. We also included a change 

in the scientific name for largetooth 

sawfish in the proposed rule to codify 

the taxonomic reclassification of P. 

perotteti to P. pristis. The largetooth 

sawfish (P. perotteti) was already listed 

as endangered on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 

40822), but this listing decision 

concerns the entire largetooth sawfish 

(P. pristis) species as it is currently 

classified, which also includes the 

species formerly classified as P. 

perotteti and P. microdon. We did not 

propose to designate critical habitat 

because the geographical areas occupied 

by the species are entirely outside U.S. 

jurisdiction and we did not identify any 

unoccupied areas that are currently 

essential to the conservation of any of 

these species. We solicited public and 

peer reviewer comments on the 

proposed rule and also coordinated 

outreach on the proposed rule with the 

Department of State to give notice to 

foreign nations where the species are 

believed to occur. 

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 first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, 

then whether the status of the species 

qualifies it for listing as either 

threatened or endangered. Section 3 of 

the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ as ‘‘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 (61 FR 4722), NMFS 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS; collectively, the Services) 

adopted a policy identifying two 

elements that must be considered when 

identifying a DPS: (1) The discreetness 

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. As 

stated in the DPS policy, Congress 

expressed its expectation that the 

Services would exercise their authority 

with regard to the use of DPSs sparingly 

and only when the biological evidence 

indicates such action is warranted. 

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.’’ Thus 

we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to 

be one that is presently in danger of 

extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ is 

not presently in danger of extinction, 

but is likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future (that is, at a later 

time). In other words, the primary 

statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species may be in 

danger of extinction— either presently 

(endangered) or in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

Section 4(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 factors: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73979 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We are required to make 

listing determinations based solely on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available after conducting a review of 

the status of the species and after taking 

into account efforts being made by any 

state or foreign nation to protect the 

species. 

Accordingly, we have followed a 

stepwise approach in making our listing 

determinations for A. cuspidata, P. 

clavata, P. pristis (formerly P. pristis, P. 

microdon, and P. perotteti), P. zijsron, 

and the non-U.S.DPS of P. pectinata. 

For the non-U.S. DPS of P. pectinata 

that may qualify as a DPS, we 

considered biological evidence, such as 

genetic information to determine if the 

population met the DPS policy criteria. 

Using the best available information 

gathered during the status reviews, we 

completed an extinction risk assessment 

using the general procedure of 

Wainwright and Kope (1999). We then 

assessed the threats affecting the status 

of each species using the five factors 

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, 

and then assessed public and peer 

reviewer comments. 

Once we determined the threats, we 

assessed the efforts being made to 

protect each species to determine if 

these conservation efforts were adequate 

to mitigate the existing threats and alter 

extinction risk. We evaluated 

conservation efforts using the criteria 

outlined in the joint NMFS and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Policy for Evaluating Conservation 

Efforts (PECE; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 

2003) to determine the certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness for 

future conservation efforts not yet fully 

implemented or effective. Finally, we 

re-assessed the extinction risk of each 

species after considering the existing 

conservation efforts. 

In order to conduct a comprehensive 

review, NMFS Southeast Region 

Protected Resources Division and NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center staff 

members collaborated to identify the 

best available information. Unlike some 

of our previous 12-month findings, we 

did not develop a separate status review 

report. Instead, we presented all 

information available for these species 

in the proposed rule, and we present 

that information again, as modified by 

public comment on the proposed rule, 

in this final rule. We first discuss 

background information relative to all 

five species, and then we include 

descriptions of the natural history 

specific to each species. 

Sawfish General Species Description 

Sawfishes are a group of shark-like 

rays. Taxonomically, they are classified 

in the Family Pristidae (sawfishes), 

Order Rajiformes (skates, rays, and 

sawfishes), subclass (Elasmobrancii), 

and Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous 

fish). The overall body form of 

sawfishes is similar to sharks, but they 

are flattened dorso-ventrally. Sawfishes 

are covered with dermal denticles 

(teeth-like scales) and possess enlarged 

pectoral fins. 

The most distinct characteristic of 

sawfishes is their large, flat, toothed 

rostrum or ‘saw’ with large teeth on 

each side. The rostral teeth are made 

from calcified tissue that is neither 

dentin nor enamel, though it is more 

similar to the latter (Bradford, 1957). 

Rostral teeth develop inside sockets on 

the rostrum and are held in place by 

strong fibers. Unlike sharks, sawfish 

rostral teeth are not replaced, although 

partially broken teeth may continue to 

grow (Miller, 1974). For some species of 

sawfish, the number of rostral teeth can 

vary by geographic region. 

Sawfishes use their rostrum to locate, 

stun, and kill prey, generally small 

schooling fishes such as mullet, herring, 

shad, and sardines (Bigelow and 

Schroeder, 1953). Breder (1952), in 

summarizing the literature on 

observations of sawfish feeding 

behavior, noted that they attack fish by 

slashing sideways through schools of 

fish, and then impale the fish on their 

rostral teeth. Prey are subsequently 

scraped off their rostral teeth by rubbing 

the rostrum on the bottom and then 

ingesting the whole fish. Bigelow and 

Schroeder (1953) also report that 

sawfish feed on crustaceans and other 

benthic species. Recent studies indicate 

that sawfishes may use their toothed 

rostrum to sense their prey’s electric 

fields (Wueringer et al., 2011; 2012). 

Sawfish species are distributed 

primarily in circumtropical shallow 

coastal waters that generally vary in 

salinity. While sawfishes are commonly 

found in shallow water, adults are 

known to also inhabit deeper waters 

(greater than 130 ft, 39.6 m). Some 

sawfishes are found in freshwater, with 

established populations in major rivers 

and lakes of South America, Africa, 

Australia, and Southeast Asia. The 

physical characteristics of habitat, such 

as salinity and temperature, likely 

influence a sawfish’s movement 

patterns. Tides limit the physical habitat 

area available, which may explain 

movement into shallow water areas 

during specific tidal cycles (Blaber et 

al., 1989). 

Life history data on sawfishes are 

limited. Fertilization is internal by 

means of male claspers and 

reproduction is ovoviviparous; females 

carry eggs with a yolk sac that nourishes 

developing young until they hatch 

within the body. Sawfishes are born 

with a gelatinous substance around their 

rostral teeth to protect the mother 

during birth (Last and Stevens, 1994; 

Rainboth, 1996; Compagno and Last, 

1999; Raje and Joshi, 2003; Field et al., 

2009). It is thought that most sawfishes 

breed every two years and have a 

gestation period of about four to five 

months (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; 

Thorson, 1976a). The number of young 

in a litter varies by species, as does the 

age at sexual maturity. 

Like most chondrichthyes, sawfishes 

occupy the mid- to upper-level of their 

food web. Smaller sawfishes, including 

juveniles, may be preyed upon by larger 

sharks like the bull shark (Carcharhinus 

leucas), estuarine crocodiles 

(Crocodylus porosus), or alligators 

(Alligator mississippiensis). Sawfishes 

may use their saw as a weapon for 

defense against these predators (Brewer 

et al., 1997; Wueringer et al., 2009). 

Previously, seven valid species of 

sawfish were recognized worldwide 

(Compagno, 1999). Compagno and Cook 

(1995) and Compagno (1999) identified 

these seven species of sawfish as A. 

cuspidata Latham 1794, P. microdon 

Latham 1794, P. perotteti Muller and 

Henle 1841, P. pristis Linnaeus 1758, P. 

clavata Garman 1906, P. pectinata 

Latham 1794, and P. zijsron Bleeker 

1851. Since then, the taxonomy, 

delineation, and identification of these 

species have proven problematic (Oijen 

et al., 2007; Wiley et al., 2008; 

Wueringer et al., 2009). Most recently, 

Faria et al. (2013) hypothesized that the 

taxonomic uncertainty occurred due to 

several factors: many original species 

descriptions were abbreviated, few 

holotypes are available for examination, 

reference material is not available for 

comparison in museum collections, and 

it is difficult to obtain fresh specimens 

because of the infrequent captures of all 

sawfishes. The majority of the confusion 

regarding taxonomic classification of 

Pristidae was related to the species P. 

pristis. To resolve questions regarding 

the taxonomy of pristids, Faria et al. 

(2013) used historical taxonomy, 

external morphology, and mitochondrial 

DNA (mtDNA) sequences (NADH–2 

loci) to conclude that sawfishes have 

five species in two genera: P. pristis, P. 

clavata, P. pectinata, P. zijsron, and A. 

cuspidata. We accept this proposed 

taxonomy as the best available science. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Natural History of the Narrow Sawfish 

(Anoxypristis cuspidata) 

Taxonomy and Morphology 

The narrow sawfish was first 

described by Latham in 1794 as P. 

cuspidatus. It was later reclassified as 

Anoxypristis due to morphological 

differences from Pristis that include its 

narrow rostral saw, which lacks teeth on 

the first quarter of the saw closest to the 

head in adults, as well as the distinct 

shape of the lower lobe of the caudal fin 

(Compagno et al., 2006a). In juveniles, 

the portion of the rostrum without teeth 

is only about one-sixth of the saw length 

(Wueringer et al., 2009). 

In addition, the narrow sawfish is 

characterized by dagger-shaped rostral 

teeth (Fowler, 1941; Blegvad and 

Loppenthin, 1944; Compagno and Last, 

1999; Faria et al., 2013). The narrow 

sawfish also has a second pair of hollow 

cartilaginous tubes in its rostrum that 

are not present in other sawfishes. 

These canals contain an additional 

connection to the ampullae of Lorenzini 

(special sensory receptors) located on 

the underside of the rostrum (Wueringer 

et al., 2009). 

Rostral tooth count varies for this 

species between 18 and 22 (Last and 

Stevens, 1994), 24 and 28 (Hussakof, 

1912), and 27–32 (Miller, 1974). The 

total number of teeth has been found to 

vary by individual, region, and sex. 

Some studies report males having fewer 

rostral teeth than females, while others 

report the opposite (Last and Stevens, 

1994; Compagno and Last, 1999). While 

total rostral tooth count is often 

inconsistent among individuals or 

studies, the number of teeth an 

individual has is fixed during 

development (Wueringer et al., 2009). 

The pectoral fins of the narrow 

sawfish are narrow, short, and sharklike in shape. The first dorsal fin is 

located posterior to the insertion of the 

pelvic fins (Compagno and Last, 1999). 

Within the jaw, there are 94 teeth on the 

upper jaw and 102 on the lower jaw 

(Taniuchi et al., 1991a). The eyes are 

large and very close to the spiracles. 

Coloration is dark grey dorsally and 

whitish ventrally (Fowler, 1941; 

Compagno and Last, 1999). 

Narrow sawfish are the only sawfish 

having tricuspid (three-pointed) 

denticles (White and Moy-Thomas, 

1941). These denticles first appear on 

sawfish at 25.6 to 28 in (65 to 71 cm) 

total length (TL), after they are born. In 

general, the narrow sawfish is 

considered ‘‘naked’’ because denticle 

coverage in adults is often sporadic and 

widely spaced, usually only covering 

the rostrum and anterior fin margins, 

making the skin appear smooth (Fowler, 

1941; Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; 

Last and Stevens, 1994; Wueringer et al., 

2009). Narrow sawfish also have 

buccopharyngeal denticles (tooth-like 

structures) present in their mouth. This 

species does not have tubercles or 

thorns on their skin (Deynat, 2005). 

Habitat Use and Migration 

The narrow sawfish is largely 

euryhaline and moves between 

estuarine and marine environments 

(Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; Last, 

2002; Compagno, 2002b; Compagno et 

al., 2006a; Peverell, 2008). It is generally 

found in inshore waters in depths of 

less than 130 ft (39.6 m) with salinities 

between 25 and 35 parts per thousand 

(ppt), spending most of its time near the 

substrate or in the water column over 

coastal flats (Compagno and Last, 1999; 

Last, 2002; Peverell, 2005; Peverell, 

2008; Wueringer et al., 2009). While 

Smith (1936) described it as a possible 

freshwater species, there are only a few 

reports from freshwater (Taniuchi and 

Shimizu, 1991; Last and Compagno, 

2002; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 

Wueringer et al., 2009). We are not 

aware of any fresh or salt water 

tolerance studies on the species 

(Compagno, 2002a; Compagno, 2002b) 

and conclude its habitat is euryhaline. 

In studies conducted by Peverell 

(2008), the narrow sawfish in the Gulf 

of Carpentaria, Australia, undergo an 

ontogenetic shift in habitat. Larger 

individuals were commonly 

encountered offshore, while smaller 

individuals were mostly found in 

inshore waters. Peverell (2008) also 

found females were more likely to be 

offshore compared to males, at least 

during the months of the study 

(February to May). This suggests that 

smaller narrow sawfish use the 

protection and prey abundance found in 

shallow, coastal waters (Dan et al., 1994; 

Peverell, 2005; Peverell, 2008). 

Age and Growth 

Two studies have been conducted on 

age and growth of narrow sawfish. Field 

et al. (2009) compared previously-aged 

vertebrae with aged rostral teeth and 

found a direct correlation up to age 6. 

After age 6, an individual’s age was 

often underestimated using tooth 

growth bands as the teeth become worn 

over time (Field et al., 2009). Peverell 

(2008) then used aged vertebrae to 

develop more accurate growth curves 

for both sexes. While the maximum 

observed age of narrow sawfish from 

vertebrae was 9 years, the theoretical 

longevity was calculated at 27 years 

(Peverell, 2008). A 1-year-old animal 

has a saw length of approximately 4.5 in 

(11.5 cm). Female narrow sawfish begin 

to mature at 8 ft 1 in (246 cm) TL and 

all are mature at 15 ft 5 in (470 cm) TL; 

males are mature at 8 ft (245 cm) TL 

(Pogonoski et al., 2002; Bonfil and 

Abdallah 2004; Peverell, 2005; 2008). 

The maximum recorded length of a 

narrow sawfish is 15 ft 5 in (4.7 m) TL, 

with unconfirmed records of 20 ft (6.1 

m) TL (Last and Stevens, 1994; 

Compagno and Last, 1999; Pogonoski et 

al., 2002; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 

Faria et al., 2013). 

Reproduction 

The narrow sawfish gives birth to a 

maximum of 23 pups in the spring. The 

total length (TL) of pups at birth is 

between 17–24 in (43–61 cm) 

(Compagno and Last, 1999; Peverell, 

2005; 2008). The reproductive cycle is 

assumed to be annual, with an average 

of 12 pups per litter (Peverell, 2005; 

D’Anastasi, 2010). The number of pups 

is related to female body size, as smaller 

females produce fewer offspring than 

larger females (Compagno and Last, 

1999). Preliminary genetic research 

suggests that the narrow sawfish may 

not have multiple fathers per litter 

(D’Anastasi, 2010). 

Mating season may vary by 

geographic region. Female narrow 

sawfish captured in August (dry season) 

in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, all 

contained large eggs indicating they 

were mature (Peverell, 2005). Mature 

males were also captured in similar 

locations during the same time of year 

(McDavitt, 2006). Although animals are 

sexually mature in the dry season, 

mating may not occur until the rainy 

season in March-May in the Indo-West 

Pacific (Raje and Joshi, 2003). 

Age at maturity for narrow sawfish is 

2 years for males and 3 years for females 

(Peverell, 2008). The intrinsic rate of 

population increase (rate of growth of 

the population) based on life history 

data from the exploited population in 

the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, has 

been estimated at 0.27 per year (Moreno 

Iturria, 2012), with a potential 

population doubling time of 2.6 years. 

Diet and Feeding 

Narrow sawfish feed on small fish and 

cuttlefish (Compagno and Last, 1999; 

Field et al., 2009) and likely on 

crustaceans, polychaetes, and 

amphipods (Raje and Joshi, 2003). 

Population Structure 

Genetic and morphological data 

support the division of the global 

species of narrow sawfish into 

populations. Based on gene sequence 

data, there is a very low level of gene 

flow between the northern Indian Ocean 

(n = 2) and west Pacific (n = 11) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73981 

populations. Four haplotypes 

(combinations of deoxyribonucleic acid 

sequences or DNA) were identified: 

northern Indian Ocean; Indonesian; 

New Guinean–Australian; and one 

specimen that lacked locality 

information, but had a northern Indian 

Ocean haplotype. Specimens collected 

from the Indian Ocean had a higher 

number of rostral teeth per side than 

those collected from the western Pacific 

(Faria et al., 2013). 

Field et al. (2009) examined the 

primary chemical elements of rostral 

teeth (i.e., oxygen, calcium, and 

phosphorous) from narrow sawfish 

captured throughout Australia in an 

attempt to separate subpopulations 

based on the isotopes of these 

chemicals. They found distinctions 

between regions indicating two separate 

subpopulations within the Gulf of 

Carpentaria Australia: one in the west 

(Northern Territory) and one in the east 

(Queensland). Using isotopes to separate 

elasmobranch subpopulations is in its 

infancy, however, and, coupled with the 

limited number of samples, it is not 

clear whether these results agree with 

the above genetic studies of population 

structure. Isotopic signatures indicate 

the location where an animal spends 

most of its time and identifies its major 

prey resources and do not necessarily 

provide information on reproductive 

connectivity between regions. 

Therefore, we conclude that the best 

available information on isotopic 

signatures does not support separating 

narrow sawfish into subpopulations. 

Distribution and Abundance 

The narrow sawfish is found 

throughout the eastern and western 

portions of the Indian Ocean as well as 

much of the western Pacific Ocean. The 

range once extended from as far west as 

the Red Sea in Egypt and Somalia (M. 

McDavitt, National Legal Research 

Group, Inc. pers. comm. to IUCN, 

London, 2012) to as far north as 

Honshu, Japan, including India, Sri 

Lanka, and China (Blaber et al., 1994; 

Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and 

Last, 1999; Compagno et al., 2006a; Van 

Oijen et al., 2007). The species has also 

been recorded in rivers in India, Burma, 

Malaysia, and Thailand (Compagno, 

2002b). 

While uncertain, the current status of 

narrow sawfish populations across its 

range has declined substantially from 

historic levels. The species was 

previously commonly reported 

throughout its range, but it is now 

becoming rare in catches by both 

commercial and recreational fishers 

(Brewer et al., 2006; Compagno et al., 

2006a). To evaluate the current and 

historic distribution and abundance of 

the narrow sawfish, we conducted an 

extensive search of peer-reviewed 

publications and technical reports, 

newspaper, and magazine articles. We 

also reviewed records from the Global 

Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 

database (www.gbif.org). The results of 

that search are summarized by major 

geographic region. 

Indian Ocean 

The earliest reports of narrow sawfish 

in the Indian Ocean were from 1937 and 

1938. Two sawfish were captured from 

the northern Indian Ocean (no specific 

location was reported). A third 

specimen was later caught in the same 

area (Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). 

From areas in the western Indian 

Ocean around the Arabian Sea, three 

rostra were collected in 1938: Two near 

Bushire, Iran, presumably from the Gulf 

of Oman, and a third in Jask, Iran, also 

adjacent to the Gulf of Oman (Blegvad 

and Loppenthin, 1944). The most 

extensive report was 13 rostra from the 

Persian Gulf (one of those was from 

Iran) but it did not include date 

information. Four juveniles were 

recorded in Pakistan waters in 1975: 

Two females and two males (Faria et al., 

2013). The last published record of 

narrow sawfish from the western edge of 

the range, in the Straits of Hormuz, was 

in 1997 (A. Moore, RSK Environment 

Ltd., pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012). 

Most records of narrow sawfish in the 

Indian Ocean are from the Bay of 

Bengal. In 1960 and 1961, 118 sawfish, 

mostly narrow sawfish, were captured 

during fishery surveys using gillnets 

and long lines (James, 1973). There are 

several additional records of rostra from 

Bangladesh in the 1960s (Faria et al., 

2013). One record from the California 

Academy of Sciences is from a fish 

market in Bangkok, Thailand in 1961. A 

narrow sawfish was used for a 1969 

parasitological study in Bangladesh, but 

no further information was recorded 

(Moravec et al., 2006). Faria et al. (2013) 

also reported one specimen from 1976, 

as well as 11 more records off India, but 

no dates were recorded. Narrow sawfish 

were recorded from the Kirachi West 

Wharf Fish Market in Pakistan in 1978 

(GBIF Database). From 1982 to 1994, 

one juvenile female, one juvenile male, 

and three rostra were recorded in 

Pondicherry, India (Deynat, 2005). Two 

female neonate specimens were 

recorded in Sri Lanka, and three 

juveniles (two males and one female) 

from Malabar in Southwest India were 

also reported from 1982–1994 (Deynat, 

2005). Between 1981 and 2000, in the 

Bay of Bengal, total elasmobranch 

landings records are dominated by rays 

and include narrow sawfish (Raje and 

Joshi, 2003). Landings of narrow sawfish 

are currently reported from the Indian 

Ocean off India although they are 

infrequent (K.K. Bineesh, Marine 

Fisheries Research Institute, Department 

of Pelagic Fisheries, India, pers. comm. 

to IUCN, 2012). 

Indo-Pacific Ocean (excluding 

Australia) 

There are several accounts of narrow 

sawfish over time from various 

unspecified locations throughout the 

Indo-Pacific. One narrow sawfish 

specimen was recorded from Mabe, 

India in 1835, making it the oldest 

museum record from the region (GBIF 

Database). The first records of narrow 

sawfish were for juvenile males in 1852 

and 1854 (Faria et al., 2013). A female 

and male were recorded in 1867, but no 

exact location was specified (Faria et al., 

2013). In 1879, one male and one female 

were also recorded from Indonesia and 

four rostra were reported from China in 

1898 (Faria et al., 2013). 

The next reports of narrow sawfish 

from the Indo-Pacific occurred in the 

1930s. A female was reported in 1931 in 

Indonesia (no specific location), and a 

male was reported in Singapore in 1937 

(Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). A 

narrow sawfish was caught in the Gulf 

of Thailand in March 1937 (Blegvad and 

Loppenthin, 1944). A single report from 

Papua New Guinea was recorded in 

1938 (Faria et al., 2013). In 1945, narrow 

sawfish were reported in the Chao 

Phraya River, Thailand and its 

tributaries (Smith, 1945). In 1952, two 

females were captured from Batavia, 

Semarang, Indonesia along with a third 

female without a rostrum (Van Oijen et 

al., 2007). 

Records of narrow sawfish throughout 

the Indo-Pacific were scattered and 

infrequent throughout the 1950s. Faria 

et al. (2013) recorded rostra from Papua 

New Guinea; two from 1955 and one 

each from 1966, 1980, and 2000. A male 

was caught in 1989 from the Oriomo 

River, Papua New Guinea (Taniuchi et 

al., 1991b; Taniuchi and Shimizu, 1991; 

Taniuchi, 2002). There are other reports 

of narrow sawfish from Papua New 

Guinea around the Gulf of Papua and in 

Bootless Bay from the 1970s, but there 

are no recent records (Taniuchi et al., 

1991b). In a comprehensive literature 

search for the period 1923 to 1996 on 

the biodiversity of elasmobranchs in the 

South China Sea, Compagno (2002a) 

found no records of sawfishes. Yet, fresh 

dorsal and caudal fins of narrow sawfish 

were found during a survey of fish 

markets from 1996 to 1997 in Thailand 

(Manjaji, 2002b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

There are even fewer records of 

narrow sawfish from the Indo-Pacific 

over the last few decades. The only 

known specimen in the twenty-first 

century is a single report from New 

Guinea in 2001 (L. Harrison, IUCN, pers. 

comm. to John Carlson, NMFS, 2012). 

