FINAL

UNITED STATES

NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION

FOR THE

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

OF SHARKS

Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Silver Spring, MD 20910

February 2001

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

List of Tables

List of Figures
(Figures are unavailable in this html version.)

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Purpose and Need

Sharks, skates, rays (elasmobranchs) and the chimaeras together comprise the class Chondrichthyes, or cartilaginous fishes. ⁽¹⁾ This diverse group of fishes can be distinguished by the possession of a cartilaginous skeleton as opposed to the bony skeleton of the class Osteichthyes, or bony fishes. The great majority of commercially and recreationally important species of chondrichthyans are elasmobranchs. Elasmobranchs, named for their plated gills and 5-7 gill openings, have been important predators in the oceans ever since the first shark-like forms appeared during the Devonian period, over 400 million years ago. As a group, elasmobranchs present an array of problems for fisheries management and conservation. Elasmobranchs are primarily at the top of the food web, often top-level carnivores (Cortes, 1999a), and their abundance is relatively small compared to groups situated in lower trophic levels. Thus, fishing elasmobranchs down to unsustainable levels may occur rapidly, and successful management of elasmobranch fisheries requires a stronger commitment to fishery monitoring, biological research, and proactive management than many teleost fisheries (Walker, 1998).

The life-history characteristics of many elasmobranchs, such as late age of maturity and relatively slow growth rates, make them more susceptible to overfishing than most bony fishes. ⁽²⁾ These characteristics, together with their low fecundity, result in low productivity for most species (Bonfil, 1994; Smith et al., 1998). Recovery of populations from severe depletions (caused either by natural phenomena or human-induced mortality) will probably take many years for most elasmobranch species. In addition, due to these biological traits, the assumptions used in some fisheries models (such as yield per recruit or production models) are not always appropriate and can make stock assessments and management of elasmobranchs difficult. Elasmobranch fisheries assessments are further complicated because of the mobility of many species across political boundaries, even across oceans; a general lack of baseline information about the practices employed in shark fisheries worldwide; incomplete data on catch, effort, landings, and trade; and a lack of information on the biological parameters, importance of specific habitats to productivity, and population dynamics of many species.

Furthermore, the historically low economic value of shark and ray products compared to other fishes has resulted in research and conservation of these species being a lower priority than for traditionally high-value species. However, the growth in demand for some shark products, such as fins, continues to drive increased exploitation (Bonfil, 1994; Rose, 1996; Walker, 1998). Modern technology, greater access to distant markets, and the depleted status of many traditionally targeted species have also led to directed fishing effort on previously non-targeted species, including elasmobranchs (FAO, 1998). Increased elasmobranch catches in both directed and incidental fisheries have resulted in growing concern over the fate of some elasmobranch populations in several areas of the world's oceans (Bonfil, 1994; FAO, 1998; Musick, 1999). Many fishery managers must now assess and manage shark fisheries without the benefit of the long-term, high-quality databases available for more traditionally high-value species.

While a few countries (including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and the United States) have specific fishery management plans for certain shark fisheries, international cooperation and coordination of existing shark management plans and development of new shark management plans are needed. Given the wide range of shark distributions (including the high seas) and the extensive migration of many species, bilateral and/or multilateral cooperation, assessments, and agreements are needed to understand and manage shark fisheries sustainably.

At present, there are no international management mechanisms effectively addressing the capture of sharks. However, a number of international bodies, e.g., the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), have initiated efforts to encourage member countries to collect information about shark catches and, in some cases, develop regional databases for the purpose of stock assessments. In addition, some countries already have laws that facilitate international management. For instance, U.S. participation in international management initiatives is guided by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. For more information on international agreements, see Section 1.3.

In recognition of the need for improved international coordination, in 1994, the Ninth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) adopted a Resolution on the Biological and Trade Status of Sharks, requesting that: (1) The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other international fisheries management organizations establish programs to collect and assemble the necessary biological and trade data on shark species; and (2) all nations utilizing and trading specimens of shark species cooperate with FAO and other international fisheries management organizations.

In March 1997, a proposal was made at the 22nd Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries that FAO organize an expert consultation to develop Guidelines for a Plan of Action for the improved conservation and management of sharks. This proposal culminated in the decision in February 1998 (FAO, 1998) to prepare an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA) through the meetings of the Technical Working Group on the Conservation and Management of Sharks in Tokyo from April 23 - 27, 1998, a preparatory meeting held in Rome from July 22 - 24, 1998, and the Consultation on Management of Fishing Capacity, Shark Fisheries, and Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries, held in Rome from October 26 - 30, 1998.

In February 1999, the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) endorsed the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (see Appendix 1 for the full text). This plan was commended by the March 1999 FAO Fisheries Ministerial, endorsed by the June 1999 FAO Council, and adopted by the November 1999 FAO Conference. The IPOA builds upon the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, encompasses all elasmobranch fisheries (commercial and recreational), and calls on all member nations to implement, voluntarily, the IPOA through the development of a national plan of action.

1.1 Objectives of the IPOA and the NPOA

The objective of the IPOA is to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. In the IPOA, member nations have agreed voluntarily to develop, implement, and monitor a national plan of action if their vessels conduct directed fisheries for sharks or if their vessels regularly catch sharks in non-directed fisheries. As stated in paragraph 22 of the IPOA, shark plans should aim to:

1. Ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable;

2. Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats, and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long term economic use;

3. Identify and provide special attention in particular to vulnerable or threatened shark stocks;

4. Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultation involving stakeholders in research, management, and educational initiatives within and between member Nations;

5. Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks;

6. Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function;

7. Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with article 7.2.2. (g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed);

8. Encourage full use of dead sharks;

9. Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data and monitoring of shark catches;

10. Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.

Additionally, national plans of action are to be implemented by FAO members in a manner consistent with the FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and any applicable rules of international law, and in conjunction with relevant international organizations.

This U.S. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA) has been developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in consultation with stakeholders, to fulfill the national responsibility of the United States. Although shark landings do not constitute a large portion of total U.S. landings (see Section 3.1), the sustainability of shark stocks is of international concern. In addition, as described in Section 1.0, overfishing of sharks can occur rapidly with extended periods (often decades) required to rebuild. Furthermore, the depletion of traditionally higher-value species can lead to increased directed fishing on sharks. By participating in the FAO Consultation process and by supporting the adoption of the IPOA, the United States has committed to ensuring that shark fisheries are sustainable.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) delegates the responsibility for conservation and management of marine fisheries within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn, delegates that day-to-day responsibility to NMFS. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to analyze fisheries under their jurisdiction. If appropriate, management measures ensuring the sustainability of elasmobranch catches should be developed as fishery management plans (FMPs), FMP amendments, and/or regulations. This NPOA also recommends that the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions (Commissions) and the appropriate State agencies analyze the fisheries under their jurisdiction to determine if their elasmobranch catches are sustainable. NMFS will continue to work with the Commissions and appropriate State agencies to ensure that those directed and incidental shark catches are sustainable.

To assess properly the current status of elasmobranch resources, address various problems associated with their exploitation, and contribute new ideas to their study and management, it is essential to increase the level of knowledge about the characteristics and diversity of these fisheries, the species exploited, the role of habitat in population growth or depletion, the size of the catches, discards at sea, trade, and past or current management measures adopted for the fisheries. This NPOA furthers this goal by compiling available information about directed and incidental U.S. elasmobranch fisheries and identifying management goals and needs.

This NPOA includes provisions for: assessing levels of directed and incidental catch and bycatch of elasmobranchs, data collection (including collection of habitat and bycatch data), outreach and education of fishermen, exchange of information on shark fisheries and studies, and assessing the effectiveness of management measures. For Federally managed fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the basis and authority for these provisions. As such, these provisions are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards and therefore should already be encompassed in existing FMPs or addressed in the development of FMPs or FMP amendments.

1.2 United States Management Authority

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the primary domestic legislation governing management of marine fisheries in the U.S. EEZ. The Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for the conservation and management of resources and the marine environment, of which elasmobranchs are a part. In 1996, the U.S. Congress re-authorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act and included new provisions that require fishery managers to halt overfishing; rebuild overfished fisheries; minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable; and describe, identify, and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH). The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains ten National Standards that fishery managers must consider when determining whether to prepare an FMP or FMP Amendment. These National Standards are:

• Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry;
• Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available;
• To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination;
• Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of privileges;
• Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose;
 
• Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches
• Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication;
• Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of the Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities;
• Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch; and,
• Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.

In addition, Federal fisheries management must also be consistent with the requirements of other legislation including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other relevant Federal and State laws.

Development of FMPs is the responsibility of one or more of the eight regional fishery management councils, which were established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce in the case of Atlantic highly migratory species (defined as tuna species, marlin, oceanic sharks, sailfishes, and swordfish). Since 1990, shark fishery management in Federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea (excluding dogfishes, skates, and rays) has been the responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS, 1993). Dogfish, skates, and rays in the Atlantic Ocean are managed by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), or the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC). In the Pacific, three regional councils are responsible for developing fishery management plans for sharks: the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC). The PFMC's area of jurisdiction is the EEZ off California, Oregon, and Washington; the NPFMC covers Federal waters off Alaska, including the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands; and the WPFMC's jurisdiction covers Federal waters around Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other U.S. non-self governing insular areas of the Pacific.

In general, waters under the jurisdiction of the individual states extend from the shoreline out to 3 miles (9 nautical miles off Texas, the west coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico), while U.S. waters under Federal management continue from state waters to 200 miles offshore except where intercepted by the EEZ of another nation. Management of elasmobranchs in state waters usually falls under the authority of state regulatory agencies, which are typically the marine division of the state fish and wildlife departments. Each state develops and enforces its own fishing regulations for waters under its jurisdiction (Federally permitted commercial fishermen in the Atlantic are required to follow Federal regulations regardless of where they are fishing as a condition of the permit). Many coastal states promulgate regulations for shark fishing in state waters that complement or are more restrictive than Federal shark regulations for the EEZ. Given that many shark nursery areas are located in waters under state jurisdiction, states play a critical role in effective shark conservation and management.

Cooperative management of the fisheries that occur in the jurisdiction of two or more states and Federal waters may be coordinated by an interstate fishery management commission. These commissions are interstate compacts that work closely with NMFS. Three interstate commissions exist: the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). While states set fishery regulations in their own waters, they are encouraged to adopt compatible regulations between state and Federal jurisdictions. The Atlantic Coast Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) established a special management program between NMFS, the Atlantic coast states, and the ASMFC. Under this legislation, Atlantic states must comply with the management measures approved by this Commission, or risk a Federally mandated closure (by NMFS) of the subject fishery (50 CFR part 697).

In summary, numerous management entities govern fisheries in which sharks are directed catch, incidental catch, and/or bycatch. The Magnuson-Stevens Act forms the basis for management in Federal waters and requires NMFS and the Councils to take specified actions. States agencies and Commissions are bound by state regulations and, in the Atlantic region, by ACFCMA. In preparing this NPOA, NMFS has taken a lead role in compiling relevant information and providing guidance on implementation and prioritization. However, NMFS' authority to require action is limited and does not extend to the Councils, Commissions, or state agencies. Accordingly, much of the language contained in the NPOA is framed in terms of recommendations and suggestions, and not requirements. NMFS will make concerted efforts to assist management entities to implement this NPOA.

1.3 International Initiatives on Science and Management

Several regional and multilateral international agreements collect data on shark catches although no international agreement currently manages those catches. Following are brief descriptions of major international bodies that are actively collecting data on shark catches as well as any initiatives to develop shark management measures.

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas was established to provide an effective program of international cooperation in research and conservation in recognition of the unique problems related to the highly migratory nature of tunas and tuna-like species. The Convention area is defined as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent seas. The Commission is responsible for providing internationally coordinated research on the condition of the Atlantic tunas and tuna-like species, and their environment, as well as for the development of regulatory recommendations. The objective of such regulatory recommendations is to conserve and manage species of tuna and tuna-like species throughout their range in a manner that maintains their population at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable catch.

While the Commission does not currently manage sharks, the ICCAT Subcommittee on Bycatch has encouraged contracting parties to collect data on shark catches and landings for several years. In 1995, ICCAT distributed a questionnaire on bycatch of species caught coincidental to ICCAT fisheries. Numerous shark species, including skates, rays, and coastal and pelagic sharks, were reported by member countries as bycatch in their fisheries. Shark species were reported as caught in longline, purse seine, gillnet, and harpoon fisheries. However, the reporting response level was poor and may reflect the relatively low priority various member countries place on monitoring shark bycatch. ICCAT has agreed to act as central storehouse for shark data and intends to conduct a stock assessment on blue, mako, and porbeagle sharks in 2002.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is the successor organization to the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Its mission is: (1) to provide for continued multilateral consultation and cooperation with respect to the study, appraisal, and exchange of scientific information and views relating to fisheries of the Convention Area and (2) to conserve and manage fishery resources of the Regulatory Area, i.e., that part of the Convention Area which lies beyond the areas in which coastal states exercise fisheries jurisdiction. The Convention Area is located within the waters of the Northwest Atlantic ocean roughly north of 35 north latitude and west of 42 west longitude.