Australia 

Australia may have larger populations 

of narrow sawfish than any other area 

within the species’ range (Peverell, 

2005). According to the GBIF Database 

for Australia flora and fauna, the first 

museum record of the narrow sawfish in 

Australia is from the Australia Museum 

in Townsville, Queensland in 1963. 

This database also lists observations of 

narrow sawfish throughout the 1980s, 

mostly recorded by the Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research 

Organization (CSIRO) Marine and 

Atmospheric Research group. One 

individual was observed in Western 

Australia in 1982 and in 1983. In 1984, 

CSIRO observed one narrow sawfish just 

west of Darwin, Northern Territory, and 

five in the Gulf of Carpentaria (three in 

the east and two in the northwest). Five 

additional records in 1984 were from 

the northwest tip of the western Gulf of 

Carpentaria, one from outside the Daly 

River, and three outside of Kakadu 

National Park. In 1985, two narrow 

sawfish were observed near Marchinbar 

Island, Northern Territory. In the 

eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, four narrow 

sawfish were observed in 1986, with 

single observations in 1987 and 1988. In 

1988, a narrow sawfish was observed in 

Western Australia. Two narrow sawfish 

were reported from the Gulf of 

Carpentaria in 1990 (Blaber et al., 1994). 

Single specimens were captured in 1991 

from the west coast of Australia 

(Alexander, 1991), the Gulf of 

Carpentaria in 1995 (Brewer et al., 

1997), and the Arafura Sea in 1999 

(Beveridge et al., 2005). Faria et al. 

(2013) reported three rostra records from 

private collections in Australia from 

1998–1999, but no other information on 

the collection location was reported. 

Narrow sawfish have been reported in 

multiple studies between 2000 and 

2011, mostly from northern Australia. In 

a bycatch reduction device study 

conducted in 2001 in the Gulf of 

Carpentaria, 25 narrow sawfish were 

captured in trawling gear (Brewer et al., 

2006). Later in 2001, a bycatch 

reduction device study conducted in the 

Queensland shallow-water eastern king 

prawn (Penaeus plebejus) trawl fishery 

did not capture a single specimen 

(Courtney et al., 2006). The European 

Molecular Biology Lab recorded narrow 

sawfish in 2003 in the Northern 

Territory (GBIF database). A review of 

fisheries data and records from 2000 to 

2002, identified 74 offshore and 37 

inshore records of narrow sawfish in the 

Gulf of Carpentaria (Peverell, 2005). 

Between April 2004 and April 2005, 16 

narrow sawfish were caught in the Gulf 

of Carpentaria during a trawl bycatch 

study; the mean catch rate was 0.16 

sawfish per hour (Dell et al., 2009). 

Observers on commercial fishing boats 

recorded nine captures of narrow 

sawfish in 2007 within the Great Barrier 

Reef World Heritage Area, Queensland, 

which accounted for 0.86 percent of the 

shark and ray catch in the commercial 

fisheries (Williams, 2007). Observers in 

the Northern Territory’s Offshore Net 

and Line Fishery encountered several 

narrow sawfish from 2007 to 2010 

(Davies, 2010). Data from the Kimberley 

(R. McAuley, Department of Fisheries, 

Western Australia, pers. comm. to Colin 

Simpfendorfer, 2012), the Northern 

Territory (Field et al., 2009), the Gulf of 

Carpentaria (Peverell, 2005), and parts 

of the Queensland east coast (Harry et 

al., 2011) suggest viable subpopulations 

may remain locally, but at significantly 

lower levels compared to historic levels. 

In summary, it appears the current 

range of narrow sawfish is restricted 

largely to Australia. Narrow sawfish are 

considered very rare in many places 

where evidence is available, including 

parts of India (Roy, 2010), Bangladesh 

(Roy, 2010), Burma (FIRMS, 2007– 

2012), Malaysia (including Borneo; 

Almada-Villela, 2002; Manjaji, 2002), 

Indonesia (White and Kyne, 2010), 

Thailand (CITES, 2007; Compagno, 

2002a; Vidthayanon, 2002), and 

Singapore (CITES, 2007). In Australia, 

narrow sawfish are primarily located in 

the north. The most recent museum 

record for narrow sawfish in southern 

Australia was from New South Wales in 

the 1970s (Pogonoski et al., 2002). Data 

from the Queensland Shark Control 

Program, conducted along the east coast 

of Queensland, from 1969 to 2003 show 

a clear decline in sawfish catch 

(although not species-specific) with the 

complete disappearance of sawfish in 

southern regions of Queensland by 1993 

(Stevens et al., 2005). Although we 

cannot rule out underreporting of 

narrow sawfish, especially in remote 

areas of its historic range, we conclude 

from the consistent lack of records that 

narrow sawfish have been severely 

depleted in numbers and their range has 

contracted. 

Natural History of Dwarf Sawfish 

(Pristis clavata) 

Taxonomy and Morphology 

Due to its size and the geographic 

location where it was described, P. 

clavata is referred to as the dwarf or the 

Queensland sawfish. The species was 

first described by Garman in 1906; 

however, it has often been confused 

with largetooth sawfish (Last and 

Stevens, 1994; Cook et al., 2006; Morgan 

et al., 2010a). This species can be 

distinguished from largetooth sawfish 

based on rostral tooth morphology 

(Thorburn et al., 2007). 

The dwarf sawfish is olive brown in 

color dorsally with a white underside. 

The rostrum of this species is quite 

short, with 19 to 23 rostral teeth that are 

moderately flattened, elongated, and 

peg-like. Studies indicate that this 

species does not display significant 

differences in the number of rostral 

teeth between males (19 to 23 teeth) and 

females (20 to 23 teeth) (Ishihara et al., 

1991a; Thorburn et al., 2008; Morgan et 

al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). The 

rostrum makes up 21 to 26 percent of 

the total length of the dwarf sawfish 

(Blaber et al., 1989; Grant, 1991; Last 

and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 

1999; Larson et al., 2006; Wueringer et 

al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2011). 

Morphologically, the origin of the first 

dorsal fin is slightly posterior to the 

insertion of the pelvic fins, and the 

second dorsal fin is smaller than the 

first. The pectoral fins are small 

compared to other sawfish species, and 

are ‘‘poorly developed’’ (Ishihara et al., 

1991a). There is no lower lobe on the 

caudal fin. Lateral and low keels are 

present along the base of the tail 

(Compagno and Last, 1999; Wueringer et 

al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan 

et al., 2011). Within the mouth are 82– 

84 tooth rows on the upper jaw. The 

total vertebrae number is 225–231. The 

dwarf sawfish has regularly overlapping 

monocuspidate denticles on its skin. As 

a result, there are no keels or furrows 

formed on the skin (Fowler, 1941; Last 

and Stevens, 1994; Deynat, 2005). 

Habitat Use and Migration 

The dwarf sawfish has been found 

along tropical coasts in marine and 

estuarine waters, mostly from northern 

Australia; it may inhabit similar habitats 

in other areas. Dwarf sawfish are 

reported on mudflats in water 6 ft 7 in 

to 9 ft 10 in (2 to 3 m) deep that is often 

turbid and influenced heavily by tides. 

Thorburn et al. (2008) reported dwarf 

sawfish occur in waters 2 to 22 ft (0.7 

to 7 m) deep, while Stevens et al. (2008) 

recorded a maximum depth of 65 ft (20 

m). This species has also been reported 

in rivers (Last and Stevens, 1994; 

Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 

2010a) and as commonly occurring in 

both brackish and freshwater, and in 

both marine and estuarine habitats 

(Rainboth, 1996; Thorburn et al., 2008). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73983 

For example, two dwarf sawfish were 

found 31 miles (50 km) upstream from 

the mouth of the south Alligator River, 

Kakadu National Park, Northern 

Territory, Australia in 2013 at salinities 

of 0.12 and 7.64 ppt (P. Kyne, Charles 

Darwin University, pers. comm. to S. 

Norton, NMFS, June 2013). 

Juvenile dwarf sawfish may use the 

estuaries associated with the Fitzroy 

River, Australia as nursery habitat for 

up to three years (Thorburn et al., 2008). 

Dwarf sawfish are also known to use the 

Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia as nursery 

area in a variety of habitats (Gorham, 

2006). However, physical characteristics 

such as salinity, temperature, and 

turbidity may limit seasonal movements 

(Blaber et al., 1989). 

Age and Growth 

Dwarf sawfish are considered to be 

small compared to other sawfishes. 

Their maximum size has been reported 

as 4 ft 11 in (1.5 m) total length (TL) 

(Grant, 1991) and 4 ft 7 in (140 cm) TL 

(Last and Stevens, 1994; Rainboth, 1996; 

Compagno and Last, 1999). But more 

recently, much larger sizes have been 

reported, as high as 19.7 ft (6000 cm) TL 

(Peverell, 2005). Specimens from 

Western Australia in 2008 indicate that 

females reach at least 10 ft 2 in (310 cm) 

TL (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 

2011). 

Thorburn et al. (2008) and Peverell 

(2008) estimated age and growth for this 

species based on the number of 

vertebral rings and total length. The 

average growth estimates for dwarf 

sawfish are 16.1 in (41cm) TL in the first 

year, slowing to 9.4 in (24 cm) in the 

second year (Peverell 2008). Thorburn et 

al. (2008) determined that animals close 

to 3 ft (90 cm) TL were age 1, those 

between 3.5 and 4 ft (110 cm and 120 

cm) TL were age 2, and those around 5 

ft (160 cm) TL were age 6. Peverell 

(2008) reported dwarf sawfish between 

2 ft 11 in and 3 ft 3 in (90 and 98 cm) 

TL were age 0, those between 3 ft 7 in 

and 5 ft 9 in (110 to 175 cm) TL were 

considered 1 to 3 years old, and those 

between 6 ft 7 in and 8 ft (201 to 244 

cm) TL were considered 4 to 6 years old 

(Peverell, 2008). Any dwarf sawfish over 

9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL is considered to 

be at least 9 years old (Morgan et al., 

2010a). The theoretical maximum age 

calculated from von Bertalanffy 

parameters for dwarf sawfish is 94 years 

(Peverell, 2008). 

Reproduction 

There is little information available 

regarding the time or location of dwarf 

sawfish mating. It is hypothesized that 

dwarf sawfish move into estuarine or 

fresh waters to breed during the wet 

season (Larson et al., 2006), although no 

information on pupping habitat, 

gestation period, or litter size has been 

recorded (Morgan et al., 2010a). 

Dwarf sawfish are born between 2 ft 

2 in and 2 ft 8 in (65 cm and 81 cm) 

TL (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 

2011). Males become sexually mature 

between 9 ft 8 in and 10 ft (295 and 306 

cm) TL with fully calcified claspers, 

though they may mature at smaller 

sizes, around 8 ft 5 in (255–260 cm) TL 

(Peverell, 2005; Thorburn et al., 2008; 

Last and Stevens, 2009; Morgan et al., 

2011). All males captured by Thorburn 

et al. (2008) less than 7 ft 5 in (226 cm) 

TL were immature; two females, both 

smaller than 3 ft 11 in (120 cm) TL, 

were also immature. There is little 

specific information about sexual 

maturation of females; females are 

considered immature at 6 ft 11 in (210 

cm) TL (Peverell, 2005; Peverell, 2008; 

Morgan et al., 2010a). Wueringer et al. 

(2009) indicates that neither males nor 

females are mature before 7 ft 8 in (233 

cm) TL. 

Intrinsic rates of population increase, 

based on life history data from Peverell 

(2008), has been estimated to be about 

0.10 per year (Moreno Iturria, 2012), 

with a potential population doubling 

time of 7.2 years. 

Diet and Feeding 

Dwarf sawfish, like other sawfishes, 

use their saw to stun small schooling 

fishes. They may also use the saw for 

rooting in the mud and sand for 

crustaceans and mollusks (Breder Jr., 

1952; Raje and Joshi, 2003; Larson et al., 

2006; Last and Stevens, 2009). In 

Western Australia, the dwarf sawfish 

eats shrimp (Natantia spp.), mullet 

(Mugilidae), herring (Clupeidae), and 

croaker (Sciaenidae) (Thorburn et al., 

2008; Morgan et al., 2010a). 

Population Structure 

Phillips et al. (2011) conducted a 

genetic study looking at mtDNA of 

dwarf sawfish and found no distinct 

difference in dwarf sawfish from 

Western Australia and those from the 

Gulf of Carpentaria in northern 

Australia. The genetic diversity of this 

species was moderate overall; however, 

dwarf sawfish from the Gulf of 

Carpentaria may have a lower genetic 

diversity than those of the west coast, 

possibly due to either a small sample 

size or a reduction in abundance 

(Phillips et al., 2008). Further declines 

in abundance as well as genetic drift 

may result in reduced genetic diversity 

(Morgan et al., 2010a; 2011). 

Phillips et al. (2011) determined the 

populations of the dwarf sawfish are 

organized matrilineally (from mother to 

daughter), indicating the possibility that 

females are philopatric (return to their 

birth place). While the genetic diversity 

of this species is considered low to 

moderate across Australia, haplotype 

diversity in the Gulf of Carpentaria was 

very low, but was greater in the west 

compared to the east. Low diversity 

among and within groups of dwarf 

sawfish may be detrimental (Phillips et 

al., 2011). 

Distribution and Abundance 

Dwarf sawfish are thought to 

historically occur in the Indo-Pacific, 

western Pacific, and eastern Indian 

Oceans, with the population largely 

occurring in northern Australia (Last 

and Stevens, 1994; Last and Compagno, 

2002; Compagno, 2002a; Compagno, 

2002b; Thorburn et al., 2008; Wueringer 

et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010a; Kyne 

et al., 2013). While dwarf sawfish may 

have been historically more widespread 

throughout the Indo-West Pacific 

(Compagno and Last, 1999; Last and 

Stevens, 2009), there are questions 

regarding records outside of Australian 

waters (DSEWPaC 2011; Kyne et al., 

2013; GBIF database). 

In an effort to gather more information 

on the species’ historic and current 

range and abundance, we conducted an 

extensive search of peer-reviewed 

publications and technical reports, 

newspaper, and magazine articles. We 

also reviewed records from the Global 

Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 

Database (www.gbif.com). A summary of 

those findings is presented by major 

geographic region. 

Indian Ocean 

Dwarf sawfish are considered 

extremely rare in the Indian Ocean and 

there are few records indicating its 

current presence (Last, 2002). Faria et al. 

(2013) report a female from the Re ́union 

Islands, a female from an unidentified 

location in the Indian Ocean, and a 

museum record of a male from Bay of 

Bengal, India. A sawfish was landed at 

a port in Arabian Peninsula (presumably 

caught in the Gulf of Oman or the 

Arabian Gulf) in January of 2006. It may 

have been a dwarf sawfish, but 

identification could not be confirmed 

(Kyne et al., 2013). There are no reports 

of dwarf sawfish from Sri Lanka in more 

than a decade, although they have been 

assumed to occur there (Last, 2002). 

Indo-Pacific (excluding Australia) 

Dwarf sawfish are considered very 

rare in Indonesia, with only a few 

records (Last, 2002). Faria et al. (2013) 

compiled most reports of dwarf sawfish 

in Indonesia; since the first record in 

1894 from Borneo, there have been two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

rostral saws in 1910 and five other 

rostra without date or length 

information. There is also one museum 

record of a dwarf sawfish from Papua 

New Guinea in 1828 (Kyne et al., 2013). 

Although reported historically, dwarf 

sawfish have not been found in any 

other areas in the Indo-Pacific in over a 

decade. Rainboth’s (1996) guide to 

fishes of the Mekong reported a dwarf 

sawfish from the Mekong River Basin, 

Laos, in the early 1900s but no 

specimen exists to confirm this report. 

No sawfish of any species, including the 

dwarf sawfish, were reported from the 

South China Sea from 1923–1996 

(Compagno, 2002a). Faria et al. (2013) 

reported on two specimens from the 

Pacific Ocean, but no specifics were 

provided. 

Australia 

The northern coast of Australia 

represents the geographic center of 

dwarf sawfish range that extends from 

Cape York, Queensland west to the 

Pilbara area in Western Australia 

(Compagno and Last, 1999; Last and 

Stevens, 2009; Kyne et al., 2013). Dwarf 

sawfish may have occurred as far south 

as Cairns, but reports are lacking. Most 

records for dwarf sawfish are from the 

north and northwest areas of Australia. 

The earliest record of dwarf sawfish 

in Australia is from 1877, but no 

specific location was recorded (Faria et 

al., 2013). A single rostrum from a dwarf 

sawfish was found in 1916, but no other 

information was recorded. In 1945, a 

single specimen was reported from the 

Northern Territory, Australia (Stevens et 

al., 2005). There is a single record of a 

dwarf sawfish from the Victoria River in 

1964 that is currently housed at the 

Museum Victoria (GBIF Database). 

Five female and five male dwarf 

sawfish (32 to 55 in; 82 to 140 cm TL) 

were captured in 1990 in the Pentecost 

River using gillnets (Taniuchi and 

Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi, 2002). CSIRO 

recorded five dwarf sawfish in Western 

Australia in 1990 (GBIF Database). 

CSIRO also found one dwarf sawfish in 

Walker Creek (a tributary of the Gulf of 

Carpentaria) in 1991 (GBIF Database). In 

1992, one specimen was found near 

Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia 

(GBIF Database). Between 1994 and 

2010, almost 75 tissue samples were 

taken from live dwarf sawfish or dried 

rostra from the Gulf of Carpentaria and 

the northwest coast of Australia 

(Phillips et al., 2011). In 1997, two 

specimens were collected near the 

mouth of Buffalo Creek in Darwin, 

Northern Territory (Chisholm and 

Whittington, 2000). In 2005, Naylor et 

al. (2005) collected one dwarf sawfish 

from Darwin, Australia. One dwarf 

sawfish was captured in 1998 in the 

upper reaches of the Keep River Estuary 

(Larson, 1999; Gunn et al., 2010). CSIRO 

reported one dwarf sawfish in Western 

Australia (GBIF Database). In 2006, the 

European Molecular Biology Lab 

reported the occurrence of three dwarf 

sawfish in Western Australia (GBIF 

Database). One interaction was reported 

between 2007 and 2010 by observers in 

the Northern Territory Offshore Net and 

Line Fishery (Davies, 2010). A single 

specimen from Queensland 

(northeastern Australia) is preserved at 

the Harvard Museum of Comparative 

Zoology (Fowler, 1941). 

In a comprehensive survey of the Gulf 

of Carpentaria from 2001 to 2002 

(Peverell, 2005; 2008), indicated dwarf 

sawfish were concentrated in the west 

where 12 males and 10 females were 

captured. Most individuals caught in 

the inshore fishery were immature 

except for two mature males: 10 ft and 

9 ft 8 in (306 cm and 296 cm) TL 

(Peverell, 2005; 2008). 

Within specific riverine basins in 

northwestern Australia, dwarf sawfish 

have been reported in various surveys. 

Forty-four dwarf sawfish were captured 

between October 2002 and July 2004, in 

the King Sound and the Robison, May, 

and Fitzroy Rivers (Thorburn et al., 

2008). Between 2001 and 2002, one 

dwarf sawfish was caught at the mouth 

of the Fitzroy River in Western Australia 

(Morgan et al., 2004). Morgan et al. 

(2011) acquired 109 rostra from dwarf 

sawfish from the King Sound area that 

were part of museum or personal 

collections. 

In summary, there is some uncertainty 

in the species identification of historic 

records of dwarf sawfish, however, it 

appears the dwarf sawfish has become 

extirpated from much of the IndoPacific region and from the eastern coast 

of Australia. An October 2001 study on 

the effectiveness of turtle-excluder 

devices in the prawn trawl fishery in 

Queensland, Australia, reported no 

dwarf sawfish (Courtney et al., 2006). 

Dwarf sawfish are now considered rare 

in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is likely the 

Kimberley region and Pilbara region 

(Western Australia) may be the last 

remaining areas for dwarf sawfish (P. 

Kyne, Charles Darwin University, pers. 

comm. to IUCN, 2012). 

Natural History of the Largetooth 

Sawfish (Pristis pristis) 

Taxonomy and Morphology 

Many taxonomists have suggested 

classification of largetooth sawfish into 

a single circumtropical species given 

common morphological features of 

robust rostrum, origin of first dorsal fin 

anterior to origin of pelvic fins, and 

presence of a caudal-fin lower lobe 

(Gu ̈nther, 1870; Garman, 1913; Fowler, 

1936; Poll, 1951; Dingerkus, 1983; 

Daget, 1984; Se ́ret and McEachran, 

1986; McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998; 

Carvalho et al., 2007). The recent 

analysis by Faria et al. (2013) used 

mtDNA (mitochondrial 

deoxyribonucleic acid) and 

contemporary genetic analysis to argue 

that the previously classified P. pristis, 

P. microdon, and P. perotteti should 

now be considered one species named 

P. pristis. After reviewing Faria et al. 

(2013) and consulting other sawfish 

experts, we conclude, based on the best 

available information, that P. pristis 

applies to all the largetooth sawfishes 

previously identified as P. pristis, P. 

microdon, and P. perotteti. 

The largetooth sawfish has a robust 

rostrum, noticeably widening 

posteriorly (width between the two 

posterior-most rostral teeth is 1.7 to 2 

times the width between the second 

anterior-most rostral teeth). Rostral 

tooth counts are between 14 and 23 per 

side with grooves on the posterior 

margin. The body is robust with the 

origin of the first dorsal-fin anterior to 

the origin of the pelvic fin; dorsal fins 

are high and pointed with the height of 

the second dorsal fin greater than the 

first. The lower lobe of the caudal-fin is 

small, but well-defined, with the lower 

anterior margin about half as long as the 

upper anterior margin (Wallace, 1967; 

Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Last and Stevens, 

1994; Compagno and Last, 1999; Deynat, 

2005; Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et 

al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; Morgan 

et al., 2011). The largetooth sawfish has 

buccopharyngeal denticles and regularly 

overlapping monocuspidate dermal 

denticles on its skin. The denticles are 

present on both dorsal and ventral 

portions of the body (Wallace, 1967; 

Deynat, 2005). Within the mouth, there 

are between 70 and 72 tooth rows on the 

upper jaw, and 64 to 68 tooth rows on 

the lower jaw. The number of vertebrae 

is between 226 and 228 (Morgan et al., 

2010a). Coloration of the largetooth 

sawfish is a reddish brown dorsally and 

dull white ventrally (Fowler, 1941; 

Wallace, 1967; Compagno et al., 1989; 

Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Compagno and 

Last, 1999; Chidlow, 2007). 

Male and female largetooth sawfish 

differ in the number of rostral teeth. 

Using largetooth sawfish teeth collected 

from Papua New Guinea and Australia, 

Ishihara et al. (1991b) found males to 

have an average of 21 rostral teeth on 

the left and 22 on the right; females 

averaged 19 rostral teeth on both the left 

and the right side of the rostrum. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73985 

Rostrum length can vary between males 

and females (Wueringer et al., 2009). 

Habitat Use and Migration 

Largetooth sawfish are found in 

coastal and inshore waters and are 

considered euryhaline (Compagno et al., 

1989; Last and Stevens, 1994; 

Compagno and Last, 1999; Chisholm 

and Whittington, 2000; Last, 2002; 

Compagno, 2002b; Peverell, 2005; 

Peverell, 2008; Wueringer et al., 2009), 

being found in salinities ranging from 0 

to 40 ppt (Thorburn et al., 2007). The 

species has been found far upriver, often 

occupying freshwater lakes and pools; 

they are associated with freshwater 

more than any other sawfish species 

(Last and Stevens, 1994; Rainboth, 1996; 

Peter and Tan, 1997; Compagno and 

Last, 1999; Larson, 1999). Largetooth 

sawfish have even been observed in 

isolated fresh water billabongs or pools 

until floodwaters allow them to escape; 

juveniles often use these areas for 

multiple years as deepwater refuges 

(Gorham, 2006; Thorburn et al., 2007; 

Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 

2010b). Similarly, largetooth sawfish 

have been found in Lake Nicaragua in 

depths up to 400 ft (122 m) and are 

found in deeper holes, occupying 

muddy or sandy bottoms (Thorson, 

1982). Adults more often use marine 

habitats than juveniles, and are typically 

found in waters with salinity at 31 ppt 

(Wueringer et al., 2009). 

Despite the variety of habitats 

occupied, females have been found to be 

highly philopatric as indicated by 

mtDNA studies, while males often 

undergo long movements (Lack et al., 

2009; Phillips et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 

2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; Morgan et 

al., 2011). Largetooth sawfish occurred 

from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 

south through Brazil, and in the United 

States, largetooth sawfish were reported 

in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly along the 

Texas coast (NMFS, 2010a). Largetooth 

sawfish were rarely reported in U.S. 

waters and may have been long-distance 

migrants from the Caribbean or Brazil 

(Feldheim et al., 2011). 

The physical characteristics of habitat 

strongly influence the movements of, 

and areas used by, largetooth sawfish. 

Recruitment of neonate largetooth 

sawfish was correlated with the rise in 

water levels during the wet season in 

Australia (Whitty et al., 2009). A study 

of juvenile largetooth sawfish 

movements in the Fitzroy River in 

Australia found young-of-the-year using 

extremely shallow areas (0 to 1 ft 7 in 

or 0 to 0.49 m) up to 80 percent of the 

time, mostly to avoid predators 

(Thorburn et al., 2007). Juvenile and 

adult largetooth sawfish also use rivers 

(Compagno, 2002b; Gorham, 2006) and 

can be found in areas up to 248.5 miles 

(400 km) upstream (Morgan et al., 2004; 

Chidlow, 2007). The space used on a 

day to day basis by largetooth sawfish 

increases with body length (Whitty et 

al., 2009). 

Age and Growth 

There are several age and growth 

studies for the largetooth sawfish; 

results vary due to differences in aging 

techniques, data collection, or location. 

In Australia, largetooth sawfish are 

between 2 ft 6 in and 3 ft (76 and 91 

cm) TL at birth, with females being 

slightly smaller than males on average 

(Chidlow, 2007; Morgan et al., 2011). 

Thorson (1982) found pups at birth 

average 2 ft 4.7 in to 2 ft 7.5 in (73–80 

cm) TL, with a growth rate of 1 ft 2 in 

to 1 ft 3 in (35–40) cm per year in Lake 

Nicaragua (NMFS, 2010a; Kyne and 

Feutry, 2013). Peverell (2008) found that 

largetooth sawfish in the Indo-West 

Pacific are born at 2 ft 4 in to 2 ft 11 

in (72–90 cm) TL. Juveniles (age 1 to age 

at maturity) range in size from 2 ft 6 in 

to 9 ft (76 to 277 cm) TL (Morgan et al., 

2011). 

Size at maturity in the Western 

Atlantic is estimated to be around 9 ft 

10 in (300 cm) TL for both sexes at 

around age 8 (Lack et al., 2009; Morgan 

et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b; 

NMFS, 2010; Morgan et al., 2011; Kyne 

and Feutry, 2013). Thorson (1982) 

estimated age of maturity to be 10 years 

at 9 ft 10 in (300 cm) TL in Lake 

Nicaragua. Peverell (2008) estimated age 

at maturity in the Gulf of Carpentaria to 

be between 8 and 10 years. In the IndoPacific, males tend to mature earlier 

than other regions (9 ft 2 in (280 cm)) 

TL (Kyne and Feutry, 2013). Generally, 

males under 7 ft 7 in (230 cm) TL and 

females under 8 ft 10 in (270 cm) TL are 

considered immature (Whitty et al., 

2009; Wueringer et al., 2009). 

The largest recorded length of a 

largetooth sawfish is 22 ft 11 in (700 cm) 

TL (Compagno et al., 1989. The largest 

largetooth sawfish recorded in the 

Kimberley, Queensland measured 21 ft 

6 in (656 cm) TL (Compagno and Last, 

1999). In other areas of Australia, 

largetooth sawfish can reach up to 15 ft 

(457 cm) and at least 11 ft 10 in (361 cm) 

TL (Fowler, 1941; Chidlow, 2007; Gunn 

et al., 2010). Thorson (1982) estimated 

that largetooth sawfish in Lake 

Nicaragua only reach a maximum size of 

about 14 ft 1 in (430 cm) TL. 

Age and growth for largetooth sawfish 

has been estimated by Tanaka (1991) 

who generated a von Bertalanffy growth 

model for specimens collected from 

Papua New Guinea and Australia. For 

both sexes combined, the theoretical 

maximum size (L∞) from the von 

Bertalanffy growth equation was 

calculated at 11 ft 11 in (363 cm) TL 

with a growth rate (K) of 0.066 per year. 

Largetooth sawfish grow around 7 in (18 

cm) in the first year and 4 in (10 cm) 

by the tenth year (Tanaka, 1991). 

Thorson (1982a) estimated an early 

juvenile growth rate of 13–15 in (35 to 

40 cm) per year and annual adult 

growth rate of 1 in (4.4 cm) per year 

based on largetooth from Lake 

Nicaragua. Simpfendorfer (2000) 

estimated the theoretical maximum size 

of largetooth sawfish to be 14 ft 11 in 

(456 cm) TL with a growth rate (Brody 

growth coefficient K) of 0.089 per year 

based on Thorson’s (1982) data from 

Lake Nicaragua. Peverell (2008) 

calculated that largetooth sawfish from 

the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia grow 

1 ft 8.5 in (52 cm) in the first year and 

7 in (17 cm) during the fifth year. 

Maximum size was estimated at 20 ft 11 

in (638 cm) TL with a growth rate 

(Brody growth coefficient K) of 0.08 per 

year from the von Bertalanffy equation 

(Peverell, 2008). Kyne and Feutry (2013) 

summarize maximum age estimates of 

30 years in Lake Nicaragua and 35 years 

in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Based on the 

von Bertalanffy equation, growth slows 

at about 35 years or 19 ft 10 in (606 cm) 

TL (Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 

Reproduction 

Largetooth sawfish are thought to 

reproduce in freshwater environments 

(Compagno and Last, 1999; Last, 2002; 

Compagno, 2002b; Martin, 2005; 

Thorburn and Morgan, 2005; Compagno 

et al., 2006b). Pupping seems to vary 

across the range, occurring during the 

wet season from May to July in the IndoPacific (Raje and Joshi, 2003), and from 

October to December in the western 

Atlantic and Lake Nicaragua (Thorson, 

1976a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 

The number of pups in a largetooth 

sawfish litter varies by location, 

possibly due to a number of factors. One 

of the earliest reproductive studies on 

largetooth sawfish by Thorson (1976a) 

reported the litter sizes of 67 females 

ranged between 1 to 13 pups and an 

embryonic sex ratio for this species is 

0.86 males for every 1 female. Average 

number of pups is 7 (NMFS, 2010a; 

Kyne and Feutry, 2013). Thorson 

(1976a) also found that both ovaries 

appeared to be functional, with the left 

ovary producing more eggs. Estimates of 

litter size from other studies in the IndoWest Pacific (e.g., Wilson, 1999; Moreno 

Iturria, 2012; Peverell, 2005) cannot be 

confirmed (Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 

Length of gestation for largetooth 

sawfish is approximately five months in 

Lake Nicaragua, with a biennial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

reproduction cycle (Thorson 1976a; 

NMFS 2010a; Kyne and Feutry, 2013). 

In the Indo-West Pacific, largetooth 

sawfish may reproduce every year 

(Peverell, 2008). 

Intrinsic rates of population growth 

vary tremendously throughout the 

species’ range. Simpfendorfer (2000) 

estimated that the largetooth sawfish in 

Lake Nicaragua had an intrinsic rate of 

population growth of 0.05 to 0.07 per 

year, with a potential population 

doubling time of 10.3 to 13.6 years. 

Using data from Australia, rates of 

population increase for the Indo-Pacific 

were estimated to be around 0.12 per 

year (Moreno Iturria, 2012), with a 

population doubling time of 

approximately 5.8 years and a 

generation time of 14.6 years. Data from 

the western Atlantic Ocean indicate an 

intrinsic rate of increase of 0.03 per 

year, with a population doubling time of 

23.3 years and a generation time of 17.2 

years (Moreno Iturria, 2012). Annual 

natural mortality for the western 

Atlantic has been estimated at 0.07 to 

0.16 (Simpfendorfer, 2000) and 0.14 to 

0.15 per year (Moreno Iturria, 2012). 

Diet and Feeding 

Largetooth sawfish diet is 

predominantly fish, but varies 

depending on geographic area. Small 

fishes including seer fish, mackerels, 

ribbon fish, sciaenids, and pomfrets are 

likely main diet items of largetooth 

sawfish in the Indian Ocean (Devadoss, 

1978; Rainboth, 1996; Raje and Joshi, 

2003). Small sharks, mollusks, and 

crustaceans are also potential prey items 

(Devadoss, 1978; Rainboth, 1996; Raje 

and Joshi, 2003). Taniuchi et al. (1991a) 

found small fishes and shrimp in the 

stomachs of juveniles in Lake Murray, 

Papua New Guinea, while juveniles in 

Western Australia had catfish, cherabin, 

mollusks, and insect parts in their 

stomachs (Thorburn et al., 2007; Whitty 

et al., 2009; Morgan et al,. 2010a). 

Largetooth sawfish have also been found 

to feed on catfish, shrimp, croaker, 

small crustaceans, croaker, and 

mollusks (Chidlow, 2007; Thorburn et 

al., 2007; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan 

et al., 2010b). Largetooth sawfish 

captured off South Africa had bony fish 

and shellfish as common diet items 

(Compagno et al., 1989; Compagno and 

Last, 1999). In general, largetooth 

sawfish subsist on the most abundant 

small schooling fishes in the area 

(NMFS, 2010a). 

Population Structure 

Genetic analyses based on specific 

sequences of mitochondrial DNA 

indicated largetooth sawfish can be 

found in populations based on ocean 

basin: Atlantic, Indo-West Pacific, and 

Eastern Pacific. There is also restricted 

flow of genes in largetooth sawfish 

between these geographic areas: Atlantic 

and Indo-West Pacific; Atlantic and 

eastern Pacific; and Indo-West Pacific 

and eastern Pacific (Faria et al. 2013). 

Genetic analyses based on a 480-base 

pair sequencing of the mtDNA gene 

NADH–2 sequence also revealed 

information indicating largetooth 

sawfish subpopulations. West and East 

Atlantic subpopulations differed as did 

samples from Australia and the wider 

Indian Ocean. Collectively, a total of 19 

haplotypes were identified across 

largetooth sawfish: One east Pacific 

haplotype, 12 western Atlantic 

haplotypes, two eastern Atlantic 

haplotypes, one Indian Ocean 

haplotype, one Vietnamese-New 

Guinean haplotype, and two Australian 

haplotypes (Faria et al., 2013). This finescale structuring by haplotypes was 

only partially corroborated by the 

regional variation in the number of 

rostral teeth. While the rostral tooth 

count differed significantly in largetooth 

sawfish collected from the western and 

eastern Atlantic Ocean, it did not vary 

significantly between specimens 

collected from the Indian Ocean and 

western Pacific (Faria et al., 2013). 

Largetooth sawfish collected from the 

western Atlantic specimens had a 

higher rostral teeth count than those 

collected from the eastern Atlantic. Data 

from separate protein and genetics 

studies indicates some evidence of 

distinction among populations of 

largetooth sawfish in the Indo-Pacific. 

At a broad scale, Watabe (1991) found 

that there was limited genetic variability 

between samples taken from Australia 

and Papua New Guinea based on lactate 

dehydrogenase (LDH) isozyme patterns. 

Largetooth sawfish might be genetically 

subdivided within the Gulf of 

Carpentaria, Australia, with both eastern 

and western Gulf populations (Lack et 

al., 2009). 

Phillips et al. (2011) found that the 

population of largetooth sawfish in the 

Gulf of Carpentaria is different from 

animals on the west coast of Australia 

(Fitzroy River) based on mtDNA. Recent 

data (Phillips, 2012) suggests that 

matrilineal structuring is found at 

relatively small spatial scales within the 

Gulf of Carpentaria region (i.e., this 

region contains more than one maternal 

‘population’), although the precise 

location and nature of population 

boundaries are unknown. The difference 

in the genetic structuring using markers 

with different modes of inheritance 

(maternal versus bi-parental) suggests 

that largetooth sawfish may have malebiased dispersal and females remaining 

at, or returning to, their birth place to 

mate (Phillips et al., 2009; Phillips, 

2012). Phillips (2012) noted that the 

presence of male gene flow between 

populations in Australian waters 

suggests that a decline of males in one 

location could affect the abundance and 

genetic diversity of assemblages in other 

locations. 

The genetic diversity for largetooth 

sawfish throughout Australia seems to 

be low to moderate. Genetic diversity 

was greater in the Gulf of Carpentaria 

than in Australian rivers, also 

suggesting potential philopatry: 

Animals return to or stay in their home 

range (Lack et al., 2009). Yet, given 

limited sampling, additional research is 

needed to better understand potential 

population structure of largetooth 

sawfish in Australia (Lack et al., 2009; 

Phillips et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 

2010a; Morgan et al., 2010b). 

Distribution and Abundance 

Largetooth sawfish have the largest 

historical range of all sawfishes. The 

species historically occurred throughout 

the Indo-Pacific near Southeast Asia and 

Australia and throughout the Indian 

Ocean to east Africa. Older literature 

notes the presence of this species in 

Zanzibar, Madagascar, India, and the 

southwest Pacific (Fowler, 1941; 

Wallace, 1967; Taniuchi et al., 2003). 

Largetooth sawfish have also been noted 

in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from 

Mexico to Ecuador (Cook et al., 2005) or 

possibly Peru (Chirichigno and Cornejo, 

2001). In the Atlantic Ocean, largetooth 

sawfish inhabit warm temperate to 

tropical marine waters from Brazil to the 

Gulf of Mexico in the western Atlantic, 

and Namibia to Mauritania in the 

eastern Atlantic (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Given the recent taxonomic changes 

for largetooth sawfish, we examined all 

current and historic records of P. 

microdon, P. perotteti, and P. pristis for 

a comprehensive overview on 

distribution and abundance. We 

conducted an extensive search of peerreviewed publications and technical 

reports, newspaper, records from the 

GBIF Database, and magazine articles. 

The results of that search are 

summarized below by major geographic 

region. 

Indian Ocean 

Largetooth sawfish historically 

occurred throughout the Indian Ocean; 

however, current records are rare for 

many areas. The earliest record of 

largetooth sawfish was in 1936 from 

Grand Lac near the Gulf of Aden, Indian 

Ocean (Kottelat, 1985). A second record 

in 1936 is from the Mangoky River, 

Madagascar (Taniuchi et al., 2003). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73987 

Records from the 1960s and 1970s are 

largely from India and South Africa. 

One largetooth sawfish was reported 

from the confluence of the Lundi and 

Sabi Rivers, South Africa in 1960, over 

200 miles (mi) inland (Jubb, 1967). 

Between 1964 and 1966, several 

largetooth sawfish were caught in the 

Zambesi River, South Africa during a 

general survey of rays and skates; 

largetooth sawfish have also been 

recorded in the shark nets off Durban, 

South Africa (Wallace, 1967). In 1966, a 

male (10 ft; 305 cm TL) was captured in 

a trawl net in the Gulf of Mannar, Sri 

Lanka (Gunn et al., 2010). Largetooth 

sawfish were commonly caught between 

1973 and 1974 in the Bay of Bengal 

during the wet season (July and 

September) but rarely during other 

times of the year. Largetooth sawfish 

were also reported in three major rivers 

that empty into the Bay of Bengal: The 

Pennaiyar, Paravanar, and Gadilam 

(Devadoss, 1978). 

Current reports of largetooth sawfish 

throughout the Indian Ocean are 

isolated and rare. Largetooth sawfish 

were recorded in South Africa 1992 and 

1993 between Nelson Mandela Bay and 

Cape Town. Eight additional 

observations are reported in South 

Africa but associated date information 

was not included (GBIF database). 

While the species could not be 

confirmed, a survey of fishing landing 

sites and interviews with 99 fishers in 

Kenya by Nyingi found 71 reports of 

sawfishes over the last 40 years 

(unpublished report from Dorothy 

Wanja Nyingi to J. Carlson, NMFS, 

2007). The longest time series of 

largetooth sawfish catches is from the 

swimmer protection beach nets off 

Natal, South Africa with a yearly 

average capture rate of 0.2 sawfish per 

0.6 mi (1 km) net per year from 1981 to 

1990; since then only two specimens 

have been caught (CITES, 2007). 

Largetooth sawfish were reported in 

Cochin, India by the Central Marine 

Fisheries Research Institute in 1994, but 

no information about location, size, or 

number of animals is available (Dan et 

al., 1994). Commercial landings of 

elasmobranchs from 1981 to 2000 in the 

Bay of Bengal were mostly rays with 

some largetooth sawfish (Raje and Joshi, 

2003). In the Betsiboka River, 

Madagascar, four largetooth sawfish 

were caught in 2001. The most recent 

capture of a largetooth sawfish (18 ft; 

550 cm TL) in India occurred on January 

18, 2011, between Karnataka and Goa 

(www.mangalorean.com). 

Indo-Pacific Ocean (Excluding 

Australia) 

Many islands within the Indo-Pacific 

region contain suitable habitat for 

largetooth sawfish, but few reports are 

available, perhaps due to the lack of 

surveys or data reporting. The earliest 

records of largetooth sawfish from the 

Indo-Pacific are from a compilation 

study of elasmobranchs in the waters off 

Thailand that reports a largetooth 

sawfish in the Chao Phraya River and its 

tributaries in 1945 (Vidthayanon, 2002). 

In 1955, two largetooth sawfish were 

captured from Lake Sentani (present day 

Intan Jaya, Indonesia). Juvenile 

largetooth sawfish have also been 

reported around the same time in a 

freshwater river close to Genjem, 

Indonesia (Boeseman, 1956). In 1956, 

largetooth sawfish were recorded in 

Lake Sentani (present day Intan Jaya, 

Indonesia), (Boeseman, 1956; Thorson et 

al., 1966). In a study by Munro (1967) 

in the Laloki River in the southeastern 

portion of New Guinea, no sawfish were 

captured. From 1967 to 1977, five 

largetooth sawfish were captured from 

the Indragiri River, Sumatra (Taniuchi, 

2002). The presence of largetooth 

sawfish in the Mahakam River, Borneo 

was recorded in 1987 (Christensen, 

1992). Three largetooth sawfish rostra 

were acquired from local fish markets in 

Sabah in 1996 (Manjaji, 2002a). 

Additional surveys of local fish markets 

indicate largetooth sawfish are still 

present in these areas, although locals 

have noticed a decline in their 

abundance (Manjaji, 2002a). In 1996, 

two specimens were found in Malaysia: 

One in Palau Nangka and one in Palau 

Besar (GBIF Database). 

Multiple records of largetooth sawfish 

have occurred in areas throughout 

Papua New Guinea. From 1970 to 1971, 

Berra et al. (1975) collected five 

largetooth sawfish from the Laloki 

River, Papua New Guinea. Four 

largetooth sawfish were recorded in 

1975 from the Fly River system, Papua 

New Guinea and one in 1979 in the 

northern part of Papua New Guinea near 

new Tangu (GBIF Database). In a survey 

of the Fly River system, Papua New 

Guinea, 23 individuals were captured in 

1978 (Roberts, 1978; Taniuchi and 

Shimizu, 1991; Taniuchi et al., 1991b; 

Taniuchi, 2002). There are two reports 

of largetooth sawfish in the 1980s in 

Papua New Guinea: One in 1987 and 

one in 1988 (GBIF Database). More 

recently, 36 largetooth sawfish were 

captured in September 1989 in Papua 

New Guinea (Taniuchi and Shimizu, 

1991; Taniuchi, 2002). 

The scarcity of records from IndoPacific led to an increased effort to 

document species presence. Anecdotal 

evidence suggests that largetooth 

sawfishes have not been recorded in 

Indo-Pacific for more than 25 years 

(White and Last, 2010). Largetooth 

sawfish have not been recorded in the 

Mekong River, Laos for decades 

(Rainboth, 1996). In a comprehensive 

study compiled by Compagno (2002a), 

no sawfishes were found in the South 

China Sea between the years of 1923 

and 1996. Data from 200 survey days at 

fish landing sites in eastern Indonesia 

between 2001 and 2005 recorded over 

40,000 elasmobranchs, but only 2 

largetooth sawfish (White and 

Dharmadi, 2007; Kyne and Feutry, 

2013). 

Australia 

Australia may have a higher 

abundance of largetooth sawfish than 

other areas within the species’ current 

range (Thorburn and Morgan, 2005; 

Field et al., 2009). Despite their current 

abundance levels, we only identified a 

few historic records from Australia. The 

first record of a largetooth sawfish was 

in 1945 in the Northern Territory 

(Stevens et al., 2005). There was a 

subsequent record in 1947, and two 

largetooth sawfish from the Gulf of 

Carpentaria, Queensland were reported 

in 1959 (GBIF Database). Faria et al. 

(2013) obtained a rostrum that was 

collected in Australia in 1960. 

Since the 1980s, we found 

significantly more records of largetooth 

sawfish in Australia than other regions. 

A largetooth sawfish was captured from 

the Keep River, Australia in 1981 

(Compagno and Last, 1999). Three 

largetooth sawfish were recorded in 

1984 near Marchinbar Island, Northern 

Territory (GBIF Database). Blaber et al. 

(1990) found that largetooth sawfish 

were among the top twenty-five most 

abundant species in the trawl fisheries 

of Albatross Bay from 1986 to 1988. 