In 1999, the Fisheries Commission agreed to the following scientific recommendations regarding collection of scientific data and statistics on elasmobranchs: analyses on the distribution and abundance; harmonization of NAFO and FAO catch data; training in identification and reporting of sharks; and an expanded list of elasmobranchs for NAFO reporting. Current catch statistics on elasmobranchs indicates both high level of potential fishing opportunities as well as danger of overfishing if scientific advice is not available.

At the annual meeting in September 2000, the United States proposed and the Scientific Council agreed to convene a symposium on elasmobranch fisheries in 2002 in conjunction with the annual meeting. Additionally, NAFO is developing an identification poster for sharks, skates, and rays of the North Atlantic that complements the deepwater shark identification poster developed in 1998.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is the oldest oceanographic organization in the North Atlantic area and is the premier body for giving advice at the international level on scientific and policy matters relating to fisheries, pollution and other marine environmental issues. ICES provides advice on pollution matters to the London, Oslo, and Helsinki Conventions for Marine Pollution, and on fisheries matters to the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean; the United States is a party to all of these conventions. ICES also advises the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission. ICES also has strong formal ties to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, to which the United States belongs, and the annual ICES meeting is the major forum for coordinating the planning and execution of research on living marine resources in the North Atlantic.

In 1997, the Study Group on Elasmobranch Fishes met to analyze data on the distribution of species, conduct analytical assessments and evaluate the effects of exploitation, and prepare identification sheets for deepwater sharks, skates, and rays. The Study Group recommended publication of identification guides to sharks, skates, and rays; initiating data collection and biological sampling to improve knowledge on biology and exploitation patterns; exploration of alternative methods to evaluate the status of elasmobranch stocks; sending an ICES representative to FAO and CITES meetings; and keeping a register of available data on shark fisheries.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission was established to "(1) study the biology of the tunas and related species of the eastern Pacific Ocean with a view to determining the effects that fishing and natural factors have on their abundance, and (2) to recommend appropriate conservation measures so that the stocks of fish can be maintained at levels which will afford maximum sustainable catches."

At its 66^th meeting in June 2000, the IATTC agreed that minimizing bycatch of non-target species, including sharks, was important to maintaining healthy ecosystems overall and may require modified or new procedures, techniques, or management measures. Specifically, the IATTC agreed to require fishermen on purse-seine vessels to release promptly and unharmed, to the extent practicable, all sharks and other non-target species and to encourage fishermen to develop and use techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe release of such animals. The IATTC also supported development of a program to research bycatch reduction and evaluate management measures to reduce bycatch such as time and area closures, limits on fishing effort, catch limits, and gear modifications.

Multilateral High Level Conference

The Multilateral High Level Conference (MHLC) is a series of conference negotiations striving to design and implement a conservation and management regime for highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. MHLC2, held in Majuro, Marshall Islands in 1997 adopted by acclamation the Majuro Declaration which expresses the commitment of the participants to negotiate, over a 3-year period, a legally binding conservation and management regime for western and central Pacific highly migratory fish stocks. These stocks support fisheries that produce over 50 percent of the world's tuna catch, and are thus probably the largest and most valuable that are not yet subject to a conservation and management regime. Fortunately, of the tuna stocks likely to be covered, all are believed to be in healthy condition, with the possible exception of bigeye tuna. Achieving the stated goal may be what was called the most significant potential development in that part of the world, given the importance of fish resources to many Pacific island economies.

At the most recent meeting in September 2000, a draft convention and annex entitled "Resolution establishing a preparatory conference for the establishment of the commission for the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean" were adopted. Twenty-four states voted to adopt the resolution, with Japan and Korea opposing and Tonga, China, and France abstaining.

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was established in 1989 to promote open trade and economic cooperation among economies around the Pacific Rim, and, under APEC, the Fisheries Working Group (FWG) was formed in 1991. The FWG meets annually, and deliberates on a broad range of living marine resource issues and specific project proposals. The 21 APEC Economies are invited to these FWG meetings. In recent years, the FWG has concentrated in the areas of management; trade and marketing; seafood inspection training; aquaculture; and the facilitation of the regional implementation of global sustainable fishery initiatives.

The APEC Fisheries Working Group recently approved a project, developed by the United States, that over the next two year will assess regional implementation of the IPOA and explore ways to reduce bycatch and waste. The project will conclude with an APEC-sponsored regional workshop that will bring together scientists, policy makers, and other stakeholders to review shark conservation and management.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora provides for international co-operation for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade. Under CITES, species are listed in Appendices according to their conservation status. In addition, listed species must meet the test that trade is at least in part contributing to their decline. Appendix I species, for which there is no international trade permitted, are "threatened with extinction." Appendix II species are "not necessarily threatened with extinction," but may become so unless trade is strictly regulated. This regulation usually takes the form of a requirement for documentation from the country of export, monitoring of imports and, in some cases, export quotas. Imports from countries which are not CITES members still require what is called "CITES-equivalent documentation." Appendix III includes all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in the control of trade.

At its 10^th meeting in 1997, the Conference of the Parties (COP) endorsed several recommendations regarding sharks. Specifically, Parties should: improve methods of accurately identifying species-specific shark catches in directed and non-directed fisheries; establish species-specific reporting on landings, discards, and trade; improve statistics on trade in sharks, shark parts, and derivatives; and reduce the mortality of sharks caught incidentally to other fishing operations. Concerned parties were also encouraged to collect life history and biological data on sharks taken in their fisheries and to initiate management of shark fisheries nationally, regionally, and internationally. However, a U.S. proposal to establish a Marine Species Working Group to study the international trade in marine species subject to large-scale commercial fishing was not adopted.

At the 11^th COP, the United States proposed listing the whale shark on Appendix II due to concerns regarding increased trade in whale shark products in the Indo-Pacific, with products destined for Taiwan. The United States also supported listing proposals by the United Kingdom for basking sharks and Australia for white sharks. None of these proposals were adopted.