Three largetooth sawfish were reported 

from the Gulf of Carpentaria, 

Queensland: One in 1987 in Walker 

Creek, one in 1988 in the Gilbert River, 

and one in 1991 in Marrakai Creek, a 

tributary of the Adelaide River, 

Northern Territory (GBIF Database). 

Eight individuals were captured in the 

Leichhardt River in 2008 (Morgan et al., 

2010b). In a preliminary survey of the 

McArthur River, Northern Territory, 

Gorham (2006) reported two largetooth 

sawfish captured between 2002 and 

2006. Surveys (Peverell, 2005; Gill et al., 

2006; Peverell, 2008) in the Gulf of 

Carpentaria found largetooth sawfish 

widely distributed throughout the 

eastern portion of the Gulf with most 

catches occurring near the mouth of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

many rivers (Mitchell, et al., 2005; 

2008). 

Juvenile largetooth sawfish in 

Australia use the Fitzroy River and 

other tributaries of King Sound (Morgan 

et al., 2004) as nursery areas while 

adults are found more often offshore 

(Morgan et al., 2010a). In Western 

Australia, besides the Fitzroy River and 

King Sound, the only other areas where 

juvenile sawfish have been recently 

recorded are in Willie Creek and 

Roebuck Bay (Gill et al., 2006; Morgan 

et al., 2011). Nursery areas for largetooth 

sawfish are also reported in northern 

Australia in the Gulf of Carpentaria 

(Gorham, 2006). Juvenile largetooth 

sawfish have been captured within the 

Adelaide River, Australia in 2013 (P. 

Kyne, Charles Darwin University, pers. 

comm., 2013). Abundance estimates for 

the largetooth sawfish from areas that 

support higher human populations may 

be declining (Taniuchi and Shimizu, 

1991; Taniuchi et al., 1991a; Morgan et 

al., 2010a). Whitty et al. (2009) found 

that the population of juvenile 

largetooth sawfish in the Fitzroy River 

had declined; catch per unit effort was 

56.7 sawfish per 100 hours in 2003 

compared to 12.4 in 2009. There were 

no reported captures of largetooth 

sawfish in 2008 from the Roper River 

system, which drains into the western 

Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Territory 

(Dally and Larson, 2008). No adult 

sawfish were captured in any of the 

prawn trawl fisheries in Queensland, 

Australia during the month of October 

2001 (Courtney et al., 2006). 

Outside the northern and western 

areas of Australia, largetooth sawfish do 

occur but reports are less frequent. In 

southwestern Australian waters, one 

female sawfish was captured by a 

commercial shark fisherman in February 

2003 east of Cape Naturaliste (Chidlow, 

2007). Data from the Queensland, 

Australia Shark Control Program shows 

a clear decline in sawfish catch over a 

30 year period from the 1960s, and the 

complete disappearance of sawfish in 

southern regions by 1993 (Stevens et al., 

2005). 

Eastern Pacific 

In the eastern Pacific, the historic 

range of largetooth sawfish was from 

Mazatlan, Mexico to Guayaquil, Ecuador 

(Cook et al., 2005) or possibly Peru 

(Chirichigno and Cornejo, 2001). There 

is very little information on the 

population status in this region and few 

reports of capture records. The species 

has been reported in freshwater in the 

Tuyra, Culebra, Tilapa, Chucunaque, 

Bayeno, and Rio Sambu Rivers, and at 

the Balboa and Miraflores locks in the 

Panama Canal, Panama; in Rio San Juan, 

Colombia; and in the Rio Goascoran, 

along the border of El Salvador and 

Honduras (Fowler, 1936, 1941; Beebe 

and Tee-Van, 1941; Bigelow and 

Schroeder, 1953; Thorson et al., 1966a; 

Dahl, 1971; Thorson, 1974, 1976, 1982a, 

1982b, 1987; Compagno and Cook, 1995; 

all as cited in Cook et al., 2005). There 

are 4 records of largetooth sawfish south 

of Purto Vallarta, Mexico in 1975, and 

several reports from Panama with no 

associated dates (GBIF Database). The 

only recent reports of largetooth sawfish 

in this area are anecdotal reports from 

Colombia, Nicaragua, and Panama (R. 

Graham, Wildlife Conservation Society, 

pers. comm. to IUCN, 2012). 

Western Atlantic Ocean 

In the western Atlantic Ocean, 

largetooth sawfish were widely 

distributed throughout the marine and 

estuarine waters in tropical and 

subtropical climates and historically 

found from Brazil through the 

Caribbean, Central America, the Gulf of 

Mexico, and seasonally into waters of 

the United States (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Largetooth sawfish also occurred in 

freshwater habitats in Central and South 

America. Throughout the Caribbean Sea, 

the historical presence of the largetooth 

sawfish is uncertain and early records 

might have been misidentified 

smalltooth sawfish (G. Burgess, Florida 

Museum of Natural History, pers. 

comm. to IUCN, 2012). 

Historic records of largetooth sawfish 

in the western north Atlantic have been 

previously reported in NMFS (2010a). 

Sawfish were documented in Central 

America in Nicaragua as early as 1529 

by a Spanish chronicler (Gill and 

Bransford, 1877). This species was also 

historically reported in Nicaragua by 

Meek (1907), Regan (1908), Marden 

(1944), Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) 

and Hagberg (1968). Five largetooth 

sawfish were reported from a survey of 

Lake Izabal, Guatemala from 1946 to 

1947, and sawfishes were reported to be 

important to inland fisheries (Saunders 

et al., 1950). There is a single largetooth 

sawfish report from Honduras, but the 

true origin of the rostrum and the date 

of capture could not be confirmed 

(NMFS, 2010a). 

In Atlantic drainages, largetooth 

sawfish has been found in freshwater at 

least 833 miles (1,340 km) from the 

ocean in the Amazon River system 

(Manacapuru, Brazil), as well as in Lake 

Nicaragua and the San Juan River; the 

Rio Coco, on the border of Nicaragua 

and Honduras; Rio Patuca, Honduras; 

Lago de Izabal, Rio Motagua, and Rio 

Dulce, Guatemala; and the Belize River, 

Belize. Largetooth sawfish are found in 

Mexican streams that flow into the Gulf 

of Mexico; Las Lagunas Del Tortuguero, 

Rio Parismina, Rio Pacuare, and Rio 

Matina, Costa Rica; and the Rio San 

Juan and the Magdalena River, 

Colombia (Thorson, 1974, 1982b; 

Castro-Augiree, 1978 as cited in 

Thorson, 1982b; Compagno and Cook, 

1995; C. Scharpf and M. McDavitt, 

National Legal Research Group, Inc., as 

cited in Cook et al., 2005). 

In the United States, largetooth 

sawfish were reported in the Gulf of 

Mexico mainly along the Texas coast 

east into Florida waters, though nearly 

all records of largetooth sawfish 

encountered in U.S. waters were limited 

to the Texas coast (NMFS, 2010a). 

Though reported in the United States, it 

appears that largetooth sawfish were 

never abundant, with approximately 39 

confirmed records (33 in Texas) from 

1910 through 1961. 

The Amazon River basin and adjacent 

waters are traditionally the most 

abundant known range of largetooth 

sawfish in Brazil (Bates, 1964; Marlier, 

1967; Furneau, 1969). Most of the 

records for which location is known 

originated in the state of Amazonas, 

which encompasses the middle section 

of the Amazon River basin along with 

the confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio 

Solimoes Rivers. The other known 

locations are from the states of Rio 

Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Bahia, 

Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sao 

Paulo, Para, and Maranhao (NMFS, 

2010a). Most records of largetooth 

sawfish in the Amazon River 

(Amazonia) predate 1974. The 

Magdalena River estuary was the 

primary source for largetooth sawfish 

encounters in Colombia from the 1940’s 

(Miles, 1945), while other records 

originated from the Bahia de Cartagena 

and Isla de Salamanca (both marine), 

and Rio Sinu (freshwater) from the 

1960’s through the 1980’s (Dahl, 1964; 

1971; Frank and Rodriguez, 1976; 

Alvarez and Blanco, 1985). In other 

areas of South America, there are only 

single records from Guyana, French 

Guiana, and Trinidad from the late 

1800’s and early 1900’s. Of the 5 records 

from Suriname, the most recent was 

1962. Though thought to have once been 

abundant in some areas of Venezuela 

(Cervignon, 1966a, 1966b), the most 

recent confirmed records of largetooth 

sawfish from that country was in 1962. 

Many records in the 1970’s and 1980’s 

are largely due to Thorson’s (1982a, 

1982b) research on the Lake NicaraguaRio San Juan system in Nicaragua and 

Costa Rica. Bussing (2002) indicated 

that this species was known to inhabit 

the Rio Tempisque and tributaries of the 

San Juan basin in Costa Rica. Following 

Thorson’s (1982a, 1982b) studies, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73989 

records of largetooth sawfish in the 

western North Atlantic decline 

considerably. By 1981, Thorson (1982a) 

was unable to locate a single live 

specimen in the original areas he 

surveyed. There are no known 

Nicaraguan records of the largetooth 

sawfish outside of the Lake NicaraguaRio San Juan-Rio Colorado system 

(Burgess et al., 2009), although 

largetooth sawfish are still captured 

incidentally by fishers netting for other 

species (McDavitt, 2002). Of the known 

largetooth sawfish reported from 

Mexico, most records are prior to 1978 

(NMFS, 2010a). Caribbean records are 

very sparse (NMFS, 2010a). The last 

record of a largetooth sawfish in U.S. 

waters was in 1961 (Burgess et al., 

2009). 

Most recent records for largetooth 

sawfish are in isolated areas. While 

many reports of largetooth sawfish from 

Brazil were from the 1980’s and 1990’s 

(Lessa, 1986; Martins-Juras et al., 1987; 

Stride and Batista, 1992; Menni and 

Lessa, 1998; and Lessa et al., 1999), 

recent records indicate largetooth 

sawfish are primarily found in fish 

markets near the Amazon-Orinoco 

estuaries (Charvet-Almeida, 2002; 

Burgess et al., 2009). A Lake Nicaragua 

fisherman reports he encounters a few 

sawfish annually (McDavitt, 2002). 

Other records are rare for the area. Three 

recent occurrences were found in 

Internet searches, one being a 200 lb. 

(90.7 kg) specimen caught recreationally 

in Costa Rica (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Though reported by Thorson et al. 

(1966a, 1966b) to be common 

throughout the area, there are no recent 

reports of encounters with sawfishes in 

Guatemala. Scientists in Colombia have 

not reported any sawfish sightings 

between 1999 and 2009 (Burgess et al., 

2009). 

Eastern Atlantic Ocean 

Historic records indicate that 

largetooth sawfish were once relatively 

common in the coastal estuaries along 

the west coast of Africa. Verified records 

exist from Senegal (1841–1902), Gambia 

(1885–1909), Guinea-Bissau (1912), 

Republic of Guinea (1965), Sierra Leone 

(date unknown), Liberia (1927), Coˆte 

d’Ivoire (1881–1923), Congo (1951– 

1958), Democratic Republic of the 

Congo (1951–1959), and Angola (1951). 

Most records, however, lacked species 

identification and locality data and may 

have been confused taxonomically with 

other species. Unpublished notes from a 

1950’s survey detail 12 largetooth 

sawfish from Mauritania, Senegal, 

Guinea, Coˆte d’Ivoire, and Nigeria, 

ranging in size from 35–275 in (89–700 

cm) TL (Burgess et al., 2009). 

A more recent status review by 

Ballouard et al. (2006) reported that 

sawfishes, including the largetooth 

sawfish, were once common from 

Mauritania to the Republic of Guinea, 

but are now rarely captured or 

encountered. According to this report, 

the range of sawfishes has decreased to 

the Bissagos Archipelago (Guinea 

Bissau). The most recent sawfish 

encounters outside Guinea Bissau were 

in the 1990’s in Mauritania, Senegal, 

Gambia, and the Republic of Guinea. 

The most recent documented largetooth 

sawfish capture was from 2005 in Nord 

de Caravela (Guinea Bissau), along with 

anecdotal accounts from fishers of 

captures off of two islands in the same 

area in 2008 (Burgess et al., 2009). 

In summary, on a global scale, 

largetooth sawfish appear to have been 

severely fragmented throughout their 

historic range into isolated populations 

of low abundance. Largetooth sawfish 

are now considered very rare in many 

places where evidence is available, 

including parts of East Africa, India, 

parts of the Indo-Pacific region, Central 

and South America and West Africa. 

Even within areas like Australia and 

Brazil, the species is primarily located 

in remote areas. Information from 

genetic studies indicates that largetooth 

sawfish display strong sex-biased 

dispersal patterns; with females 

exhibiting patterns of natal philopatry 

while males move more broadly 

between populations (Phillips et al., 

2011). Thus, the opportunity for reestablishment of these isolated 

populations is limited because any 

reduction in female abundance in one 

region is not likely to be replenished by 

movement from another region 

(Phillips, 2012). 

Natural History of Green Sawfish 

(Pristis zijsron) 

Taxonomy and Morphology 

Pristis zijsron (Bleeker, 1851) is 

frequently known as the narrowsnout 

sawfish or the green sawfish. 

Synonymous names include P. dubius 

(Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; Van 

Oijen et al., 2007; Wueringer et al., 

2009). An alternative spelling for this 

species’ scientific name (P. zysron) is 

found in older literature, due to either 

inconsistent writing or errors in 

translation or transcription (Van Oijen 

et al., 2007). 

The green sawfish has a narrow saw 

with 25–32 small, slender rostral teeth; 

tooth count may vary geographically 

(Marichamy, 1969; Last and Stevens, 

1994; Morgan et al., 2010a). Specimens 

collected along the west coast of 

Australia have 24–30 left rostral teeth 

and 23–30 right rostral teeth (Morgan et 

al., 2010a), although other reports are 

23–34 (Morgan et al., 2011). There have 

been no studies to determine sexual 

dimorphism from rostral tooth counts 

for green sawfish. The rostral teeth are 

generally denser near the base of the 

saw than at the apical part of the saw 

(Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1944). The 

total rostrum length is between 20.6– 

29.3 percent of the total length of the 

animal and may vary based on the 

number and size of individuals. In 

general, green sawfish have a greater 

rostrum length to total length ratio than 

other sawfish species (Morgan et al., 

2010a, 2011). 

In terms of body morphology, the 

origin of the first dorsal fin on green 

sawfish is slightly posterior to the origin 

of pelvic fins. The lower caudal lobe is 

not well defined and there is no 

subterminal notch (Gloerfelt-Tarp and 

Kailola, 1984; Compagno et al., 1989; 

Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and 

Last, 1999; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 

Wueringer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 

2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). The green 

sawfish has limited buccopharyngeal 

denticles and regularly overlapping 

monocuspidate dermal denticles on its 

skin. As a result, there are no keels or 

furrows formed on the skin (Deynat, 

2005). The green sawfish is greenish 

brown dorsally and white ventrally. 

This species might be confused with the 

dwarf or smalltooth sawfish due to its 

similar size and range (Compagno et al., 

2006c). 

Habitat Use and Migration 

The green sawfish mostly uses 

inshore, marine habitats, but it has been 

found in freshwater environments 

(Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; 

Compagno et al., 1989; Compagno, 

2002b; Stevens et al., 2008; Wueringer 

et al., 2009). In the Gilbert and Walsh 

Rivers of Queensland, Australia, 

specimens have been captured as far as 

149 miles (240 km) upriver (Grant, 

1991). However, Morgan et al. (2010a, 

2011) report green sawfish do not move 

into freshwater for any portion of their 

lifecycle. Like most sawfishes, the green 

sawfish prefers muddy bottoms in 

estuarine environments (Last, 2002). 

The maximum depth recorded for this 

species is 131 ft (40 m) but it is often 

found in much shallower waters, 

around 16 ft (5 m; Compagno and Last, 

1999; Wueringer et al., 2009). Adults 

tend to spend more time in offshore 

waters in Australia, as indicated by 

interactions with the offshore Pilbara 

Fish Trawl Fishery, while juveniles 

prefer protected, inshore waters 

(Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 

2011). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Age and Growth 

At birth pups are between 2 ft and 2 

ft 7 in (61 and 80 cm) TL. At age 1 green 

sawfish are generally around 4 ft 3 in 

(130 cm) TL (Morgan et al., 2010a). 

Peverell (2008) found between ages 1 

and 5, green sawfish measure between 

4 ft 2 in and 8 ft 5 in (128 and 257 cm) 

TL, based on the vertebral analysis of 6 

individuals (Peverell, 2008; Morgan et 

al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 2011). A 12 ft 

6 in (380 cm) TL green sawfish was 

found to be age 8, a 14 ft 4 in (438 cm) 

TL individual was found to be age 10, 

a 14 ft 9 in (449 cm) TL specimen was 

found to be age 16, and a 15 ft (482 cm) 

TL specimen was found to be age 18 

(Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2011). 

Adult green sawfish often reach 16 ft 

5 in (5 m) TL, but may grow as large as 

23 ft (7 m) TL (Compagno et al., 1989; 

Grant, 1991; Last and Stevens, 1994; 

Compagno and Last, 1999; Bonfil and 

Abdallah, 2004; Compagno et al., 2006c; 

Morgan et al., 2010a). The largest green 

sawfish collected in Australia was 

estimated to be 19 ft 8 in (600 cm) TL 

based on a rostrum length of 5 ft 5 in 

(165.5 cm; Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan 

et al., 2011). 

Peverell (2008) completed an age and 

growth study for green sawfish using 

vertebral growth bands. Von Bertalanffy 

growth model parameters from both 

sexes combined resulted in estimated 

maximum theoretical size of 16 ft (482 

cm) TL, relative growth rate of 0.12 per 

year and theoretical time at zero length 

of 1.12 yrs. The theoretical maximum 

age for this species is calculated to be 

53 years (Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 

2010a). 

Reproduction 

Last and Stevens (2009) reported size 

at maturity for green sawfish at 9 ft 10 

in (300 cm) TL, corresponding to age 9. 

In contrast, Peverell (2008) reported one 

mature individual of 12 ft 4 in (380 cm) 

TL and estimated its age as 9 yrs. Using 

the growth function from Peverell 

(2008) and assuming length of maturity 

at 118 in (300 cm), Moreno Iturria 

(2012) determined maturation is likely 

to occur at age 5. Demographic models 

based on life history data from the Gulf 

of Carpentaria indicate the generation 

time is 14.6 years, the intrinsic rate of 

population increase is 0.02 per year, and 

population doubling time is 

approximately 28 years (Moreno Iturria, 

2012). 

Green sawfish give birth to as many 

as 12 pups during the wet season 

(January through July); Last and 

Stevens, 1994; Peverell, 2008; Morgan et 

al., 2010a, 2011). In Western Australia, 

females are known to pup in areas 

between One Arm Point and Whim 

Creek, with limited data for all other 

areas (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et 

al., 2011). The Gulf of Carpentaria, 

Australia is also a known nursery area 

for green sawfish (Gorham, 2006). It is 

not known where the green sawfish 

breed or their length of gestation. 

Diet and Feeding 

Like other sawfish, green sawfish use 

their rostra to stun small, schooling 

fishes, such as mullet, or use it to dig 

up benthic prey, including mollusks 

and crustaceans (Breder Jr., 1952; 

Rainboth, 1996; Raje and Joshi, 2003; 

Compagno et al., 2006c; Last and 

Stevens, 2009). One specimen captured 

in 1967 in the Indian Ocean had jacks 

and razor fish (Caranx and Centriscus) 

species in its stomach (Marichamy, 

1969). In Australia, the diet of this 

species often includes shrimp, croaker, 

salmon, glassfish, grunter, and ponyfish 

(Morgan et al., 2010a). 

Population Structure 

Faria et al. (2013) found no global 

population structure for green sawfish 

in their genetic studies. However, 

geographical variation was found in the 

number of rostral teeth per side, 

suggesting some population structure 

may occur. Green sawfish from the 

Indian Ocean have a higher number of 

rostral teeth per side than those from 

western Pacific specimens (Faria et al., 

2013). 

In Australia, genetic analysis found 

differences in green sawfish between the 

west coast, the east coast, and the Gulf 

of Carpentaria (Phillips et al., 2011). 

Genetic data suggests these populations 

are structured matrilineally (from the 

mother to daughter) but there is no 

information on male gene flow at this 

time. These results may be indicative of 

philopatry where adult females return to 

or remain in the same area they were 

born (Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et 

al., 2011; Phillips et al., 2011). Phillips 

et al. (2011) also found low levels of 

genetic diversity for green sawfish in the 

Gulf of Carpentaria, suggesting the 

population may have undergone a 

genetic bottleneck. 

Distribution and Abundance 

The green sawfish historically ranged 

throughout the Indo-West Pacific from 

South Africa northward along the east 

coast of Africa, through the Red Sea, 

Persian Gulf, Southern Asia, IndoAustralian archipelago, and east to Asia 

as far north as Taiwan and Southern 

China (Fowler, 1941; Blegvad and 

L<ppenthin, 1944; Smith, 1945; Misra, 

1969; Compagno et al., 2002a, 2002b; 

Last and Stevens, 2009). Historic 

records indicating species presence are 

available from India, Southeast Asia, 

Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, New 

South Wales, and Australia (Cavanagh 

et al., 2003; Wueringer et al., 2009; 

Morgan et al., 2010a; Morgan et al., 

2011). Green sawfish have also been 

found in South Africa, the South China 

Sea, and the Persian Gulf (Fowler, 1941; 

Compagno et al., 1989; Grant, 1991; 

Compagno and Last, 1999; Last, 2002; 

Compagno, 2002b; Morgan et al., 

2010a). To evaluate the current 

distribution and abundance of the green 

sawfish, we conducted an extensive 

search of peer-reviewed publications 

and technical reports, newspaper, 

magazine articles, and the GBIF 

Database. The results are summarized 

by geographic area. 

Indian Ocean 

Green sawfish are widely distributed 

throughout the Indian Ocean with the 

first record coming from Saudi Arabia in 

1830 (GBIF Database). An additional 

record was reported from the Indian 

Ocean in the 1850s (GBIF Database). 

Several green sawfish were described 

near the Indian archipelago in the late 

1800s (Van Oijen et al., 2007). 

Additional historical records include 

one female specimen captured in the 

Red Sea near Dollfus in 1929. In Egypt, 

two green sawfish rostra were found in 

1938, and an additional rostrum was 

found on Henjam Island, Gulf of Oman 

(Blegvad and Loppenthin, 1994). 

Unconfirmed reports of green sawfish 

are available from the Andaman and 

Nicobar Islands, India. In 1963, a male 

was captured at Port Blair, Gulf of 

Andaman (James, 1973). A female was 

captured in 1967, in the same area 

(Marichamy, 1969). One green sawfish 

was captured in the St. Lucia estuary, 

South Africa during a survey between 

1975 and 1976 (Whitfield, 1999). In 

1984, a green sawfish was observed in 

Trafalgar, South Africa (GBIF Database). 

Despite historic records, there are few 

current records of green sawfish in the 

Indian Ocean. There are some reports of 

green sawfish from Iraq, Iran, South 

Africa, and Pakistan, but no dates are 

available (GBIF Database). We presume 

green sawfish are extremely rare or 

extirpated in the Indian Ocean based on 

the lack of current records. 

Indo-Pacific Ocean (Excluding 

Australia) 

The first description of the green 

sawfish was based on a rostral saw 

(Bleeker, 1851) from Bandjarmasin, 

Borneo (Van Oijen et al., 2007). A 

juvenile male was captured in Amboine, 

Indonesia in 1856 (Deynat, 2005). An 

isolated saw from the Gulf of Thailand 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73991 

was obtained in 1895 and estimated to 

be from a green sawfish 4 ft 8 in (143 

cm) TL (Deynat, 2005). Eight specimens 

were sent to the Wistar Institute of 

Anatomy in 1898 from Baram, British 

North Borneo (Fowler, 1941). One green 

sawfish was reported from East Sepik, 

Papua New Guinea in 1929 (GBIF 

Database). In 1940, a green sawfish 

specimen was collected from 

Zamboanga, Philippines (GBIF 

Database). 

Many islands within the Indo-Pacific 

region contain suitable habitat for 

sawfish, but few records are available, 

possibly due to the lack of surveys or 

data reporting. Before 1995, there were 

few local scientific studies on 

elasmobranchs, and only two species of 

freshwater rays had been recorded in 

Borneo. As a result, a great effort to 

document any unknown species was 

undertaken by Fowler (2002). Rostra 

and records were documented in the 

study, including several dried rostra of 

green sawfish from the Kinabatangan 

River area in the local markets of Sabah, 

Borneo; no collection specifics were 

provided. Locals also indicated that this 

species could often be found in the 

Labuk Bay area (Manjaji, 2002a) and in 

the country’s freshwater systems 

(Manjaji, 2002b); they also reported a 

decline of sawfish populations overall. 

Elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region, 

few records of green sawfish have been 

reported. This species is currently 

considered endangered in Thailand by 

Vidthayanon (2002) and Compagno 

(2002a); they also reported no sawfish 

species from the South China Sea from 

1923 to 1996. Anecdotal evidence 

suggests that sawfishes have not been 

recorded in Indonesia for more than 25 

years (White and Last, 2010). Several 

reports of green sawfish exist from 

Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Zealand 

without any associated dates (GBIF 

Database). 

Australia 

In Australian waters, the earliest 

museum collection of the green sawfish 

was in 1913 in Llyod Bay, Queensland, 

Australia (GBIF Database). The 

Queensland Museum houses a green 

sawfish specimen collected in 1929 that 

was found in Moreton Bay, Queensland 

(Fowler, 1941). Two records exist of 

green sawfish collected in 1936 from 

Adeliade, South Australia (GBIF 

Database). We found very few records 

for green sawfish during the middle part 

of the last century. In the late 1970s and 

1980s, reports of green sawfish began to 

occur again. In 1978, green sawfish were 

recorded in the Western Territory by 

CSIRO (GBIF Database). There are 

multiple observations in 1980 of green 

sawfish in Australia: two from the 

Northern Territory, and one from the 

Gulf of Carpentaria (GBIF Database). A 

green sawfish was observed in the Gulf 

of Carpentaria in 1981 by CSIRO. Two 

were observed in Western Australia, one 

in 1982 and one in 1983 (GBIF 

Database). Two green sawfish were 

captured from Balgal, Queensland, 

Australia in 1985 (Beveridge and 

Campbell, 2005). In the Gulf of 

Carpentaria, two green sawfish were 

recorded in 1986, and one was recorded 

in 1987 (GBIF Database). 

One green sawfish was caught in the 

southern portion of the Gulf of 

Carpentaria in late 1990 during a fish 

fauna survey (Blaber et al., 1994). 

Alexander (1991) captured a female 

green sawfish from the west coast of 

Australia that was used for a 

morphological study. Between 1994 and 

2010, almost 50 tissue samples were 

taken from live green sawfish or dried 

rostra from multiple areas around 

Australia, primarily the Gulf of 

Carpentaria and northwest and 

northeast coasts (Phillips et al., 2011). In 

1997, one green sawfish was found at 

the mouth of Buffalo Creek near Darwin, 

Northern Territory (Chisholm and 

Whittington, 2000). In a survey from 

1999 through 2001 by White and Potter, 

(2004), one green sawfish was captured 

in Shark Bay, Queensland. In 1999, one 

green sawfish was captured by CSIRO 

from the Gulf of Carpentaria (GBIF 

Database). Peverell (2005, 2008) noted 

the green sawfish was one of the least 

encountered species in a survey from 

the Gulf of Carpentaria. In 2004, one 

green sawfish was reported near 

Darwin, Northern Territory by the 

European Molecular Biology Lab (GBIF 

Database). No green sawfish were 

captured from the Roper River system in 

2008, which drains into the western 

Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Territory 

(Dally and Larson, 2008). Some records 

have been reported for the east coast of 

Australia; one female green sawfish was 

acoustically tracked for 27 hours in May 

2004 (Peverell and Pillans, 2004; 

Porteous, 2004). Peverell (2005, 2008) 

noted the green sawfish was one of the 

least encountered species in a survey 

from the Gulf of Carpentaria. 

In summary, limited data makes it 

difficult to determine the current range 

and abundance of green sawfish. 

Nonetheless, given the uniqueness (size 

and physical characteristics) of the 

sawfish, we believe the lack of records 

in the areas where the species was 

historically found indicates the species 

is no longer present or has declined to 

extremely low levels. Extensive surveys 

at fish landing sites throughout 

Indonesia since 2001 have failed to 

record the green sawfish (White pers. 

comm. to IUCN, 2012). There is some 

evidence from the Persian Gulf and Red 

Sea (e.g., Sudan) of small but extant 

populations (A. Moore, RSK 

Environment Ltd., pers. comm. to IUCN, 

2012). Green sawfish are currently 

found primarily along the northern 

coast of Australia, but all sawfish 

species have undergone significant 

declines in Australian waters. The 

southern extent of the range of green 

sawfishes in Australia has contracted 

(Harry et al., 2011). Green sawfish have 

been reported as far south as Sydney, 

New South Wales, but are rarely found 

as far south as Townsville, Queensland 

(Porteous, 2004). 

Natural History of the Non-Listed 

Population(s) of Smalltooth Sawfish 

(Pristis pectinata) 

This section includes information 

from the listed U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish. The U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish was listed as endangered on 

April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674). The basis 

of the U.S. DPS smalltooth sawfish 

listing was the significant differences in 

management across international 

borders. We discuss information from 

the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish here 

because there is very little basic 

biological information on smalltooth 

sawfish found outside the U.S. We 

believe the information from the U.S. 

DPS is likely representative of the nonU.S. population of smalltooth sawfish 

and is useful for understanding its 

biology and extinction risk. 

Taxonomy and Morphology 

The smalltooth sawfish was first 

described as Pristis pectinatus, Latham 

1794. The name was changed to the 

currently valid P. pectinata to match 

gender of the genus and species as 

required by the International Code of 

Zoological Nomenclature. 

The smalltooth sawfish has a thick 

body with a moderately sized rostrum. 

As with many other sawfishes, tooth 

count varies by individual or region. 

While there is no reported difference in 

rostral tooth count between sexes, there 

have been reports of sexual dimorphism 

in tooth shape, with males having 

broader teeth than females (Wueringer 

et al., 2009). Rostral teeth are denser 

near the apex of the saw than the base. 

Most studies report a rostral tooth count 

of 25 to 29 for smalltooth sawfish 

(Wueringer et al., 2009). The saw may 

constitute up to one-fourth of the total 

body length (McEachran and De 

Carvalho, 2002). 

The pectoral fins are broad and long 

with the origin of the first dorsal fin 

over or anterior to the origin of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

pelvic fins (Faria et al., 2013). The lower 

caudal lobe is not well defined and 

lacks a ventral lobe (Wallace, 1967; 

Gloerfelt-Tarp and Kailola, 1984; Last 

and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Last, 

1999; Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004; 

Wueringer et al., 2009). This species has 

between 228 and 232 vertebrae 

(Wallace, 1967). 

The smalltooth sawfish has 

buccopharyngeal denticles and regularly 

overlapping monocuspidate (singlepointed) dermal denticles on their skin. 

As a result, there are no keels or furrows 

formed on the skin (Last and Stevens, 

1994; Deynat, 2005). The body is an 

olive grey color dorsally, with a white 

ventral surface (Compagno et al., 1989; 

Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and 

Last, 1999). This species may be 

confused with the narrow or green 

sawfish (Compagno, 2002b). 

Habitat Use and Migration 

All research on habitat use and 

migration has been conducted on the 

U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish. A 

summary of recent information (NMFS, 

2010b) indicates smalltooth sawfish are 

generally found in shallow waters with 

varying salinity level that are associated 

with red mangroves (Rhizophora 

mangle). Juvenile sawfish appear to 

have small home ranges and limited 

movements. Simpfendorfer et al. (2011) 

reported smalltooth sawfish have an 

affinity for salinities between 18 and at 

least 24 ppt, suggesting movements are 

likely made, in part, to remain within 

this salinity range. Therefore, freshwater 

flow may affect the location of 

individuals within an estuary. Poulakis 

et al. (2011) found juvenile smalltooth 

sawfish had an affinity for water less 

than 3 ft (1.0 m) deep, water 

temperatures greater than 86 degrees 

Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius), 

dissolved oxygen greater than 6 mg per 

liter, and salinity between 18 and 30 

ppt. Greater catch rates for smalltooth 

sawfish less than 1 year old were 

associated with shoreline habitats with 

overhanging vegetation such as 

mangroves. Poulakis et al. (2012) further 

determined daily activity space of 

smalltooth sawfish is less than 1 mi (0.7 

km) of river distance. Hollensead (2012) 

reported smalltooth sawfish activity 

areas ranged in size from 837 square 

yards to 240,000 square yards to 

approximately 3 million square yards 

(0.0007 to 2.59 km2) with average range 

of movements of 2.3 yards to 6.67 yards 

(2.4 to 6.1 m) per minute. Hollensead 

(2012) also found no difference in 

activity area or range of movement 

between ebb and flood, or high and low 

tide. Smalltooth sawfish movements at 

night suggest possible nocturnal 

foraging. Using a combination of data 

from pop-off archival transmitting tags 

across multiple institutional programs, 

movements and habitat use of adult 

smalltooth sawfish were determined in 

southern Florida and the Bahamas 

(Carlson et al., 2013). Smalltooth 

sawfish generally remained in coastal 

waters at shallow depths less than 32 ft; 

(10 m) for more than 96 percent of the 

time that they were monitored. 

Smalltooth sawfish also remained in 

warm water temperatures of 71.6 to 82.4 

degrees Fahrenheit (22 to 28 degrees 

Celsius) within the region where they 

were initially tagged. Tagged smalltooth 

sawfish traveled an average of 49 mi 

(80.2 km) from deployment to pop-off 

location during an average of 95 days. 

No smalltooth sawfish tagged in U.S. or 

Bahamian waters have been tracked to 

countries outside where they were 

tagged. 

Age and Growth 

There is no age and growth data for 

smalltooth sawfish outside of the U.S. 

DPS. A summary of age and growth data 

on the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

(NMFS, 2010b) indicates rapid juvenile 

growth for smalltooth sawfish for the 

first two years after birth. Recently, 

Scharer et al. (2012) counted bands on 

sectioned vertebrae from naturally 

deceased smalltooth sawfish and 

estimated von Bertalanffy growth 

parameters. Theoretical maximum size 

was estimated at 14.7 ft (4.48 m), 

relative growth was 0.219 per year, with 

theoretical maximum size at 15.8 years. 

Reproduction 

In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, 

smalltooth sawfish have been recorded 

breeding in Richard’s Bay and St. Lucia, 

South Africa (Wallace, 1967; Compagno 

et al., 1989; Compagno and Last, 1999). 

Pupping grounds are usually inshore, in 

marine or fresh water. Pupping occurs 

year-around in the tropics, but in only 

spring and summer at higher latitudes 

(Compagno and Last, 1999). Records of 

captive breeding have been reported 

from the Atlantis Paradise Island Resort 

Aquarium in Nassau, Bahamas; 

copulatory behavior was observed in 

2003 and six months later the female 

aborted the pups for unknown reasons 

(McDavitt, 2006). In October 2012, a 

female sawfish gave birth to five live 

pups at the Atlantis Paradise Island 

Resort Aquarium in Nassau, Bahamas (J. 

Choromanski, Ripley’s Entertainment 

pers. comm to NMFS, 2013). 

Several studies have examined 

demography of smalltooth sawfish in 

U.S. waters. Moreno Iturria (2012) 

calculated demographic parameters for 

smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters and 

estimated intrinsic rates of increase at 

seven percent annually with a 

population doubling time of 9.7 years. 

However, preliminary results of a 

different model by Carlson et al. (2012) 

indicates population increase rates may 

be greater, up to 17.6 percent annually, 

for the U.S. population of smalltooth 

sawfish. It is not clear which of these 

models is more appropriate for the nonU.S. population of smalltooth sawfish. 

Diet and Feeding 

Smalltooth sawfish often use their 

rostrum saw in a side-sweeping motion 

to stun their prey, which may include 

small fishes, or to dig up invertebrates 

from the bottom (Breder Jr., 1952; 

Compagno et al., 1989; Rainboth, 1996; 

McEachran and De Carvalho, 2002; Raje 

and Joshi, 2003; Last and Stevens, 2009; 

Wueringer et al., 2009). 

Population Structure 

A qualitative examination of genetic 

sequences revealed no geographical 

structuring of smalltooth sawfish 

haplotypes; however, variation in the 

number of rostral teeth per side was 

found in specimens from the western 

and eastern Atlantic Ocean (Faria et al., 

2013). 

Distribution and Abundance 

Smalltooth sawfish were thought to be 

historically found in South Africa, 

Madagascar, the Red Sea, Arabia, India, 

the Philippines, along the coast of West 

Africa, portions of South America 

including Brazil, Ecuador, the Caribbean 

Sea, the Mexican Gulf of Mexico, as 

well as Bermuda (Bigelow and 

Scheroder, 1953; Wallace, 1967; Van der 

Elst 1981; Compagno et al., 1989; Last 

and Stevens, 1994; IUCN, 1996; 

Compagno and Last, 1999; McEachran 

and De Carvalho, 2002; Monte-Luna et 

al., 2009; Wueringer et al., 2009). Yet, 

reports of smalltooth sawfish from other 

than the Atlantic Ocean are likely 

misidentifications of other sawfish 

(Faria et al., 2013). The lack of 

confirmed reports of smalltooth sawfish 

from areas other than the Atlantic Ocean 

indicates that smalltooth sawfish are 

only found in the Atlantic Ocean. In the 

eastern Atlantic Ocean, smalltooth 

sawfish were historically found along 

the west coast of Africa from Angola to 

Mauritania (Faria et al., 2013). Although 

smalltooth sawfish were included in 

historic faunal lists of species found in 

the Mediterranean Sea (Serena, 2005), it 

is still unclear if smalltooth sawfish 

occurred as part of the Mediterranean 

ichthyofauna or were only seasonal 

migrants. 

To evaluate the current and historic 

distribution and abundance of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73993 

smalltooth sawfish outside the U.S. 

DPS, we conducted an extensive search 

of peer-reviewed publications and 

technical reports, newspaper, records 

from the GBIF Database, and magazine 

articles. The results of that search are 

summarized by major geographic region. 

Eastern Atlantic Ocean 

Smalltooth sawfish were once 

common in waters off the west coast of 

Africa, but are now rarely reported or 

documented in the area. The earliest 

record of a smalltooth sawfish is a 

specimen from Namibia in 1874 (GBIF 

Database). Other records of smalltooth 

sawfish in Africa occurred in 1907 from 

Cameroon, five males and two females. 

Female specimens were recorded in the 

Republic of the Congo in 1911 and 1948. 

Other reports from the Republic of 

Congo include a male and two females, 

but dates were not recorded. An 

undated female specimen from 

Mauritania was recorded (Faria et al., 

2013). A rostrum from Pointe Noire, 

Molez, Republic of the Congo was found 

in 1958 (Deynat, 2005; Faria et al., 

2013). There are records of smalltooth 

sawfish from Senegal as early as 1956 

and another rostral saw was recorded in 

1959. Faria et al. (2013) also reports on 

four other rostra from Senegal, but no 

other information is available. 

Many records of smalltooth sawfish 

from the eastern Atlantic Ocean are 

reported in the GBIF database during 

the 1960s, particularly between 1963 

and 1964. The majority of these records 

are from Nigeria (118), but others are 

from Gabon (77), Ghana (51), Cameroon 

(43), and Liberia (39). Another online 

database, Fishbase (www.fishbase.org), 

has the same records. It is unclear if 

these records are duplicative due to the 

lack of specific information. 

In the 1970s, records of smalltooth 

sawfish became limited to more 

northern areas of West Africa. One 

rostral saw from Senegal was recorded 

in 1975 (Alexander, 1991). Similarly, 

one rostral saw was reported from 

Gambia in 1977, but information about 

exact location or sex of the animal was 

absent (Faria et al., 2013). Faria et al. 

(2013) report a record of smalltooth 

sawfish in Guinea-Bissau in 1983 and a 

record of a saw in 1987. For a 

morphological study, Deynat (2005) 

obtained a juvenile female from Cacheu, 

Guinea-Bissau in 1983, and another 

from Port-Etienne, Mauritania, in 1986. 

Two rostra were reported from the 

Republic of Guinea, one in 1980 and 

one in 1988 (Faria et al., 2013). 

In the last 10 years, there has been 

only one confirmed record of a 

smalltooth sawfish in the eastern 

Atlantic Ocean in Sierra Leone, West 

Africa, in 2003 (M. Diop, pers. comm. to 

IUCN, 2012). Two other countries have 

recently reported sawfish (Guinea 

Bissau, Africa in 2011, and Mauritania 

in 2010), but these reports did not 

identify the species as smalltooth 

sawfish. 

Western Atlantic Ocean (Outside U.S 

Waters) 

Overall, records of smalltooth sawfish 

in the western Atlantic Ocean are scarce 

and show a non-continuous range, 

potentially due to misidentification 

with largetooth sawfish. Faria et al. 

(2013) summarized most records of 

smalltooth sawfish in these areas. Faria 

et al. (2013) report the earliest records 

are a female smalltooth sawfish from 

Haiti in 1831 and a female sawfish from 

Trinidad and Tobago in 1876 (Faria et 

al., 2013). One smalltooth sawfish was 

recorded in Bele ́m, Brazil in 1863 (GBIF 

Database). Two smalltooth sawfish saws 

were reported from Guyana in 1886, and 

an additional saw was later recorded in 

1900. In Brazil, there is a 1910 report of 

a female smalltooth sawfish. In 1914, 

there is a report of a smalltooth sawfish 

in Laguna de Terminos, Mexico (GBIF 

Database). 

In the middle part of the twentieth 

century, there are reports of two female 

smalltooth sawfish from Mexico in 

1926. Rostral saws were found in 

Suriname in 1943, 1944, and 1963, but 

no additional location or specimen 

information is known. One rostrum was 

reported from Costa Rica in 1960 and 

one rostral saw from Trinidad and 

Tobago in 1944 (Faria et al., 2013). 

Several whole individuals and one 

rostrum were recorded from Guyana in 

1958 and 1960. There are also several 

other undated specimens recorded from 

Guyana from this period (Faria et al., 

2013). There are other records of 

smalltooth sawfish’s presence in the 

western Atlantic Ocean but specific 

information is lacking. For example, 

Faria et al. (2013) report that 4 rostral 

saws came from Mexico and two from 

Belize. One female was reported from 

Venezuela and two rostra from Trinidad 

and Tobago. Despite lacking date 

information, the GBIF Database and 

Fishbase have reports of smalltooth 

sawfish throughout South and Central 

America: French Guiana (48), Me ́xico 

(9), Guyana (6), Venezuela (3), Haitı ́ (2), 

and individual records from Colombia, 

Nicaragua, and Belize. 

In summary, while records are sparse, 

it is likely the distribution of smalltooth 

sawfish in the Atlantic Ocean is patchy 

and has been reduced in a pattern 

similar to largetooth sawfish. Data 

suggests only a few viable populations 

might exist outside the United States. 

The Caribbean Sea may have greater 

numbers of smalltooth sawfish than 

other areas given high quality habitats 

and reduced urbanization. For example, 

smalltooth sawfish have been repeatedly 

reported along the western coast of 

Andros Island, Bahamas (R.D. Grubbs, 

Florida State University pers. comm. to 

J. Carlson, NMFS, 2014) and The Nature 

Conservancy noted two smalltooth 

sawfish at the northern and southern 

end of the island in 2006. Fishing 

guides commonly encounter smalltooth 

sawfish around Andros Island while 

fishing for bonefish and tarpon (R.D. 

Grubbs pers. comm. to J. Carlson, 

NMFS, 2014), and researchers tagged 

two in 2010 (Carlson et al., 2013). In 

Bimini, Bahamas, generally one 

smalltooth sawfish has been caught 

every two years as part of shark surveys 

conducted by the Bimini Biological 

Station (D. Chapman pers. comm.to 

Carlson, NMFS). In West Africa, Guinea 

Bissau represents the last areas where 

sawfish can be found (M. Diop pers. 

comm. to IUCN, 2012). Anecdotal 

reports indicate smalltooth sawfish may 

also be found in localized areas off 

Honduras, Belize, and Cuba (R. Graham, 

Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. 

comm. to IUCN, 2012). 

Peer Review and Public Comments 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review pursuant to the Information 

Quality Act (IQA). The Bulletin was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The 

Bulletin established minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation with regard to certain 

types of information disseminated by 

the Federal Government. The peer 

review requirements of the OMB 

Bulletin apply to influential or highly 

influential scientific information. The 

proposed rule and included status 

review were considered influential 

scientific information under this policy 

and subject to peer review. Similarly, a 

joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; 

July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit 

independent expert review from at least 

three qualified specialists, concurrent 

with the public comment period, on the 

science that is the basis for listing 

decisions. To ensure this final rule was 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we solicited 

peer review comments from three 

scientists familiar with elasmobranchs. 

On June 4, 2013, we published a 

proposed rule to list as endangered five 

species of sawfish: Narrow sawfish (A. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

cuspidata), dwarf sawfish (P. clavata), 

largetooth sawfish (P. pristis), green 

sawfish (P. zijsron), and the non-U.S. 

DPS of smalltooth sawfish (P. 

pectinata), that occurs outside U.S. 

waters, and opened a 90-day public 

comment period (78 FR 33300). In the 

proposed rule, we stated that we were 

not proposing to designate critical 

habitat for any of the five species 

because they occur outside U.S. waters. 

During our comment period we received 

a request to extend the public comment 

period by 45 days. On August 7, 2013, 

we published a notice extending the 

public comment period by 45 days (78 

FR 48134). We received a total of four 

public comments. 

In the following sections of the 

document we summarize and respond 

to the comments received from the 

public and peer reviewers on the 

proposed rule. 