The U.K. proposal to list the basking shark on Appendix II (Prop. 11.49) was defeated, despite achieving an absolute majority (67 for, 42 against, and 8 abstentions). Opposition to the proposal centered on the debate over whether FAO or CITES should be responsible for managing threatened fish species, with opponents favoring the FAO. However, the United Kingdom recently listed basking sharks on Appendix III and implemented a certification system that requires that exports of that species be accompanied by an export certificate. The United States supports this action to protect basking sharks by monitoring trade.

1.4 International and National Initiatives on Bycatch and Incidental Catch

Bycatch and incidental catch have become a central concern of fishing industries, environmentalists, resource managers, scientists, and the public, both nationally and globally. Because many sharks are caught in directed fisheries for other species, initiatives on incidental catch and bycatch are particularly relevant to shark conservation and management. A 1994 report of FAO estimated that nearly one-quarter (27 million metric tons) of the total world catch by commercial fishing operations was discarded (Alverson et al., 1994). These discards represent a stress upon marine resources without compensating benefits to the general public. Thus, as identified in the IPOA, it is important to minimize waste, especially when so many of the world's fisheries are either fully- or over-exploited. As a source of fishing mortality, excessive discards in commercial fisheries can slow rebuilding of overfished stocks, particularly if most of the discarded catch dies, and imposes direct and indirect costs on commercial fishing operations by increasing sorting time and decreasing the amount of gear available to catch target species.

The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries ⁽³⁾ was adopted on October 31, 1995, by the FAO Conference and article 7.6.9 calls for FAO members to

"take appropriate measures to minimize waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species...and promote, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost effective gear and techniques."

While the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries does not specifically define bycatch or waste, the concept of reducing bycatch, bycatch mortality, and waste is embodied in the recommended action, consistent with the IPOA. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires the reduction of bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, and defines bycatch as:

"fish that are harvested in a fishery, but are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. [Bycatch] does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program."

Further, fish are defined as:

"finfish, molluscs, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds."

Incidental catch is frequently described as animals that are harvested in a fishery and that are either kept or discarded but that were not the targeted catch (caught as part as fishing operations for other species). It should be noted that marine mammals and sea birds are considered incidental catch, even though they cannot be retained, and not bycatch because they are not fish.

In 1998, NMFS published a strategic document, Managing the Nation's Bycatch: Programs, Activities, and Recommendations for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS Bycatch Plan) (NOAA, 1998), which states the national objectives, goals, and recommendations of the agency, to address current programs and future efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of marine resources. The complementary implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Bycatch Plan, the IPOA, and this NPOA should result in a reduction of shark bycatch and/or of shark bycatch mortality in the fisheries of the United States. This will require the cooperative efforts of NMFS, the Councils, the Commissions, appropriate States, affected commercial fishermen and recreational anglers, environmental groups, scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other interested parties.

1.5 Development of the U.S. NPOA

The development of the U.S. NPOA was primarily the responsibility of NMFS headquarters. NMFS Regional Offices and Science Centers and Council staff were consulted for comments on two pre-draft documents. These comments were incorporated into the public draft document.

On September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52772), NMFS published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, which provided a time frame for completion and an outline of the contents of the draft NPOA. The public was invited to provide written comments and suggestions for items to be incorporated and addressed with the NPOA. No public comments were received. On March 27, 2000 (65 FR 16186), NMFS published another notice revising the original time frame for completion of this project. On August 4, 2000 (65 FR 47968), NMFS published a Notice of Availability of the draft NPOA, which established a comment period through September 30, 2000. Numerous comments were received. This final NPOA reflects many of those comments; formal response to comments is provided in the Notice of Availability of the final NPOA.

Written requests for copies of this NPOA may be submitted to Margo Schulze-Haugen, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, or via FAX to (301) 713-1917. For further information, contact Margo Schulze-Haugen or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713-2347.

CHAPTER 2

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

2.0 Role of FAO Members and FAO

In October 1998, the United States was a leading participant in the FAO Consultation on Shark Conservation and Management and successfully negotiated with the world's fishing nations concrete steps to improve shark conservation through the IPOA. The IPOA builds upon the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and encompasses all elasmobranch fisheries. The IPOA encourages action on education of fishermen, exchange of information and studies on elasmobranch fisheries, assessments of levels of non-target catch of elasmobranchs, and assessments of the effectiveness of management measures. Specifically, the IPOA calls for nations, entities, and/or regional management bodies that implement a national plan of action to:

1. Regularly, at least every four years, assess its implementation for the purpose of identifying cost-effective strategies for increasing its effectiveness (paragraph 23);

2. Cooperate through regional and subregional fisheries organizations or arrangements, and other forms of cooperation, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of sharks stocks, including, where appropriate, the development of subregional or regional shark plans (paragraph 25);

3. Ensure effective conservation and management of the stocks where transboundary, straddling, highly migratory, and high seas stocks of sharks are exploited by two or more member nations (paragraph 26);

4. Collaborate through FAO and through international arrangements in research, training, and the production of information and educational material (paragraph 27); and,

5. Report on the progress of the assessment, development, and implementation of the shark plans as part of their biennial reporting to FAO on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (paragraph 28).

Member nations that determine that a national plan of action is not necessary should review that decision on a regular basis, taking into account changes in their fisheries. At the minimum, these nations should collect data on catches, landings, and trade.

In addition, the IPOA states that the FAO, to the extent directed by its Conference, will:

1. Support member nations in the implementation of the IPOA, including the preparation of the national plan of action (paragraph 29);

2. Support development and implementation of the national plans of action through specific, in-country technical assistance projects with Regular Program funds and by use of extra-budgetary funds made available to the Organization for this purpose (paragraph 30);

3. Provide a list of experts and a mechanism of technical assistance to countries in connection with the development of the national plans of action (paragraph 30); and,

4. Report biennially, through COFI, on the state of progress in the implementation of the IPOA (paragraph 31).

2.1 Implementation of the United States NPOA

As stated in Chapter 1, the authority for implementing the U.S. NPOA comes from the U.S. participation and endorsement of the IPOA as well as through the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For management entities that have jurisdiction of directed shark fisheries or fisheries with regular catches of sharks, the NPOA calls for the following actions to be taken:

1. Data Collection: Data collection programs should collect reliable data to determine the directed and incidental catch, bycatch, and disposition of elasmobranchs by the various fisheries; the effectiveness of existing management measures; the locations and characteristics of nursery and wintering grounds; information on EFH or key habitat for all life stages; and the status of the stocks. These data collections should be species-specific to the maximum extent practicable and may accomplished through incorporating shark species on logbooks and observer forms for other species.