Peer Review Comments 

Comment 1: One commenter noted 

that the section of the proposed rule 

addressing protective efforts did not 

include details on the Sawfish 

Conservation Strategy developed by the 

IUCN Shark Specialist Group. The 

commenter stated that the strategy is a 

protective effort and will improve the 

conservation status of sawfishes 

worldwide. The commenter predicted a 

medium to high certainty that the 

actions identified in the Conservation 

Plan, when implemented, will be 

effective. 

Response: We have included the 

IUCN Sawfish Conservation Strategy in 

the Protective Efforts section of this 

final rule. The Services established two 

basic criteria in the PECE for evaluating 

conservation efforts: (1) The certainty 

that the conservation efforts will be 

implemented, and (2) the certainty that 

the efforts will be effective. We 

evaluated the IUCN Sawfish 

Conservation Strategy and determined it 

does not meet either criterion identified 

in the PECE. The strategy identifies 

actions for countries to develop 

regulations or adopt management 

actions to implement the strategy. 

However, the strategy does not legally 

bind any country to enact laws or 

regulations, fund conservation actions, 

or otherwise implement the strategy. We 

believe there is considerable uncertainty 

that the actions identified in the strategy 

will be adopted by the various countries 

within the range of the five species of 

sawfish, and that resources are limited 

to support these actions. Therefore, we 

cannot find that the strategy will 

decrease extinction risk for any of the 

species. 

Comment 2: One commenter stated 

that the Protective Efforts section of the 

proposed rule did not include national 

protective efforts except for the 

Convention on International Trade of 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). The commenter stated 

that sawfish protections in Australia 

were likely effective, but protections in 

India were likely ineffective. 

Response: We updated the Protective 

Efforts section of the rule and included 

the new information on sawfish 

protections and conservation efforts in 

Australia from the Australian 

Government’s recently published 2014 

Draft Recovery Plan for Sawfish and 

River Sharks (Department of 

Environment, 2014). We also included 

updated information on existing laws in 

Australia and India designed to protect 

sawfishes into the Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section 

of this final rule. 

Comment 3: It was suggested we use 

information in Kyne et al. (2013) to 

update the occurrence information for 

P. clavata. 

Response: We appreciate the new 

information and updated the occurrence 

information in the preceding sections. 

The information did not impact our 

evaluation of the status of P. clavata. 

Comment 4: We received a question 

about the origin of the 1996 record of 

dwarf sawfish from the Mekong River 

Basin, Laos. 

Response: We cite Rainboth (1996) for 

this report from the early 1900s that 

assumed the dwarf sawfish was from the 

Mekong River Basin, Laos. We 

acknowledge no specimen exists to 

confirm this report. 

Comment 5: The validity of narrow 

sawfish reports from Tasmania by 

Deynat (2005) was questioned in one 

comment given the cold, temperate 

waters that do not support sawfish. The 

commenter suggested the record of the 

sawfish specimen in the fish collection 

of CSIRO in Hobart, Tasmania was 

erroneous. 

Response: We reviewed the literature 

and agree with the commenter. We 

removed the reference to reports of 

narrow sawfish in Tasmania. 

Public Comments 

Comment 1: One commenter 

requested we cite a more recent 

reference for the information on the 

supply and demand of sawfish than the 

1996 reference in the proposed rule. 

Specifically, the commenter questioned 

the statement that ‘‘sawfishes are in 

high demand throughout the world for 

display’’ and suggested that sawfishes 

are no longer in high demand for 

display in aquaria. 

Response: We updated our 

information on the aquaria trade of 

sawfishes on current supply and 

demand of sawfishes in the Scientific 

and Educational Uses section and 

removed the statement cited by the 

commenter. Although we believe that 

sawfish are still in high demand in the 

aquaria trade, we recognize that the 

recent inclusion of all sawfishes under 

CITES Appendix I limits the use of 

sawfish for display and requires 

acquisition of animals for aquaria from 

captivity or captive breeding. 

Comment 2: Several commenters 

stated that they were concerned about 

the impacts of including ‘‘injuring or 

killing a captive sawfish through 

experimental or potentially injurious 

veterinary care or conducting research 

or breeding activities on captive 

sawfish, outside the bounds of normal 

animal husbandry practices’’ in the list 

of activities that could result in a 

violation of the ESA Section 9 

prohibitions. The concerns relate to the 

impacts on captive propagation and 

rearing programs being conducted by 

aquaria, and on the use of the latest 

advanced technological techniques 

available for captive held animals. The 

commenters requested clarification that 

fish care and husbandry techniques 

could continue to be used by aquaria. 

Response: As stated in the proposed 

rule, sawfish held in captivity at the 

time of listing are afforded all of the 

ESA protections and may not be killed 

or injured or otherwise harmed, and, 

therefore, must receive proper care. We 

realize that the care of captive animals 

necessarily entails handling or other 

manipulation and we do not consider 

such activities to constitute injury or 

harm to the animals so long as adequate 

care, including veterinary care, is 

provided. Such veterinary care includes 

confining, tranquilizing, and 

anesthetizing sawfishes when such 

practices, procedures, or provisions are 

necessary and not likely to result in 

injury. 

On the effective date of a final listing, 

ESA Section 9 take prohibitions 

automatically apply for species listed as 

endangered and any ‘take’ of the species 

is illegal unless that take is authorized 

under a permit or through an incidental 

take statement. Incidental take 

statements result from ESA Section 7 

consultations on the effects of federal 

activities. ESA Section 10 permits can 

authorize directed take (e.g., for 

scientific research or enhancement of 

the species) or incidental take during an 

otherwise lawful activity that would not 

be subject to ESA section 7 consultation. 

ESA Section 10 permits are issued to 

entities or persons subject to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73995 

jurisdiction of the United States. We 

encourage institutions with captive 

sawfish who are considering activities 

outside the bounds of normal animal 

husbandry (e.g., breeding or research) to 

contact NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, Permits and Conservation 

Division, to determine if an ESA Section 

10 permit is required to authorize the 

proposed activity. We do not have 

information regarding emerging 

advances in fish care and animal 

husbandry for sawfish held in captivity 

so we cannot determine at this time if 

they are outside the bounds of normal 

care for captive animals. 

Comment 3: Several commenters 

requested clarification of the meaning of 

the terms ‘‘non-commercial’’ and ‘‘noncommercially’’ as those terms are used 

in the section titled Identification of 

those Activities that Would Constitute a 

Violation of Section 9 of the ESA. 

Response: Section 3 of the ESA 

defines the term ‘‘commercial activity’’ 

to mean ‘‘all activities of industry and 

trade, including but not limited to, the 

buying and selling of commodities and 

activities conducted for the purposes of 

facilitating such buying and selling: 

Provided, however, That it does not 

include exhibitions of commodities by 

museums or similar cultural or 

historical organizations.’’ NMFS will 

use the definition of ‘‘commercial 

activity’’ to evaluate whether an activity 

is ‘‘non-commercial’’ or a sawfish is 

being held ‘‘non-commercially’’ in 

captivity. 

Our listing determinations and 

summary of the data on which it is 

based, with the incorporated changes, 

are presented in the remainder of this 

document. 

Species Determinations 

We first consider whether the narrow 

sawfish (A. cuspidata), dwarf sawfish 

(P. clavata), largetooth sawfish (P. 

pristis), green sawfish (P. zijsron), and of 

the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

(P. pectinata) meet the definition of 

‘‘species’’ pursuant to section 3 of the 

ESA. Then we consider if any 

populations meet the DPS criteria. 

Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information described 

above in the natural history sections for 

each species, we have determined that 

the narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), 

dwarf sawfish (P. clavata), largetooth 

sawfish (P. pristis), and green sawfish 

(P. zijsron) are taxonomically-distinct 

species and therefore eligible for listing 

under the ESA. The largetooth sawfish 

(P. pristis) now includes the formerly 

recognized species P. microdon and the 

previously listed P. perotteti. The 

decision to list P. pristis will replace our 

2011 listing determination for P. 

perotteti. 

Distinct Population Segments 

In order to determine if the petitioned 

and currently non-listed population 

segment of smalltooth sawfish (P. 

pectinata) constitutes a ‘‘species’’ 

eligible for listing under the ESA, we 

evaluated it under our joint NMFSUSFWS Policy regarding the recognition 

of distinct population segments (DPS) 

under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 

1996). We examined the three criteria 

that must be met for a DPS to be listed 

under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of 

the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species to which it belongs; and (3) 

the population segment’s conservation 

status in relation to the Act’s standards 

for listing (i.e., Is the population 

segment, when treated as if it were a 

species, endangered or threatened?). 

A population may be considered 

discrete, if it satisfies one of the 

following conditions: (1) It is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited 

by international governmental 

boundaries within which differences of 

control of exploitation, management of 

habitat, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms exist that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) 

of the ESA. 

We previously determined that 

smalltooth sawfish in the United States 

merited protection as a DPS and listed 

the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish as 

endangered (68 FR 15674; April 1, 

2003). At that time, there was no 

information available to indicate 

smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters 

interact with those in international 

waters or other countries, suggesting 

that the U.S. population may be 

effectively isolated from other 

populations. However, there were few 

scientific data on the biology of 

smalltooth sawfish, and it was not 

possible to conclusively subdivide this 

species into discrete populations on the 

basis of genetics, morphology, behavior, 

or other biological characteristics. 

Because there were no identified 

mechanisms regulating the exploitation 

of this species anywhere outside of the 

United States, we considered that lack 

of protection as directly relevant to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms and a basis for considering 

the U.S. population as discrete across 

international boundaries. 

We now evaluate the non-U.S. 

population of smalltooth sawfish to 

determine if it meets the discreteness 

criteria of the joint DPS policy. First, we 

determine whether the non-U.S. 

population of smalltooth sawfish is 

discrete from the U.S. population 

because it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences of control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. Because we have 

designated critical habitat for the U.S. 

DPS population of smalltooth sawfish, 

there is a significant regulatory 

mechanism for protecting smalltooth 

sawfish and their habitats in the United 

States that does not exist for the nonU.S. population of smalltooth sawfish. 

Movement data from smalltooth sawfish 

tagged in U.S. and Bahamian waters also 

indicate no movement to countries 

outside where they were tagged. This 

information provides support that the 

non-U.S. population is discrete from the 

already-listed U.S. DPS on the basis of 

being markedly separate as a 

consequence of ecological factors, in 

addition to our previous determination 

that the U.S. DPS is discrete on the basis 

of international boundaries and 

significant differences in regulatory 

mechanisms. For smalltooth sawfish 

outside the U.S., we have no 

information regarding genetic or other 

biological differences that would 

provide a strong basis for further 

separating the non-U.S. smalltooth 

sawfish population into smaller, 

discrete units. We, therefore, conclude 

that the non-U.S. population of 

smalltooth sawfish meets the 

discreteness criterion of the joint DPS 

policy and we consider this population 

as a single potential DPS. 

We next must consider whether the 

non-U.S. population of smalltooth 

sawfish meets the significance criterion. 

The joint DPS policy gives examples of 

potential considerations indicating the 

population’s significance to the larger 

taxon. Among these considerations is 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon. Smalltooth 

sawfish are limited in their distribution 

outside of the United States to West 

Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico, and 

Central and South America. Loss of this 

group of smalltooth sawfish would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of this species and restrict distribution 

to U.S. waters. Because the loss of 

smalltooth sawfish in areas outside the 

United States would result in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

significant gap in the range of the 

species, we conclude the non-U.S. 

population of smalltooth sawfish is 

significant as defined by the DPS policy. 

Based on the above analysis of 

discreteness and significance, we 

conclude that the non-U.S. population 

of smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) 

meets the definition of a DPS and is 

eligible for listing under the ESA, and 

hereafter refer to it as the non-U.S. DPS 

of smalltooth sawfish. 

Extinction Risk 

Our updated extinction risk analysis 

provides a more detailed discussion of 

the extinction risk analysis process that 

we used to determine the risk of 

extinction for narrow sawfish, dwarf 

sawfish, green sawfish, largetooth 

sawfish, and the non-U.S. DPS of 

smalltooth sawfish to determine 

whether the species are threatened or 

endangered per the ESA’s definitions. 

We used an adaptation of the approach, 

including the primary concepts, 

developed by Wainwright and Kope 

(1999) to organize and summarize our 

findings. This approach was originally 

developed for salmonids and has been 

adapted and applied in the review of 

many other species (Pacific salmonid, 

Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific 

cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific 

herring, and black abalone) to 

summarize the status of the species 

according to demographic risk criteria. 

The approach is useful when there is 

insufficient quantitative data to support 

development of population viability 

models to investigate extinction risk and 

it allows the incorporation of sparse and 

qualitative data. Wainwright and Kope 

(1999) identified key demographic 

parameters that have a strong bearing on 

extinction risk, with a focus on risks to 

small populations from genetic effects 

and population dynamics. Using these 

concepts, adapted to the biology of these 

sawfishes and our available data, we 

estimated the extinction risk, based on 

demographic factors, for each of the five 

species under both current threats and 

threats expected in the foreseeable 

future. We also performed a threats 

assessment by identifying the severity of 

threats that exist now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

We defined the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ 

as the timeframe over which threats, or 

the species’ response to those threats, 

can be reliably predicted to impact the 

biological status of the species. We 

determined that the foreseeable future is 

approximately three generation times, 

calculated for each of the species based 

on the demographic calculations of 

Moreno Iturria (2012): Narrow sawfish, 

14 years; dwarf sawfish, 49 years; 

largetooth sawfish, 48 years; green 

sawfish, 38 years; and the non-U.S. DPS 

of smalltooth sawfish, 30 years. After 

considering the life history of each 

species, availability of data, and type of 

threats, we concluded that three 

generations was an appropriate measure 

to evaluate threats in the foreseeable 

future. As a late-maturing species, with 

slow growth rate and low productivity, 

it would take more than one generation 

for any conservation management action 

to be realized and reflected in 

population abundance indices. The 

timeframe of three generations is a 

widely used scientific indicator of 

biological status, and has been applied 

to decision making models by many 

other conservation management 

organizations, including the American 

Fisheries Society, the CITES, and the 

IUCN. 

We considered three demographic 

categories in which to summarize 

available data and assess extinction risk 

of each sawfish species: (1) Abundance, 

(2) population growth rate/productivity, 

and (3) genetic integrity which include 

the connectivity and genetic diversity of 

the species. We determined the 

extinction risk for each category, for 

both now and in the foreseeable future, 

using a five level qualitative scale to 

describe our assessment of the risk of 

extinction. At the lowest level, a factor, 

either alone or in combination with 

other factors, is considered ‘‘unlikely’’ 

to significantly contribute to risk of 

extinction for a species. The next lowest 

level is considered to be a ‘‘low’’ risk to 

contribute to the extinction risk, but 

could contribute in combination with 

other factors. The next level is 

considered a ‘‘moderate’’ risk of 

extinction for the species, but in 

combination with other factors 

contributes significantly to the risk of 

extinction. A ranking of ‘‘high’’ risk 

means that factor by itself is likely to 

contribute significantly to the risk of 

extinction. Finally, a ranking of ‘‘very 

high’’ risk means that factor is 

considered ‘‘highly likely’’ to contribute 

significantly to the risk of extinction. 

We ranked abundance as high or very 

high risk which is likely to contribute 

significantly to the current and 

foreseeable risk of extinction for all five 

species. While it appears the northern 

coast of Australia supports the largest 

remaining groups of dwarf, largetooth, 

green, and narrow sawfish in the Pacific 

and Indian Ocean, data from the 

Queensland, Australia Shark Control 

Program show a clear decline in sawfish 

catch (non-species-specific) over a 30- 

year period from the 1960s. In addition, 

it shows the complete disappearance of 

sawfish in southern regions (Stevens et 

al., 2005). The available data on 

abundance of sawfishes indicates there 

are still some isolated groups of sawfish 

in the western and central Indo-Pacific 

region, but their abundance has likely 

declined from historic levels. 

Smalltooth sawfish are still being 

reported outside of U.S. waters in the 

Caribbean Sea, but records are few and 

mostly insular (e.g., Andros Island) 

where habitat is available and gillnet 

fisheries are not a threat to the species 

(see below). There are only four records 

of largetooth sawfish in the eastern 

Atlantic Ocean over the last decade. In 

the western Atlantic, recent largetooth 

sawfish records are from only the 

Amazon River basin and the Rio 

Colorado-Rio San Juan area in 

Nicaragua. 

Wainright and Kope (1999) stated 

short- and long-term trends in 

abundance are a primary indicator of 

extinction risk. These trends may be 

calculated from a variety of quantitative 

data such as research surveys, 

commercial logbook or observer data, 

and landings information when 

accompanied by effort, but there is an 

absence of long-term monitoring data for 

all five sawfishes. We looked at the 

available data closely to see if we could 

support inferences about extinction risk 

based on the trends in past observations 

using the presence of a particular 

species at specified places and times 

(e.g., Dulvy et al., 2003; Rivadeneira et 

al., 2009). The available museum 

records, negative scientific survey 

results, and anecdotal reports do 

indicate the abundance trend for all five 

sawfishes is declining and population 

sizes are small. Information available on 

the species’ distribution indicates the 

species’ ranges have also contracted. In 

many areas where sawfish still occur, 

they are subject to commercial and 

artisanal fisheries and potential habitat 

loss. We therefore ranked the risk of 

extinction posed by the sawfishes’ 

abundances as high, now and into the 

foreseeable future. 

We next considered the species’ 

potential growth rates and productivity 

as measures of their ability to recover 

from depleted levels and provide 

inherent protection against extinction 

risk. Sawfish have historically been 

classified as having both low 

reproductive productivity and low 

recovery potential. The demography of 

smalltooth and largetooth sawfish from 

the northwest Atlantic Ocean that was 

originally investigated using an agestructured life table (Simpfendorfer, 

2000). Using known estimates of 

growth, mortality, and reproduction at 

the time, Simpfendorfer (2000) 

determined that intrinsic rates of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73997 

population increase ranged from 8 to 13 

percent per year, and population 

doubling times were approximately 5 to 

8.5 years for both species. These 

estimates included assumptions that 

there was no fishing mortality, no 

habitat limitations, no population 

fragmentation, or other effects of small 

population sizes. Simpfendorfer (2006) 

further modeled the demography of 

smalltooth sawfish using a method for 

estimating the rebound potential of a 

population by assuming that maximum 

sustainable yield was achieved when 

the total mortality was twice that of 

natural mortality. This demographic 

model produced intrinsic rates of 

population increase that were from two 

to seven percent per year for both 

smalltooth and largetooth sawfish. 

These values are similar to those 

calculated by Smith et al. (2008) using 

the same methodology corresponding to 

elasmobranch species with the lowest 

productivity. Musick et al. (2000) noted 

that species with intrinsic rates of 

increase of less than 10 percent were 

particularly vulnerable to rapid 

population declines and a higher risk of 

extinction. 

Some recent studies on the life history 

of sawfish, however, indicate they are 

potentially more productive than 

originally proposed. Growth rates (von 

Bertalanffy ‘‘K’’) for some species, like 

narrow sawfish, approach 0.34 per year 

(Peverell, 2008). Data from tag-recapture 

studies and analysis of vertebral growth 

bands from smalltooth sawfish indicate 

that the first few years after birth 

represent the time when growth is most 

rapid (e.g., Simpfendorfer et al., 2008; 

Scharer et al., 2012). Using updated life 

history information, Moreno Iturria 

(2012) calculated intrinsic rates of 

increase for these five species of sawfish 

and determined values ranging from a 

low of 0.02 per year for green sawfish 

to a high of 0.27 per year for narrow 

sawfish with dwarf sawfish being 

second highest at 0.10 per year. 

Considering this information, and the 

inferred declining trend in abundance, 

we conclude productivity is a moderate 

risk for the narrow sawfish but a high 

risk for the other four species. We also 

determined that productivity would 

remain a moderate risk for the narrow 

sawfish and is a high risk for the other 

four species, in the foreseeable future. 

We also assessed the species’ 

extinction risk, based on genetic 

diversity, spatial structure and 

connectivity. Population structure and 

levels of genetic diversity have recently 

been assessed for the green sawfish, 

dwarf sawfish, and largetooth sawfish 

across northern Australia using a 

portion of the mtDNA control region. 

Phillips et al. (2011) found statistically 

significant genetic structure within 

species and moderate genetic diversity 

among these species. These results 

suggest that sawfish may be more 

vulnerable to local extirpation along 

certain parts of their range, especially in 

areas where the population has been 

fragmented and movement between 

these areas is limited. However, these 

results do not necessarily suggest a 

higher risk of extinction throughout the 

entire range of the species. Chapman et 

al. (2011) investigated the genetic 

diversity of the U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish that has declined to between 

one percent to five percent of its 

abundance at the turn of the twentieth 

century, while its core distribution has 

contracted to less than 10 percent of its 

former range (NMFS, 2009). 

Surprisingly, given the magnitude of 

this population decline and range 

contraction, the U.S DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish does not exhibit any sign of 

genetic bottlenecks, and it has genetic 

diversity that is similar to other, less 

depleted elasmobranch populations 

(Chapman et al., 2011). Given that all 

five species of sawfish considered here 

have suffered similar abundance 

declines, we believe this conclusion 

should serve as a surrogate for the other 

sawfish species. Because the U.S. DPS 

of smalltooth sawfish has not undergone 

a genetic bottleneck, we ranked genetic 

diversity as a moderate risk for all 

sawfish species as it is likely, in 

combination with other factors, to 

contribute significantly to the risk of 

extinction. However, we determined 

that the risk of extinction due to the lack 

of connectivity was high for all five 

species, primarily because all 

populations have undergone severe 

fragmentation. While genetic results 

provide optimism for the remaining 

populations of sawfish, this does not 

preclude the promotion of management 

actions to enhance connectivity among 

populations that have been historically 

fragmented. We are also somewhat 

optimistic that sawfish populations may 

begin to rebuild in some areas and the 

risk of connectivity was determined to 

decrease for smalltooth and the narrow 

sawfish in the foreseeable future, 

although by only a small amount. 

After reviewing the best available 

scientific data and assessing the 

extinction risk on the five species of 

sawfishes based on their status and 

demography, we conclude the risk of 

extinction for all five species of sawfish 

is high. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Five 

Species of Sawfishes 

Next we consider whether any of the 

five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA are contributing to the 

extinction risk of these five sawfishes. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

We identified destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range as a potential threat to all five 

species of sawfishes and determined 

this factor is currently, and in the 

foreseeable future, contributing 

significantly to the risk of extinction of 

these species. 

Coastal and Riverine Habitats 

Loss of habitat is one of the factors 

determined to be associated with the 

decline of smalltooth sawfish in the U.S. 