2. Assessment: Assessments of elasmobranchs subject to directed, incidental, or bycatch fishing mortality to determine the sustainable level of fishing mortality should be conducted following the completion of this NPOA by NMFS, the Councils, the Commissions, and appropriate States (management entities) (see Item 7 for policy guidance on time frames for assessments and Section 2.2 for further guidance on prioritization of limited resources).

Assessments should thereafter be conducted regularly, consistent with the IPOA. Management entities that have already conducted preliminary assessments should continue and expand these wherever possible. Additional work conducted by academic researchers and independent NGOs should be encouraged and incorporated as appropriate. Management entities are encouraged to cooperate and share relevant data with each other.

The purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the level of total fishing mortality of shark, skate, and ray species is sustainable. To continue to improve upon existing elasmobranch assessments and help make future assessments more effective, the following items should be included for collection and analysis:

A. Species-, size-, region-, and gear-specific catches and landings, including disposition of discards (dead vs. alive);

B. Fishery-independent data on shark distribution, abundance, migratory patterns, habitat utilization, and productivity;

C. Fishing fleet data (commercial and recreational fisheries; e.g., numbers of vessels by size, type of gear used, areas fished, number of fishermen);

D. Fishing catch and effort data (e.g., seasons, target and incidental species, bycatch species, number of trips per year, number of sets per year, catch per unit effort, total effort by appropriate unit of fishing gear);

E. Habitat data including delineation of summer and winter nursery, mating, and feeding habitats;

F. Utilization, price, and trade data (imports and exports) by product form, if possible, and market; and

G. Monitoring of fisheries with directed and incidental catches and bycatch of elasmobranchs (e.g., observer programs).

In addition to the collection and analysis of the above items, the assessment should also consider: (A) the criteria used to evaluate the need for additional elasmobranch management measures: (B) efficacy of existing management measures in controlling total shark mortality to sustainable levels: (C) characterization of necessary habitat and the impact of habitat loss or degradation on sustainable population levels; (D) the need to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sharks; and (E) a statement of conclusions of stock and habitat status and fishery sustainability. In reaching conclusions, the management entities conducting the assessment should take into account biological reference points and potential changes in fisheries, such as the expansion of existing fisheries and/or the development of new or newly directed shark fisheries. At a minimum, the assessment should indicate which fisheries catch sharks and evaluate the catch trends and biological information available at a species-specific level.

Furthermore, consistent with paragraph 23 of the IPOA, management entities should regularly, at least every four years, assess their NPOAs for the purpose of identifying cost-effective strategies for increasing its effectiveness, and modify their management measures as necessary. This assessment should review the sustainability of shark stocks under current levels of mortality as part of assessing the effectiveness of the NPOA.

If, based upon the initial assessment for the purposes of this NPOA, the management entities determine that total fishing mortality on elasmobranchs appears to be sustainable, then the management entities should continue to monitor their fisheries that capture sharks. The management entities should assess their fisheries regularly, consistent with the IPOA, to ensure that changes that could impact shark stock and habitat status and/or the sustainability of shark fisheries have not occurred.

If, based upon the assessment, the management entities conclude that the fishery is not sustainable or if the management entities are unsure if the fishery is sustainable, then the fishery is in need of management measures. Accordingly, an FMP, FMP amendment, or regulations should be developed and implemented in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Standards, and the National Standard Guidelines, and consistent with the IPOA and this NPOA.

3. Need for Management Measures: If the assessment concludes the stock is overfished, that overfishing is occurring, or that the stock is approaching an overfished state, appropriate management measures (e.g., reduce harvest levels or effort, use of alternative gears, reduce adverse effects on EFH or other habitats, implement minimum sizes, establish time-area closures) should be prescribed to end and/or prevent overfishing, to conserve necessary habitats, and to minimize waste, discards, and unutilized incidental catches of all elasmobranchs harvested. These measures should have a stated benefit and be cost-effective for the fishing industry, to the extent practicable. In addition, these management measures should have a rebuilding time frame and specific guidelines for determining when a species is rebuilt, or alternatively, when a species is overfished, consistent with applicable laws. Management entities are encouraged to include within their provisions all elasmobranch species within their area of jurisdiction, either in an appropriate species group or as individual species. For Federal fisheries, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS expects that any necessary management measures will be formally incorporated within an existing FMP or as part of a new FMP, and subsequently incorporated as regulations. Management entities should also monitor the efficacy of these management measures and any impacts on the affected fisheries, and include recommendations on how to implement and monitor the U.S. NPOA

4. Research and Development of Mitigation Measures and Methods: Regardless of the determination of the assessment, management entities should invest in elasmobranch research, fishery monitoring, reduction of bycatch and bycatch mortality, minimization of waste, and enforcement. For example, scientists could investigate specific areas of research including studies on life history to improve species-specific management; gear modification (e.g., circle hooks) or bait modification (e.g., live bait, dead bait, artificial bait) to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality; methods of species identification (e.g., genetics) to improve species-specific biological, catch, landings, and trade data; post-release mortality estimates to improve stock assessments; identification and characterization of important habitats by life-history stage to understand the impacts of habitat loss and degradation on productivity and the marine ecosystem; and the effectiveness of time-area closures to protect important habitats, as appropriate. Scientists should also study the fishery itself with fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data, as appropriate.

• Limitation of Fishing Capacity: There are many problems associated with open access fisheries. The greater the number of fishing vessels participating, the more likely it is that individual fishing enterprises will become unprofitable or marginal. As progressively more fisheries come under limited access, pressure on those fisheries that remain open access will increase. Combined with limited quotas, this can lead to greater pressure to catch fish faster. The resulting "race for the fish" or derby fishery produces market gluts, poor product quality, safety concerns, and high administrative costs. Shortened fishing seasons also mean that fresh fish may not be available to consumers for prolonged periods. Therefore, the limitation of capacity should be investigated as a method for increasing the sustainability of elasmobranch fisheries. NMFS is currently assessing the fishing capacity of Federally managed commercial fisheries in the United States as part of the development of an NPOA on the Management of Fishing Capacity; management entities are urged to participate in this study.

6. Outreach and Education: Each management entity should cooperatively or individually:

A. Develop and implement training tools and programs in elasmobranch identification;

B. Prescribe means to raise awareness among recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, fishing associations, and other relevant groups about the need to reduce bycatch mortality and increase survival of released elasmobranchs where bycatch occurs; and,

C. Prescribe means to raise awareness among the non-fishing public about the ecological benefits from elasmobranch populations, detrimental effects of habitat destruction (e.g., coastal development, coastal pollution), and appropriate conservation measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on necessary habitats.

• Reporting and Monitoring: Each management entity should prepare a biennial report on the status of sharks and shark fisheries under its jurisdiction so that NMFS can incorporate that information into biennial reports to COFI. NMFS encourages management entities to conduct an initial assessment (as described above) following completion of this NPOA (if not already done) within two years, and to report to NMFS by September 2002 so that NMFS may incorporate that information into the biennial report to COFI in 2003. If shark conservation and management measures are found to be necessary, NMFS encourages management entities to develop fishery-specific measures within two years from that determination, and to report to NMFS by September 2004 so that NMFS may incorporate that information into the biennial report to COFI in 2005. For any fisheries that are under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and that are identified as overfished, the development of rebuilding programs must be consistent with Section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

For fisheries under Federal FMPs, the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports should describe the status of shark stocks under the management entities' jurisdiction, the status of EFH, research efforts, the effectiveness of measures to ensure that mortality is sustainable, the effectiveness of measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality, the need for (additional) management measures, steps taken to implement any necessary management measures, and other factors. SAFE Reports should be submitted to the Assistant Administrator of NMFS and will be made available to the public. Information from the SAFE reports will be compiled and incorporated into the United States' biennial status report to FAO on its implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995).

For fisheries under State or Commission management, NMFS will work with the appropriate management entity to conduct the initial assessment of shark stocks under its jurisdiction, develop necessary management measures, and develop similar reports on a biennial basis.

2.2 Management Principles

NMFS believes that strong domestic management of sharks is warranted. Several important shark nursery areas are located within U.S. waters (e.g., Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Bull's Bay, and Florida Bay in the Atlantic Ocean; Charlotte Harbor/Pine Island Sound and Tampa Bay and St. Andrew Sound in the Gulf of Mexico; and the Southern California Bight in the Pacific Ocean (Castro, 1993; Hanan et al., 1993; Pratt and Merson, 1996; Sminkey and Musick, 1996; Carlson, 1999; Carlson and Brusher, 1999; NMFS, 1999a)). These habitats have been identified as EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires NMFS and the Councils to minimize to the extent practicable any adverse impacts to these habitats from fishing activities and requires other Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on ways to conserve these habitats. Additionally, the United States has several directed shark fisheries as well as numerous non-directed fisheries that have regular catches of sharks.

This NPOA should be viewed as an overarching framework within which NMFS, the Councils, the Commissions, and appropriate State agencies should work together to conserve and manage sharks and related fisheries. The NPOA contains guidance on research and management necessary to meet this goal; however, the NPOA does not prescribe specific management measures so that management entities will have flexibility to incorporate measures they consider appropriate.

Adopt the Precautionary Approach

Commercial and recreational fisheries exhibit numerous regional distinctions and differences such as: target species, incidental species, bycatch and bycatch mortality, geographic location, gear used, gear deployment, season, weather, vessel characteristics, and elasmobranch species present. Consequently, each fishery poses different levels of risk to elasmobranch populations with regard to directed or incidental catches or bycatch, and commercial or recreational fisheries. The level of risk to specific populations depends on the life history characteristics of each species and on the level of mortality in the fisheries capturing these species. Because of these differences, each fishery may need its own unique solution to reducing the risk to shark populations.

Because fishing elasmobranchs down to unsustainable levels may occur rapidly and recovery can take decades for many species, successful management of elasmobranch fisheries should be based on the precautionary approach in which measures are implemented proactively before overfishing occurs. NMFS urges the Commissions and appropriate State agencies to initiate or expand the data collection, assessment, and management of shark fisheries and habitats under their jurisdiction, as necessary, to ensure that all shark fisheries in the United States are sustainable. The NPOA calls on management entities at the state, regional, and national levels to initiate, continue, or improve research on elasmobranch catches in their fisheries, address the uniqueness of each fishery, identify key habitats and their impacts on populations, and implement necessary elasmobranch management measures before stock declines are evident.

Protect Vulnerable Life History Stages

NMFS recognizes that some shark species are sensitive to mortality in the juvenile and subadult life history stages (Sminkey and Musick, 1996; Au and Smith 1997; Cortes, 1999b; Brewster-Geisz and Miller, 2000). In addition, the first few reproductive years of adult life history stages may also be important in ensuring the stocks are not overfished (Au et al., 2000). Although these studies have not been done on all shark species, it is a logical assumption that the same conclusions would hold true for many other elasmobranch species. Therefore, proactive domestic management should consider protecting juvenile, subadult, and early adult life history stages and habitat in order to rebuild overfished shark stocks and to prevent overfishing on other shark stocks. Potential measures to increase protection of sensitive life history stages include minimum sizes for retention, enhanced conservation of EFH, and time/area closures of nursery areas. As these stages appear to be critical to rebuilding and sustaining U.S. shark populations, some of which may migrate into international waters, domestic management is a fundamental element for successful international shark management.

Protect Vulnerable Species

Certain shark species are known to be more vulnerable to exploitation than others based due to exceptionally low productivity, restricted ranges, susceptibility to certain fishing gears, international fishing effort, or other relevant factors (Smith et al., 1998). Currently, three shark species are included on the Candidate Species list under ESA because available information indicates that full protection under ESA may be warranted. Additionally, the American Fisheries Society and American Elasmobranch Society have developed policy statements encouraging managers to be particularly sensitive to the vulnerability of less productive species. The American Fisheries Society recently developed (November 2000) a list of marine fish stocks at risk of extinction which included whale, sand tiger, basking, white, dusky, and night sharks, smalltooth and largetooth sawfish, and thorny, big, and barndoor skates. NMFS urges all management entities to consider additional, separate measures to protect species particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Potential measures to increase protection of vulnerable species may include prohibiting possession of that species (e.g., white sharks in California, numerous species in Atlantic Federal waters), time/area closures or marine reserves to protect important habitats or EFH, gear modifications, and precautionary limits on harvest levels.

Minimize Waste

The Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-557) as amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act bans the practice of shark finning (i.e., removing only the fins of a shark and discarding the remainder of the carcass) in Federal fisheries for all species of sharks. Furthermore, the Shark Finning Act specifies a rebuttable presumption that any shark fins landed from a fishing vessel or found on board a fishing vessel were taken, held, or landed in violation of the ban on shark finning if the total weight of shark fins landed or found on board exceeds 5 percent of the total weight of shark carcasses landed or found on board. NMFS is committed to minimizing waste, discards, and unutilized incidental catches in shark fisheries, consistent with the Shark Finning Act and the IPOA. As such, NMFS encourages all non-Federal management entities to develop and implement a consistent or complementary ban on shark finning in fisheries under their jurisdiction. NMFS acknowledges a ban on finning may have considerable economic, cultural, and regional implications, and that different fisheries may warrant different approaches. Nevertheless, NMFS urges all non-Federal management entities to be proactive and precautionary in addressing the conservation and waste aspects of the practice of finning.