(NMFS, 2009). As juveniles, sawfishes 

rely on shallow nearshore 

environments, primarily mangrovefringed estuaries as nurseries (e.g., 

Wiley and Simpfendorfer, 2010; Norton 

et al., 2012). Coastal development and 

urbanization have caused these habitats 

to be reduced or removed from many 

areas throughout the species’ historic 

and current range. Habitat loss was 

identified as one of the most serious 

threats to the persistence of all species 

of sawfish, posing high risks for 

extinction. It is still unclear how 

anthropogenic perturbations to habitats 

affect the recruitment of juvenile 

sawfish, and therefore adequate 

protection of remaining natural areas is 

essential. Given the threat from coastal 

urbanization coupled with the predicted 

reduction of mangroves globally 

(Alongi, 2008), we believe the risk of 

habitat loss would significantly 

contribute to both the decline of sawfish 

and their reduced viability. 

We expect habitat modification 

throughout the range of these sawfishes 

to continue with human population 

increases. As humans continue to 

develop rural areas, habitat for other 

species, like sawfish, becomes 

compromised (Compagno, 2002b). 

Habitat modification affects all five 

species of sawfish, especially those 

inshore, coastal habitats near estuaries 

and marshes (Compagno and Last, 1999; 

Cavanagh et al., 2003; Martin, 2005; 

Chin et al., 2010; NMFS, 2010). Mining 

and mangrove deforestation severely 

alter the coast habitats of estuaries and 

wetlands that support sawfish 

(Vidthayanon, 2002; Polhemus et al., 

2004; Martin, 2005). In addition, 

riverine systems throughout most of 

these species’ historical range have been 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

73998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

altered or dammed. For example, the 

potential expansion of the McArthur 

River Mine would permanently realign 

channels that would in turn affect the 

number of pools formed during the wet 

and dry seasons, many of which are 

used as refuge areas for dwarf, green, or 

largetooth sawfish (Polhemus et al., 

2004; Gorham, 2006). In addition to the 

potential expansion of the McArthur 

River Mine, the Nicaragua government 

is proposing to build a cross-country 

canal through habitats currently used by 

the remaining largetooth sawfish 

population in Lake Nicaraugua (BBC 

News, Latin America and Caribbean, 

2013). 

Although the status of habitats across 

the global range of these sawfishes is not 

well known, we expect the continued 

development and human population 

growth to have negative effects on 

habitat, especially to nearshore nursery 

habitats. For example, Ruiz-Luna et al. 

(2008) acknowledge that deforestation of 

mangrove forests in Mexico has 

occurred from logging practices, 

construction of harbors, tourism, and 

aquaculture activities. Valiela et al. 

(2001) reported on mangrove declines 

worldwide. They showed that the area 

of mangrove habitat in Brazil decreased 

from 9652 to 5173 square miles (24,999 

to 13,398 square kilometers) between 

1983 and 1997, with similar trends in 

Guinnea-Bissau 1837 to 959 square 

miles (4758 to 2484 square kilometers) 

from 1953 to 1995. The areas with the 

most rapid mangrove declines in the 

Americas included Venezuela, Mexico, 

Panama, the U.S., and Brazil. Along the 

western coast of Africa, the largest 

declines have occurred in Senegal, 

Gambia, Sierra Leone, and GuinneaBissau. World-wide mangrove habitat 

loss was estimated at 35 percent from 

1980 to 2000 (Valiela et al., 2001). These 

areas where mangroves are known to 

have decreased are within both the 

historic and current ranges of these five 

species. 

Hydroelectric and Flood Control Dams 

Hydroelectric and flood control dams 

pose a major threat to freshwater inflow 

into the euryhaline habitats of 

sawfishes. Alterations of flow, physical 

barriers, and increased water 

temperature affect water quality and 

quantity in the rivers, as well as 

adjacent estuaries that are important 

nursery areas for sawfish. Regulating 

water flow affects the environmental 

cues of monsoonal rains and increased 

freshwater flow for pupping (Peverel, 

2008; Morgan et al., 2011). Changes in 

siltation due to regulated water flow 

may also affect benthic habitat or prey 

abundance for these sawfishes 

(Compagno, 2002; Polhemus et al., 

2004; Martin, 2005; Thorburn et al., 

2007; Chin et al., 2010; Morgan et al., 

2010a). 

New dams being proposed to provide 

additional irrigation to farmland 

upstream may affect sawfish habitat. For 

example, the Gilbert River, in 

Queensland, Australia drains into the 

Gulf of Carpentaria, which is the 

nursery area for green, dwarf, and 

largetooth sawfish. Further modification 

of the McArthur and Gilbert Rivers, 

along with increased commercial fishing 

in coastal waters, will negatively affect 

sawfishes by reducing available habitat 

while increasing bycatch mortality 

(Gorham, 2006). 

Water Quality 

Largetooth sawfish in particular, and 

likely the other sawfishes, have 

experienced a loss of habitat throughout 

their range due to the decline in water 

quality. Agriculture and logging 

practices increase runoff, change 

salinity, and reduce the flow of water 

into freshwater rivers and streams that 

affects the habitat of the largetooth 

sawfish (Polhemus et al., 2004; IUCN 

Red List, 2006); mining seems to be the 

most detrimental activity to water 

quality. Pollution from industrial waste, 

urban and rural sewage, fertilizers and 

pesticides, and tourist development all 

end up in these freshwater systems and 

eventually the oceans. Pollution from 

these operations has caused a reduction 

in the number of sawfish in these 

freshwater systems (Vidthayanon, 2002; 

Polhemus et al., 2004). 

In summary, habitat alterations that 

potentially affect sawfishes include 

commercial and residential 

development; agricultural, silvicultural, 

and mining land uses; construction of 

water control structures; and 

modification to freshwater inflows. All 

sawfishes are vulnerable to a host of 

habitat impacts because they use rivers, 

estuaries, bays, and the ocean at various 

times of their life cycle. Based on our 

review of current literature, scientific 

surveys and anecdotal information on 

the historic and current distribution, we 

find that destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of habitat or ranges are a 

factor affecting the status of each 

species. We conclude that this factor is 

contributing, on its own or in 

combination with other factors, to the 

extinction risk of all five species of 

sawfishes. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We identified overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes as a potential 

threat to all five species of sawfishes 

and determined that it is currently and 

in the foreseeable future contributing 

significantly to their risk of extinction. 

Commercial Fisheries 

Commercial fisheries pose the biggest 

threat to these sawfishes, as these 

species are bycatch from many fisheries. 

Their unusual morphology and 

prominent saw makes sawfishes 

particularly vulnerable to most types of 

fishing gear, most notably any type of 

net (Anak, 2002; Hart, 2002; Last, 2002; 

Pogonoski et al., 2002; Cavanagh et al., 

2003; Porteous, 2004; Stevens et al., 

2005; Gorham 2006; IUCN Red List, 

2006; Chidlow, 2007; Field, 2009; Chin 

et al., 2010; NMFS, 2010; Morgan et al., 

2011). Trawling gear is of particular 

concern as it is the most common gear 

used within the range and habitat of 

sawfishes (Compagno and Last, 1999; 

Taniuchi, 2002; Walden and Nou, 2008). 

In Thailand, all sawfish fins obtained 

and sold to markets are a result of 

bycatch by otter-board trawling and 

gillnet fisheries as there are no directed 

sawfish fisheries in the country (Pauly, 

1988; Vidthayanon, 2002). The Lake 

Nicaragua commercial fishery for 

largetooth sawfish that collapsed prior 

to the 1980’s was comprised mostly of 

gillnet boats (Thorson, 1982a), and the 

commercial small coastal shark fishery 

in Brazil mainly uses gillnets and some 

handlines (Charvet-Almeida, 2002). 

Subadult and adult smalltooth sawfish 

have been reported as bycatch in the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic 

shrimp trawl fishery (NMFS SEFSC, 

2011); however, if proper techniques are 

used, all sawfish species, particularly 

adults, are fairly resilient and can be 

released alive from most fishing gear 

(Lack et al., 2009). 

Live release of sawfishes from 

commercial fishing gear does occur but 

sawfishes are often retained. The meat 

is generally consumed locally, but the 

fins and rostra are of high value and 

sold in markets where these products 

are unregulated (CITES, 2007). In Brazil, 

a captured sawfish is most likely 

retained because of the value of their 

products, as the rostra, rostral teeth, and 

fins are valued at upwards of $1,000 

U.S. in foreign markets (NMFS, 2010a). 

The proportion of largetooth sawfish in 

these markets is unknown, although as 

many as 180 largetooth sawfish saws 

were annually sold at a single market in 

northern Brazil in the early 2000’s 

(McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 2004). 

The Trade Records Analysis of Flora 

and Fauna in Commerce (TRAFFIC) 

organization found that meat, liver oil, 

fins, and skin are among the most 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73999 

preferred sawfish products in Asian 

markets (Anak, 2002; Vidthayanon, 

2002). In the Gulf of Thailand, over 

5,291 US tons (4,800 tonnes) of rays 

were caught annually from 1976 to 

1989; at the same time over 1,102 US 

tons (1,000 tonnes) of rays were caught 

in the Andaman Sea (Vidthayanon, 

2002). It is likely that most of these 

products were sold in Asian markets 

because of the high demand for sawfish 

products. Reports of sawfish products in 

various markets throughout Asia are 

often inconsistent and inaccurate 

despite international rules on trade and 

possession of sawfish products (Fowler, 

2002; Clarke et al., 2008; Kiessling et al., 

2009). 

Recreational or commercial fishing 

gear may be abandoned or lost at sea. 

These ‘‘ghost nets’’ are an entanglement 

hazard for sawfishes and have become 

an increasing problem in the Gulf of 

Carpentaria where over 5,500 ghost nets 

were removed in 2009. Sawfish captures 

are expected to occur in regions where 

no quantitative information about ghost 

nets exists (Gunn et al, 2010). 

Misidentification, general speciescomposition grouping, and failure to 

record information are all concerns for 

reporting sawfish captures in direct or 

indirect commercial fisheries (Stobutzki 

et al., 2002b). With little enforcement of 

regional and international laws, the 

practice of landing sawfishes may 

continue (NMFS, 2010a). All sawfish 

populations have been declining 

worldwide, partly due to the negative 

effects of commercial fishing (Stevens et 

al., 2000; Peverell, 2008). 

Recreational Fisheries 

Sawfish are bycatch of many 

recreational fisheries throughout their 

range, even in areas where they are 

protected, including many Australian 

rivers (Walden and Nou, 2008; Field et 

al., 2009). Peverell (2008) reports that 

some sawfish are a target sport fish for 

recreational fishermen in the Gulf of 

Carpentaria, Queensland. Historical 

information from the U.S. indicates that 

recreational hook and line fishers in 

Texas sometimes target large sharks as 

trophy fish but may capture sawfish 

(Burgess et al., 2009). Elsewhere in the 

United States, the abundance of 

sawfishes is low and likely never high 

enough for recreational fishers to 

encounter sawfish, much less target it 

(NMFS, 2010a). With the increase in 

human population along the coast, 

recreational fishing has the potential to 

put additional pressure on sawfish 

species that use coastal habitats 

(Walden and Nou, 2008). 

Indigenous Take 

Due to the large populations of 

various indigenous people throughout 

the range of these five species, and the 

lack of data on the animals they harvest, 

the number of sawfish taken by local 

peoples is unknown. Elasmobranchs are 

caught for consumption throughout the 

Indo-Pacific. In some areas, the meat 

and fins of these animals are of high 

market value, and therefore they are 

sold rather than consumed locally. Due 

to this unregulated consumption, 

removal of elasmobranchs, which 

includes sawfishes, is a threat to their 

population(s) (Compagno and Last, 

1999; Pogonoski et al., 2002; 

Vidthayanon, 2002; Thorburn et al., 

2007; Peverell, 2008; Morgan et al., 

2010a). 

Some studies have been conducted on 

the use and value of elasmobranch parts 

to various indigenous groups, 

particularly those in eastern Sabah, 

Malaysia. One study (Almada-Villela, 

2002) found the majority of natives from 

Pulau Tetabuan and Pulau Mabul only 

take what is necessary for subsistence. 

Sawfish rostra are also valued and kept 

as decoration or given as gifts at the 

expense of the animal (Almada-Villela, 

2002; McDavitt et al., 1996; 

Vidthayanon, 2002). 

Protective Coastal Nets 

Protective gillnets to prevent shark 

attacks on humans is used in some areas 

but can have a negative impact due to 

bycatch. Sawfishes are highly 

susceptible to capture in nets because 

their saws are easily tangled in nets. The 

Queensland Shark Control Program in 

Australia places nets along beaches 

during the summer months. From 1970 

to 1990, sawfish bycatch in these nets 

declined despite relatively constant 

effort; likely due to an overall decline in 

sawfish populations (Stevens et al., 

2005). In South Africa, the first 

protective gillnets lined the southeast 

tip of the continent’s coast as early as 

1952. By 1990, over 27 mi (44 km) of 

nets lined the area between Richards 

Bay and Mzamba (Dudley and Cliff, 

1993). About 350 sharks and rays were 

captured in these nets between 1981 

and 1990. A high percentage of 

entangled sawfish are released alive 

because of their ability to breathe while 

motionless. Dudley and Cliff (1993) 

reported that 100 percent of largetooth 

sawfish and 67 percent of smalltooth 

sawfish caught during that time were 

released alive. Still, subsequent 

mortality post-release due to stress or 

injury from the process is unknown and 

potentially detrimental given other 

fishing pressures (Dudley and Cliff, 

1993). 

Scientific and Educational Uses 

Sawfishes are unique animals that are 

currently on public display in many 

large aquariums. Removal of sawfishes 

from their natural habitats has caused 

some concern for these sawfish species 

and their ecosystems. No information is 

available on the level of mortality that 

occurs during the capture and 

transporting of live sawfish to aquaria. 

Removal of female sawfish from the 

wild could have an effect on the future 

reproductive capacity of that population 

(Anak, 2002; Harsan and Petrescu-Mag, 

2008). Limited information is available 

regarding the number of sawfish that 

have been removed from the wild for 

display in aquaria. All sawfish removed 

from Australian waters for aquaria 

collections have been reported as 

juveniles (S. Olson, Association of Zoos 

and Aquariums (AZA), 2013 pers. 

comm). The two most recent imports of 

largetooth sawfish to an Association of 

Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) accredited 

facility were in 2007 and 2008 (S. 

Olson, AZA, 2013 pers. comm). 

In July 2011, the Australian CITES 

Scientific Authority for Marine Species 

reviewed their 2007 non-detriment 

finding for the export of P. microdon 

and found that it was not possible to 

conclude with a reasonable level of 

certainty that any harvest for export 

purposes would not be detrimental to 

the survival or recovery of the species 

(DSEWPaC, 2011). Since then, 

international trade in freshwater sawfish 

from Australia has ceased. 

Worldwide, we are not aware of any 

narrow sawfish in captivity (Peverell, 

2005, 2008). We are aware of 2 dwarf 

sawfish held in captivity in Japan 

(McDavitt, 2006). Largetooth sawfish are 

the most common sawfish species in 

captivity (NMFS, 2010a). Juvenile 

largetooth measuring less than 3.5 ft (1 

m) TL on average are most often caught 

for the aquaria trade as they are easier 

to transport than adults (Peter and Tan, 

1997). 

Globally, scientists are collecting 

information on sawfish biology. 

Research efforts began in 2003 on the 

U.S. DPS population of smalltooth 

sawfish and no negative impacts have 

been associated with this research to 

date. 

In summary, while no quantitative 

data on fishery impacts are available, we 

conclude that given the susceptibility of 

sawfish to entanglement in gillnets and 

trawl nets that are commonly used 

throughout their range, sawfishes are 

likely captured as incidental take. We 

are not aware of any fisheries 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

74000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

specifically targeting sawfishes. This 

impact from fisheries is the most likely 

single cause of the observed range 

contractions and reduced abundance in 

many areas of their former range. Trade 

of sawfish parts occurs throughout the 

world. Sawfish have been exploited for 

their fins, rostra, and teeth. Sawfish fins 

have been report in the shark fin trade 

since the early 1900s (Mountnorris, 

1809). Trade of sawfish parts occurs on 

Internet sites such as eBay and 

Craigslist. Trade of sawfish parts (e.g., 

fins, rostral teeth, and rostra) are also 

ongoing threats to all five species 

(Harrison et al., 2014). Therefore, we 

conclude the overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes, alone or in 

combination with other factors as 

discussed herein, is contributing 

significantly to the risk of extinction of 

the narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, 

and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish. 

Disease and Predation 

We have determined that disease and 

predation are not potential threats to 

any of the five species of sawfish and 

that it is unlikely that these factors, on 

their own or in combination with other 

factors, are contributing significantly to 

their risk of extinction of all five sawfish 

species. 

These species co-occur with other 

sawfishes and large sharks, but we are 

not aware of any studies or information 

documenting interspecific competition 

in terms of either habitat or prey (NMFS 

2010a). Thorson (1971) speculated that 

the Lake Nicaragua bull shark 

population may compete with 

largetooth sawfish, as both were 

prevalent, but he offered no additional 

data. Sawfish have been documented 

within the stomach of a dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) near Bermuda 

(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; MonteLuna et al., 2009), in the stomach of a 

bull shark (C. leucas) in Australia 

(Thorburn et al., 2004), and evidence of 

bite marks from what appeared to be a 

bull shark (C. leucas) on a juvenile 

smalltooth sawfish in the United States 

have been reported (T. Wiley-Lescher, 

Haven Worth Consulting, 2012 pers. 

comm). Crocodiles also prey on 

sawfishes (Cook and Compagno, 2005). 

There is no evidence that unusual levels 

of disease or predation affect any of the 

five sawfish species. Based on the 

information available on disease and 

predation for all five species of sawfish, 

we have determined that disease and 

predation on their own, or in 

combination with other factors, do not 

pose an extinction risk to any of these 

sawfishes. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

We identified inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms as a potential 

threat to each of the five species of 

sawfish. We determined that this factor 

alone, or in combination with other 

factors, is contributing significantly to 

their risk of extinction. 

First, we reviewed general or global 

regulatory protections for sawfish. The 

use of turtle exclusion devices (TEDs) in 

the nets of trawl fisheries to conserve 

sea turtles occurs throughout much of 

the range of sawfishes, but TEDs are not 

efficient in directing sawfish out of nets 

because sawfish rostra get entangled 

(Stobutzki et al., 2002a; Brewer et al., 

2006) prior to reaching the TED. TEDs 

are often used when trawling occurs 

along the sea bottom at depths of 49 ft 

to 131 ft (15 to 40 m), areas where 

sawfish are likely to be found (Stobutzki 

et al., 2002a). Most sawfishes show no 

difference in recovery after going 

through a trawl net, regardless of the 

presence or absence of a TED (Griffiths, 

2006). Stobutzki et al. (2002a) found 

that large females are more likely to 

survive capture after passing through a 

trawling net and TED compared to 

smaller males. Only narrow sawfish 

were found to benefit from the presence 

of TEDs in nets as 73.3 percent escaped 

(Brewer et al., 2006; Griffiths, 2006). In 

general, TEDs tend to have negligible 

impact on sawfish that get captured by 

trawling nets (Stobutzki et al., 2002a; 

Griffiths, 2006), but they do provide an 

escape route if the animal does not get 

entangled. 

Data reporting agencies (i.e., customs 

and national fisheries) are often 

inconsistent in their reporting of 

wildlife trade (Anak, 2002). Reports are 

often vague and include general 

descriptions like ‘‘shark fin’’ or ‘‘ray,’’ 

providing practically no information of 

trading rates of specific products (Lack 

and Sant, 2011). Many countries in the 

Indo-Pacific do not report bycatch 

statistics or elasmobranchs taken 

illegally (Holmes et al., 2009). In order 

for effective management plans to be 

implemented in fin markets and for 

sawfish product trade, data need to be 

consistent. 

Next, we reviewed regional or country 

specific regulatory protections for 

sawfish. Many countries in the IndoPacific and the Middle East do not have 

formal legislation for management or 

national protection of the sawfish that 

may occur in their waters. Presently, 

Thailand has regulated some fisheries, 

but has no protective legislation for any 

elasmobranch in the country except for 

export of marine species for aquaria 

(Vidthayanon, 2002). Among Middle 

Eastern countries that fish for sharks, 

only Iran has implemented an 

International Plan of Action for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Sharks (IPOA Shark Plan). Nine Arab 

countries have recently signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding on the 

Conservation of Migratory Sharks to 

improve shark conservation measures 

under the United Nations Environment 

Programme Convention on Migratory 

Species. Countries in Africa face similar 

circumstances as enforcement for 

sawfish protection is unknown (NMFS, 

2010a). Countries that do have 

protective legislation are often unable to 

effectively patrol their waters, and 

fishing restrictions are routinely 

violated by foreign vessels (Lack. and 

Sant, 2008). In one study, genetic testing 

(DNA barcoding) was used to identify 

fins from green sawfish confiscated from 

foreign boats illegally fishing in 

northern Australian waters (Holmes, 

2009). 

The Australian government listed the 

largetooth, green, and dwarf sawfishes 

as vulnerable on their Environmental 

Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation (EPBC) Act list. The EPBC 

Act protects these sawfish and prohibits 

killing, injuring, taking, trading, 

keeping, or moving an individual 

without a permit. Even with these 

protections in place, the Draft Recovery 

Plan for Sawfish and River Sharks 

(Department of the Environment, 2014) 

reports that these three sawfish species 

have experienced substantial population 

declines. 

In summary, several organizations are 

trying to regulate and manage sawfish 

but often these regulations and 

management initiatives are inadequate. 

Illegal exploitation by foreign fishers 

often occurs when regulations exist but 

are not enforced (Kiessling et al., 2009). 

Preventative measures on existing 

fishing mechanisms to avoid sawfish 

catch, international monitoring of trade 

and bycatch, and governmental 

influence on fisheries are not presently 

sufficient to protect sawfishes. Specific 

regulation and monitoring of sawfishes 

by country would provide better 

protection (Vidthayanon, 2002; Walden 

and Nou, 2008). Therefore, we conclude 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms has and continues to 

significantly contribute to the risk of 

extinction of the narrow, dwarf, 

largetooth, green, and the non-U.S. DPS 

of smalltooth sawfish. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

In the proposed rule, we determined 

this was not a factor contributing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74001 

significantly to the risk of extinction of 

all five species of sawfish. We reevaluated the information for this factor 

and changed our conclusion from the 

proposed rule based on the fact that 

sawfish life history traits, which 

consists of slow growth rates, late 

maturity, long life spans, and low 

fecundity rates. These life history traits 

do not enable them to respond rapidly 

to additional sources of mortality, such 

as overexploitation and habitat 

degradation. Scientific information 

available on all five species of sawfish 

indicates that other natural or manmade 

factors are potential threats to all of the 

five species of sawfish. We conclude it 

is likely that these factors, on their own 

or in combination with other factors, are 

contributing significantly to the risk of 

extinction for all five sawfish species. 

An increase in global sea-surface 

temperature and sea level may already 

be influencing sawfish populations 

(Clark, 2006; Walden and Nou, 2008; 

Chin et al., 2010). Fish assemblages are 

likely to change their distribution and 

could affect the prey base for sawfishes. 

Estuaries, including sawfish pupping 

grounds, may be affected as climate 

change changes patterns in freshwater 

flow due to rainfall and droughts. 