Prioritize Limited Resources

NMFS recognizes that funding considerations may limit the resources available to monitor and manage effectively all fisheries (commercial and recreational, directed and incidental) in which sharks are caught. However, the appropriate management entity should determine whether a particular species is overfished, which fisheries should be regulated in regard to shark catches, and make a good faith effort to collect species-specific data in each fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently requires NMFS, working in partnership with the Councils, to determine the status of stocks and develop rebuilding plans to rebuild overfished species under Federal management. While the ultimate goal is to account fully for all mortality of sharks caught in U.S. fisheries, NMFS recognizes that this may be unrealistic at this time. The appropriate management entity should determine which shark species have higher conservation needs and act appropriately. This approach is consistent with the third aim of paragraph 22 of the IPOA. In cases where the shark species migrate over political boundaries, NMFS will continue to work with the appropriate management entities to implement consistent regulations over the species entire geographic range.

2.3 A Comparison between the IPOA and the United States NPOA

This NPOA builds on the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its ten National Standards, which in many cases prescribe stronger measures than those recommended in the IPOA. Table 2.1 compares the goals of the IPOA with the relevant National Standards and highlights some of the steps NMFS has taken or will take to implement these goals.

Table 2.1 A comparison of the goals listed in the IPOA and implementation in the U.S. NPOA through the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ongoing domestic activity.

Thus, both the IPOA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act require NMFS and the Councils to undertake extensive data collection, analysis, and management measures in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. shark fisheries. The Commissions and State agencies, though not directly under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, may participate through the Council process in management of Federal fisheries and, therefore, may already be in partial or full compliance with this NPOA. However, the Commissions and State agencies may need to initiate or expand current data collection, analysis, and management authority for directed shark fisheries or fisheries with regular incidental catches of sharks that are conducted exclusively within state waters. NMFS will work cooperatively with the Councils, Commissions, and States in meeting these objectives.

CHAPTER 3

SYNOPSIS OF FISHERIES AND MANAGEMENT

3.0 General Overview

The United States is the world's fourth largest marine fisheries producer in terms of commercial landings of all species with 4.4 percent, by volume (NMFS, 2000). U.S. commercial marine fishing activities take place within FAO statistical areas 21 (Northwest Atlantic), 31 (Western Central Atlantic), 67 (Northeast Pacific), 77 (Eastern Central Pacific), 71 (Western Central Pacific), 81 (Southwest Pacific), and 87 (Southeast Pacific). In 1999, commercial landings of all marine species totaled approximately 9.3 billion pounds, or 4.2 million metric tons (mt), valued at approximately $3.5 billion in 1999 - an increase of 145.1 million pounds (2 percent) and $338.6 million (11 percent) compared with 1998 (NMFS, 2000). In 1999, recreational harvest of all marine species totaled 135.7 million fish weighing 198.7 million pounds, an increase of approximately 200 thousand fish and 4 million pounds from 1998 harvest levels (NMFS, 2000). The United States imported $17 billion in edible and nonedible fishery products in 1999, and exported products were valued at $10 billion in 1999 (NMFS, 2000).

Elasmobranch fisheries have become increasingly important in the United States, but are still a small share of the total volume and value of U.S. fish production (Tables 3.1 and 3.2). In 1999, total commercial landings of all elasmobranchs were 37.5 thousand mt and were valued at $16.2 million, or less than one percent of total marine fish commercial landings and value (Table 3.1; NMFS, 2000). Recreational landings of elasmobranchs totaled 351 thousand fish weighing approximately 1,410 mt, or about one percent of total marine fish recreational harvest in 1999 (Table 3.2; NMFS, 2000). Even though elasmobranchs are a small share of the total U.S. fisheries, some highly specialized fishermen primarily target these species.

Table 3.1 Recent U.S. commercial landings and value of all fish species and all shark species. Source: NMFS, 2000.

Table 3.2 Recent U.S. recreational harvest of all shark species and all fish species. Harvest includes fish that were landed and fish that were released dead. Source: NMFS, 2000.

The main elasmobranch fisheries in the United States have traditionally been centered on sharks, although skates and rays have also been fished. The first reported directed fisheries for elasmobranchs in the United States were for the tope or soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in California and for large sharks off Salerno in Florida (Ripley, 1946; NMFS, 1999a). Shark populations have generally proven to be unresilient when subjected to unregulated directed fisheries (Pratt and Casey, 1990). The "boom and bust" pattern of historical fisheries has been attributed to the specialized life-history strategy of sharks, making them particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation (Compagno, 1990; Bonfil, 1994).

Fisheries that catch elasmobranch species in the United States can be divided into four general categories: directed commercial, incidental/bycatch commercial, directed recreational, and incidental/bycatch recreational. Directed fisheries are those that target sharks, skates and rays, whereas incidental fisheries catch sharks secondarily while fishing for other species. In virtually every fishery (e.g., gillnet, longline, trawl, purse seine, pot, handgear), there are varying levels of incidental catches and/or bycatch of sharks. Some of these fisheries both land and discard incidentally caught sharks, depending on market value.

The rest of this chapter will briefly summarize available information on U.S. shark fisheries, including stock assessment results, data on catches, landings and discards, management measures, and research needs. For additional information on specific fisheries, please refer to the contact information in Appendix 3.

3.1 Commercial Skate and Ray Fisheries

3.1.1 Atlantic Fisheries

There are seven species of Raja occurring along the North Atlantic coast of the United States that are captured regularly in fisheries: little skate (Raja erinacea), winter skate (R. ocellata), barndoor skate (R. laevis), thorny skate (R. radiata), clearnose skate (R. eglanteria), rosette skate (R. garmani), and smooth skate (R. senta) (NEFSC, 2000a). The center of distribution for the little and winter skates is Georges Bank and Southern New England. The thorny, barndoor, and smooth skates are commonly found in the Gulf of Maine. The clearnose and rosette skates are located primarily in Southern New England and the Chesapeake Bight. Skates are known to undertake large-scale migrations, moving seasonally in response to changes in water temperature.