Skewed salinities in these areas or 

extreme tide levels might discourage 

adults from making up-river migrations 

(Clark, 2006). Saltwater marsh grass and 

mangrove areas play important roles in 

sawfish habitat as well (Simpfendorfer 

et al., 2010); any disruption to these 

areas may affect sawfish populations. 

There is little agreement, however, on 

the effects that climate change will have 

on sawfish and their environments 

specifically (Clark, 2006; Chin et al., 

2010). 

Red tide is the common name for a 

harmful algal bloom (HAB) of marine 

algae (Karenia brevis) that can make the 

ocean appear red or brown. Karenia 

brevis is one of the first species ever 

reported to have caused a HAB and is 

principally distributed throughout the 

Gulf of Mexico, with occasional red 

tides in the mid- and south-Atlantic 

United States. Karenia brevis naturally 

produces a brevetoxin that is absorbed 

directly across the gill membranes of 

fish or through ingestion of algal cells. 

While many HAB species are nontoxic 

to humans or small mammals, they can 

have significant effects on aquatic 

organisms. Fish mortalities associated 

with K. brevis events are very common 

and widespread. The mortalities affect 

hundreds of species during various 

stages of development. Red tide toxins 

can cause intoxication in fish, which 

may include violent twisting and 

corkscrew swimming, defecation and 

regurgitation, pectoral fin paralysis, 

caudal fin curvature, loss of 

equilibrium, quiescence, vasodilation, 

and convulsions, culminating in death. 

However, it is known that fish can die 

at lower cell concentrations and can 

also apparently survive in much higher 

concentrations. In some instances, 

mortality from red tide is not acute, but 

may occur over a period of days or 

weeks after exposure to subacute toxin 

concentrations. There is no specific 

information on red tide effects on 

sawfish, but a single report exists of a 

smalltooth sawfish that was found dead 

along the west coast of Florida, during 

a red tide event (International Sawfish 

Encounter Database, 2009). Therefore, 

we conclude that sawfishes occurring in 

the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are vulnerable 

to red tide, but there is little information 

documenting direct mortality resulting 

from exposure to red tide (NMFS, 

2010a). Harmful algal blooms also exist 

in waters outside of the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico therefore, it is probable that all 

sawfishes are vulnerable to harmful 

algal blooms wherever they occur. 

Collectively, these other natural or 

manmade factors may be affecting the 

continued existence of the narrow, 

dwarf, largetooth, green, and the nonU.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish. Based 

on the results from our extinction risk 

analysis and information on other manmade factors affecting all five species of 

sawfish, this factor is contributing to 

their extinction risk. 

Overall Risk Summary 

After considering the extinction risks, 

both threat-based and demographic, for 

each of the five species of sawfish, we 

have determined the narrow, dwarf, 

largetooth, and green sawfish and the 

non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish are 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

their ranges due to (1) present or 

threatened destruction, modification or 

curtailment of habitat, (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, (3) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, and (4) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting 

their continued existence, and low 

abundance, lack of connectivity, and 

genetic diversity. 

Protective Efforts 

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

the Secretary, when making a listing 

determination for a species, to take into 

consideration those efforts, if any, being 

made by any State or foreign nation to 

protect the species. In judging the 

effectiveness of efforts not yet 

implemented, or those existing 

protective efforts that are not yet fully 

effective, we rely on the Services’ joint 

‘‘Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions’’ 

(‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). 

The PECE policy is designed to ensure 

consistent and adequate evaluation on 

whether any conservation efforts that 

have been recently adopted or 

implemented, but not yet proven to be 

successful, will result in recovering the 

species to the point at which listing is 

not warranted or contribute to forming 

the basis for listing a species as 

threatened rather than endangered. The 

purpose of the PECE policy is to ensure 

consistent and adequate evaluation of 

future or recently implemented 

conservation efforts identified in 

conservation agreements, conservation 

plans, management plans, and similar 

documents when making listing 

determinations. The PECE provides 

direction for the consideration of 

conservation efforts identified in these 

documents that have not yet been 

implemented, or have been 

implemented but not yet demonstrated 

effectiveness. The policy is expected to 

facilitate the development of 

conservation efforts by states and other 

entities that sufficiently improve a 

species’ status so as to make listing the 

species as threatened or endangered 

unnecessary. 

Two basic criteria were established in 

the PECE to use in evaluating efforts 

identified in conservations plans, 

conservation agreements, management 

plans or similar documents: (1) The 

certainty that the conservation efforts 

will be implemented; and (2) the 

certainty that the efforts will be 

effective. When we evaluate the 

certainty of whether or not the 

formalized conservation effort will be 

implemented, we may consider the 

following: Do we have a high level of 

certainty that that the resources 

necessary to carry out the conservation 

effort are available? Do the parties to the 

conservation effort have the authority to 

carry it out? Are regulatory or 

procedural mechanisms in place to 

carry out the efforts? If the conservation 

effort relies on voluntary participation, 

we will evaluate whether the incentives 

that are included in the conservation 

effort will ensure the level of 

participation necessary to carry out the 

conservation effort. In evaluating the 

certainty that a conservation effort will 

be effective, we may consider the 

following: Does the effort describe the 

nature and extent of the threats to the 

species to be addressed and how these 

threats are reduced by the conservation 

effort? Does the effort establish specific 

conservation objectives? Does the effort 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

74002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

identify the appropriate steps to reduce 

the threats to the species? And does the 

effort include quantifiable performance 

measures to monitor both compliance 

and effectiveness? Overall, we need to 

be certain that the formalized 

conservation effort improves the status 

of the species at the time we make a 

listing determination. The PECE Policy 

also states that last-minute agreements 

(i.e., those that are developed just before 

or after a species is proposed for listing) 

often have little chance of affecting the 

outcome of a listing decision. Lastminute efforts are also less likely to be 

able to demonstrate that they will be 

implemented and effective in reducing 

or removing the threats to a species. In 

addition, there are circumstances in 

which the threats to a species are so 

imminent and/or complex that is will be 

almost impossible to develop an 

agreement or plan that includes 

conservation efforts that will result in 

making the listing unnecessary. A 

conservation effort that satisfies the 

criteria for implementation and 

effectiveness is considered when 

making a listing determination, but may 

not ultimately change the risk 

assessment for the species. Using the 

criteria identified in our PECE Policy we 

evaluated conservation efforts to protect 

and recover the five sawfish species that 

are either underway but not yet fully 

implemented, or are only planned. 

CITES restricts the trade of live 

animals to a vast array of wildlife 

products derived from them, including 

food products, musical instruments, 

tourist curios and medicines. Many 

wildlife species in trade are not 

endangered, but the existence of an 

agreement to ensure the sustainability of 

the trade is important in order to 

safeguard these resources for the future. 

All sawfishes in the family Pristidae 

were listed on Appendix I of CITES at 

the 14th Conference of the Parties 

meeting in 2007. An Appendix I listing 

bans all commercial trade in parts (e.g., 

rostral teeth, rostra, liver, and fins) or 

derivatives of sawfish with trade in 

specimens of these species permitted 

only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., 

for research purposes). At that time, an 

annotation to the Appendix I listing 

allowed the largetooth sawfish P. 

microdon (herein P. pristis) to be treated 

as Appendix II ‘‘for the exclusive 

purpose of allowing international trade 

in live animals to appropriate and 

acceptable aquaria for primarily 

conservation purposes.’’ The annotation 

was accepted on the basis that 

Australian populations of P. microdon 

were robust relative to other 

populations in the species’ range, and 

that the capture of individuals for 

aquaria was not likely to be detrimental 

to the population. Later, at the CITES 

16th Annual Conference of the Parties 

meeting in March of 2013, Australia 

proposed the transfer of P. microdon 

from Appendix II to Appendix I, and the 

measure was adopted and became 

effective on 12 June 2013. Therefore, 

live trade of P. pristis (P. microdon) is 

currently banned and all commercial 

trade of all sawfishes is banned per 

CITES Appendix I listing. 

The recent banning of all trade of P. 

pristis (P. microdon) for aquaria trade is 

a good conservation measure for the 

species and meets all of the criteria for 

implementation and effectiveness. The 

recently adopted CITES Appendix I 

listing for largetooth sawfish only bans 

the live trade of the fish from Australia 

to approved foreign aquaria, all other 

trade was banned with the 2007 listing. 

Only 11 largetooth sawfish were 

approved for aquaria trade when the 

largetooth sawfish was listed under 

CITES Appendix I with the annotation 

for aquaria trade. The recent CITES 

Appendix I listing for largetooth sawfish 

is not likely to significantly affect the 

species outside of the limited area 

(Australia) where they were removed 

from the wild for aquaria display. Given 

live trade of P. pristis (P. microdon) for 

aquaria use is not a threat leading to the 

extinction risk of the species, we 

conclude the full CITES Appendix I 

listing may satisfy the PECE policy’s 

standards for implementation and 

effectiveness, but the impact of this 

measure is considered insignificant. 

Australia may be effective at enforcing 

trade policies, but the recent Appendix 

I listing of P. microdon (largetooth 

sawfish) alone, is not sufficient to 

protect the species throughout its range. 

The IUCN Shark Specialist Group, in 

collaboration with a large number of the 

national and international stakeholders 

in sawfish conservation, developed A 

Global Strategy for Sawfish 

Conservation (Harrison and Dulvy, 

2014). The strategy identifies the actions 

required to achieve recovery for all 

sawfishes. The strategy outlines seven 

objectives that are necessary to achieve 

recovery of all sawfishes: Fisheries 

management, species protection, habitat 

conservation, trade limitation, strategic 

research, education and 

communication, and responsible 

husbandry. We evaluated the certainty 

of whether or not the strategy would be 

implemented and determined that (1) 

the strategy does not have a high level 

of certainty that the resources necessary 

to carry out the conservation effort are 

available, (2) that the strategy team 

members do not have the authority to 

carry out all of the objectives, (3) 

regulatory or procedural mechanisms 

are not in place to carry out the 

objectives, (4) and the conservation 

efforts rely on voluntary participation 

that does not have incentives that are 

included in the conservation effort that 

will ensure the level of participation 

necessary to effectively carry out the 

conservation effort. Based on the lack of 

certainty that the conservation efforts 

will be implemented we determined the 

strategy does not satisfy the PECE 

policy’s standards for certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness. 

The Australian Government, 

Department of the Environment, 

published a Draft Recovery Plan for 

Sawfish and River Sharks (Plan) in 2014 

(Department of Environment, 2014). The 

Draft Plan covers three sawfish species 

(P. pristis, P. zijsron, and P. clavata). 

The Plan identifies specific actions and 

objectives necessary to stop local 

decline of sawfish and river sharks and 

promotes their recovery. The goal of the 

Draft Plan is to assist with the recovery 

of sawfish in Australian waters in two 

ways: (1) Improving the population 

status leading to the removal of the 

sawfish from the protected species list 

of EPBC; and (2) ensuring anthropogenic 

actives do not hinder the recovery in the 

near future, or impact the conservation 

status of the species in the future. We 

evaluated the certainty of whether or 

not the Draft Plan would be 

implemented. We determined that the 

strategy has a high level of uncertainty 

regarding implementation because: (1) 

The Draft Plan does not have dedicated 

funding so the resources necessary to 

carry out the conservation efforts may 

not be available, and (2) the Draft Plan 

is dependent on the participation of 

voluntary groups or organizations (e.g., 

indigenous community groups and nongovernmental organizations) to carry out 

some of the actions. Based on the lack 

of certainty that the Draft Plan will be 

implemented, we determined the Draft 

Plan does not satisfy the PECE policy’s 

standards for certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness. 

Listing Determinations 

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 reviewed 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information including the 

petition, and the information in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74003 

review of the status of the five species 

of sawfishes, and we have consulted 

with species experts. 

We are responsible for determining 

whether narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), 

dwarf sawfish (P. clavata), largetooth 

sawfish (P. pristis), green sawfish (P. 

zijsron), and the non-U.S. DPS of 

smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) are 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We have 

followed a stepwise approach as 

outlined above in making this listing 

determination for these five species of 

sawfish. We have determined that 

narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata); dwarf 

sawfish (P. clavata); largetooth sawfish 

(P. pristis); green sawfish (P. zijsron); 

and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish (P. pectinata) constitute species 

as defined by the ESA. We have 

conducted an extinction risk analysis 

and concluded that the risk of 

extinction for all five species of sawfish 

is high, now and in the foreseeable 

future. We have assessed the threats 

affecting the status of each species using 

the five factors identified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA and concluded the 

narrow, dwarf, largetooth, green, and 

the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish 

face ongoing threats from habitat 

alteration, overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes, 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, and other natural or 

manmade factors affecting their 

continued existence throughout their 

ranges. Therefore, we find that all five 

species of sawfishes are in danger of 

extinction throughout all of their ranges. 

After considering efforts being made to 

protect these sawfishes, we could not 

conclude the proposed conservation 

efforts would alter the extinction risk for 

any of these five sawfishes. 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 

Federal agency requirements to consult 

with NMFS and to ensure its actions do 

not jeopardize the species or result in 

adverse modification or destruction of 

critical habitat should it be designated 

(16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical 

habitat if prudent and determinable (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions 

on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). An 

additional benefit of listing beyond 

these legal requirements is that the 

recognition of the species’ plight 

through listing promotes conservation 

actions by Federal and state agencies, 

foreign entities, private groups, and 

individuals. 

Recovery Plans 

NMFS may develop a recovery plan or 

plans for these species after considering 

the conservation benefit to the species 

per ESA sections 4(f)(1) and 4(f)(1)(A). 

Section 4 (f)(1) of the ESA directs NMFS 

to develop and implement recovery 

plans for the conservation and survival 

of listed species, unless we find that 

such a plan will not promote the 

conservation of the species. Section 

4(f)(1)(A) further directs us, to the 

maximum extent practicable, to give 

priority in developing plans to those 

species that will most likely benefit 

from such plans. 

Identifying Section 7 Consultation 

Requirements 

Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) 

of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 

regulations require Federal agencies to 

consult with us to ensure that activities 

authorized, funded, or carried out are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. The 

requirement to consult applies to these 

Federal agency actions in the United 

States and on the high seas. The five 

sawfishes all occur in the waters of 

foreign nations, where there would be 

no consultation requirement. It is 

possible, but highly unlikely, that the 

listing of the five species of sawfish 

under the ESA may result in a minor 

increase in the number of Section 7 

consultations for high seas activities. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in Section 

3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) 

The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the ESA, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Critical habitat shall not be 

designated in foreign countries or other 

areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12 (h)). 

The best available scientific and 

commercial data show that the 

geographical areas occupied by the 

narrow sawfish (A. cuspidata), dwarf 

sawfish (P. clavata), green sawfish (P. 

zijsron), largetooth sawfish (P. pristis), 

and the non-U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish (P. pectinata) are entirely 

outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot 

designate critical habitat for these 

species in their occupied range. 

We can designate critical habitat in 

unoccupied areas in U.S. jurisdiction, if 

we determine the areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species. Only the 

largetooth sawfish (P. pristis, formerly P. 

perotteti) has a range that once included 

occasional use of U.S. waters, with 

approximately 39 confirmed records (33 

in Texas) from 1910 through 1961. All 

records of P. pristis in U.S. waters were 

adults, mostly during the summer 

months. U.S. waters were a limited part 

of the historic range, likely used for 

periodic, seasonal foraging movements. 

There is no evidence of U.S. waters 

supporting any other biological 

functions like breeding or nursery areas. 

Therefore, we believe reestablishment 

back into U.S. waters is not required for 

the recovery of P. pristis. Based on the 

best available information we have not 

identified unoccupied areas in U.S. 

jurisdiction that are essential to the 

conservation of any of the five sawfish 

species. Therefore, we do not intend to 

designate critical habitat for the narrow, 

dwarf, largetooth, green, or the non-U.S. 

DPS of smalltooth sawfish. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS 

published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 

requires us to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the ESA. Because we are 

listing all five sawfishes as endangered, 

all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 

of the ESA will apply to all five species. 

These include prohibitions against the 

import, export, use in foreign 

commerce, and ‘‘take’’ of the species. 

Take is defined as ‘‘to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’ These 

prohibitions apply to all persons subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States, 

including in the United States or on the 

high seas. The intent of this policy is to 

increase public awareness of the effects 

of this listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the species’ range. 

Activities that we believe could result in 

a violation of Section 9 prohibitions of 

these five sawfishes include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Take within the U.S. or its 

territorial sea, or upon the high seas; 

(2) Possessing, delivering, 

transporting, or shipping any sawfish 

part that was illegally taken; 

(3) Delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

74004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

foreign commerce any sawfish or 

sawfish part, in the course of a 

commercial activity, even if the original 

taking of the sawfish was legal; 

(4) Selling or offering for sale in 

interstate commerce any sawfish part, 

except antique articles at least 100 years 

old; 

(5) Importing or exporting sawfish or 

any sawfish part to or from any country; 

(6) Releasing captive sawfish into the 

wild. Although sawfish held noncommercially in captivity at the time of 

listing are exempt from certain 

prohibitions, the individual animals are 

considered listed and afforded most of 

the protections of the ESA, including 

most importantly the prohibitions 

against injuring or killing. Release of a 

captive animal has the potential to 

injure or kill the animal. Of an even 

greater conservation concern, the release 

of a captive animal has the potential to 

affect wild populations of sawfish 

through introduction of diseases or 

inappropriate genetic mixing. 

Depending on the circumstances of the 

case, NMFS may authorize the release of 

a captive animal through a section 

10(a)(1)(a) permit; and 

(7) Engaging in experimental or 

potentially injurious veterinary care or 

conducting research or breeding 

activities on captive sawfish, outside the 

bounds of normal animal husbandry 

practices. Normal care of captive 

animals necessarily entails handling or 

other manipulation of the animals, and 

NMFS does not consider such activities 

to constitute take or harassment of the 

animals so long as adequate care, 

including adequate veterinary care is 

provided. Such veterinary care includes 

confining, tranquilizing, or 

anesthetizing sawfishes when such 

practices, procedures, or provisions are 

not likely to result in injury. Captive 

breeding of sawfish is considered 

experimental and potentially injurious. 

Furthermore, the production of sawfish 

progeny has conservation implications 

(both positive and negative) for wild 

populations. Experimental or 

potentially injurious veterinary 

procedures and research or breeding 

activities of sawfish may, depending on 

the circumstances, be authorized under 

an ESA 10(a)(1)(a) permit for scientific 

research or the enhancement of the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

We have identified, to the extent 

known at this time, specific activities 

that will not be considered likely to 

result in a violation of Section 9. 

Although not binding, we consider the 

following actions, depending on the 

circumstances, as not being prohibited 

by ESA Section 9: 

(1) Take of a sawfish authorized by a 

10(a)(1)(a) permit authorized by, and 

carried out in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of an ESA section 

10(a)(1)(a) permit issued by NMFS for 

purposes of scientific research or the 

enhancement of the propagation or 

survival of the species; 

(2) Incidental take of a sawfish 

resulting from Federally authorized, 

funded, or conducted projects for which 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

has been completed, and when the 

otherwise lawful activity is conducted 

in accordance with any terms and 

conditions granted by NMFS in an 

incidental take statement in a biological 

opinion pursuant to section 7 of the 

ESA; 

(3) Continued possession of sawfish 

parts that were in possession at the time 

of listing. Such parts may be noncommercially exported or imported; 

however the importer or exporter must 

be able to provide sufficient evidence to 

show that the parts meet the criteria of 

ESA section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a 

controlled environment at the time of 

listing, non-commercial activity); 

(4) Continued possession of live 

sawfish that were in captivity or in a 

controlled environment (e.g., in aquaria) 

at the time of this listing, so long as the 

prohibitions under ESA section 9(a)(1) 

are not violated. Again, facilities should 

be able to provide evidence that the 

sawfish were in captivity or in a 

controlled environment prior to listing. 

We suggest such facilities submit 

information to us on the sawfish in their 

possession (e.g., size, age, description of 

animals, and the source and date of 

acquisition) to establish their claim of 

possession (see For Further Information 

Contact); 

(5) Provision of care for live sawfish 

that were in captivity at the time of 

listing. These individuals are still 

protected under the ESA and may not be 

killed or injured, or otherwise harmed, 

and, therefore, must receive proper care. 

Normal care of captive animals 

necessarily entails handling or other 

manipulation of the animals, and we do 

not consider such activities to constitute 

take or harassment of the animals so 

long as adequate care, including 

adequate veterinary care is provided. 

Such veterinary care includes confining, 

tranquilizing, or anesthetizing sawfish 

when such practices, procedures, or 

provisions are not likely to result in 

injury; and 

(6) Any importation or exportation of 

live sawfish or sawfish parts with all 

accompanying CITES import and export 

permits and an ESA section 10(a)(1)(a) 

permit for purposes of scientific 

research or the enhancement of the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS 

authority to promulgate regulations that 

may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. 

Future regulations may be promulgated 

to regulate trade or holding of sawfish, 

if necessary. The public will be given 

the opportunity to comment on future 

proposed regulations. 

Policies on Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing a minimum 

peer review standard. Similarly, a joint 

NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) requires us to solicit independent 

expert review from qualified specialists, 

concurrent with the public comment 

period. The intent of the joint peer 

review policy is to ensure that listings 

are based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. We formally 

solicited expert opinion of three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding the scientific and commercial 

data or assumptions related to the 

information considered for listing. 

We considered peer reviewer 

comments in making our determination. 

We conclude that these experts’ reviews 

satisfy the requirements for ‘‘adequate 

[prior] peer review’’ contained in the 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review and the joint NMFS/FWS policy 

(59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this final rule is available on the 

Internet at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

protected_resources/sawfish/. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74005 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this final 

rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this final rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects and 

that a Federalism assessment is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Dated: December 8, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C 1361 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 224.101, paragraph (h), amend 

the table by: 

■ A. Removing the ‘‘Sawfish, 

largetooth’’ and the ‘‘Sawfish, 

smalltooth (United States DPS)’’ entries. 

■ B. Adding entries for five new sawfish 

species in alphabetic order by Scientific 

name under ‘‘Fishes’’: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(h) The endangered species under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Commerce are: 

Species1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat 

ESA 

rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

FISHES

* * * * * * * 

Sawfish, dwarf ................... Pristis clavata .................... Entire species ................... [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 12/12/2014.

NA NA 

Sawfish, green ................... Pristis zijsron ..................... Entire species ................... [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 12/12/2014.

NA NA 

Sawfish, largetooth ............ Pristis pristis (formerly 

Pristis perotteti, Pristis 

pristis, and Pristis 

microdon).

Entire species ................... [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 12/12/2014.

NA NA 

Sawfish, narrow ................. Anoxypristis cuspidata ...... Entire species ................... [Insert Federal Register 

citation] 12/12/2014.

NA NA 

Sawfish, smalltooth (NonU.S. DPS).Pristis pectinata ................ Smalltooth sawfish originating from non-U.S. 

waters.

[Insert Federal Register 

citation] 12/12/2014.

NA NA 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–29201 Filed 12–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3