Skates can be caught commercially with trawl, gillnet, longline, handline, and dredge fishing gear. However, the principal commercial fishing method in the Atlantic used to catch skates and rays is otter trawling. Skate landings in the Atlantic peaked in 1969 at 9,500 mt, but declined quickly during the 1970s to 500 mt in 1981. Landings have since increased substantially, partially in response to increased demand for lobster bait, and more significantly, to the increased export market for skate wings taken from winter and thorny skates, the two species currently known to be used for human consumption. Bait landings appear to be primarily from little skate, based on areas fished and known species distribution patterns. Landings in the Atlantic increased to 12,900 mt in 1993 and then declined somewhat to 7,200 mt in 1995; however, the 1996 total was 14,200 mt, the highest on record (NEFSC, 2000a).

The Northeast Region Skate complex was assessed by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) of the 30^th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop in December, 1999. Terms of reference for the SARC were to: 1) summarize available biological studies (age and growth, maturity, etc.); 2) update commercial and recreational landings and survey indices through 1998/99; 3) summarize, to the extent practicable, fishery discard rates through the use of sea sampling data or other information sources; 4) estimate fishing mortality rates and trends in relative or absolute stock size, and consider appropriate reference points for stock size and fishing mortality rate consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and 5) provide an assessment of the status of species in the complex relative to overfishing criteria, and evaluate the status of the barndoor skate resource relative to listing factors considered in the ESA.

The results of the assessment of the Northeast Region Skate complex and the individual species in the complex were presented in the 30^th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop Advisory Report on Stock Status (NEFSC, 2000a and b). Taken as a group, the biomass for the seven skate species (barndoor, winter, thorny, little, clearnose, rosette, smooth) is at a medium level of abundance. For the aggregate complex, the NEFSC spring survey index of biomass was relatively constant from 1968 to 1980, then increased significantly to peak levels in the mid to late 1980s. The index of skate complex biomass then declined steadily until 1994, but has recently increased again. The large increase in skate biomass in the mid to late 1980s was dominated by winter and little skate. The biomass of large sized skates (>100 cm maximum length; i.e., barndoor, winter, and thorny) has steadily declined since the mid-1980s. The recent increase in aggregate skate biomass has been due to an increase in small sized skates (<100 cm maximum length; i.e., little, clearnose, rosette, and smooth), primarily little skate.

Fishing mortality rates could not be estimated nor could fishing mortality reference points be determined for the barndoor, thorny, smooth, clearnose, or rosette skate stocks due to a lack of data (Table 3.3). Currently, there are no Federal or state regulations governing the harvest of skates and rays in U.S. waters off the northeast Atlantic coast. However, the NEFMC was designated as the Council responsible for developing an FMP for the seven species of skates found in Federal waters off the coast of the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. The NEFMC has one year from March 14, 2000, to develop measures to address overfishing of four species of skates (barndoor, smooth, thorny, and winter skates), consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions (see 65 FR 15576, March 23, 2000).

Table 3.3 Summary status table for northeast skate species. Source: The 30^th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (30^th SAW) - Draft Advisory Report on Stock Status, page 12.

Research and Management Needs

The following research and management needs have been identified: (1) adapt the commercial fishery statistics sampling programs to report skate landings by species; (2) collect commercial fishery size composition data by species; (3) increase sea sampling of directed skate landings and skate bycatch, and improve the identification of the species composition of the skate catch; (4) conduct age and growth studies for all seven species in the complex; (5) conduct maturity and fecundity studies for all seven species in the complex (use of life history models requires these data, and may prove useful in establishing biological reference points for the skate species); (6) estimate commercial and recreational fishery discard mortality rates, for different fishing gears and coastal regions and/or bottom types, for all seven species in the complex; (7) conduct studies of the stock structure of the species in the skate complex to identify unit stocks, and stock identification studies, especially for barndoor, thorny, winter, and little skate; (8) explore possible stock-recruitment relationships by examination of NEFSC survey data (a simultaneous examination of the species in the complex may prove a useful first step); (9) investigate trophic interactions between skate species in the complex, and between skates and other groundfish; (10) further consider the validity of NEFSC trawl survey catchability conversion factors for skate species (diel, gear, and vessel); (11) investigate the influences of annual changes in water temperature or other environmental factors on shifts in the range and distribution of the species in the skate complex, and establish the bathymetric distribution of the species in the complex off the U.S. Northeast coast; (12) investigate the SEAMAP survey data for clearnose and rosette skate; (13) investigate historical NEFSC survey data from the Albatross III cruise during 1948-1962 when they become readily accessible, as they may provide valuable historical context or long-term trends in skate biomass; and (14) recalculate the error distributions of the survey indices using alternative distributions (NEFSC 2000a).

3.1.2 Pacific Fisheries

Off Alaska, the harvest of sharks and skates in U.S. waters is managed under the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Groundfish FMP as components of the "other species complex" category. The harvest of sculpins, octopus, sharks, and skates is managed collectively under a quota which is currently set at or slightly above the average catch levels from the previous few years. Similarly, under the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish FMP, sharks and skates are managed as part of an "other species" group (which includes those in the BSAI Groundfish FMP as well as squid). Under this FMP, the total allowable catch is set at 5 percent of the sum of all target species harvest limits.

Skates and sharks are caught in all GOA fisheries, and together represent the majority (50 -80 percent) of estimated "other species" catches between 1990-1998. The skate species group represents the highest proportion of other species catch weight for all years in the domestic fishery (43-65 percent) (Gaichas et al., 1999). While skates are caught in almost all fisheries in the Bering Sea shelf, most of the skate bycatch is in the hook and line fishery for Pacific cod, with trawl fisheries for pollock, rock sole, and yellowfin sole also catching significant amounts. A summary of GOA skate catches by gear for 1990-1998 shows that 39 percent of skates are caught by hook and line gear, 2 percent by pot gear, and 60 percent by trawl gear (NPFMC, 1999). In the hook and line and trawl fisheries, skates are occasionally retained as incidental catch and exvessel prices about $0.15 per pound (NPFMC, 1999). Catches of other species have been small compared to those of target species in the GOA and it appears unlikely that the observed 1990-1998 bycatch of other species has had a negative effect on biomass at the species group level, according to available data (Gaichas et al., 1999).

The State of Alaska has implemented regulations regarding the harvest of skates and rays. A permit must be issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to a fisherman prior to directed fishing for skates and rays. Further, the Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation prohibits fishermen from delivering less than whole species (i.e., wings intact) without a processors license (NPFMC, 1999).

Off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington, the Groundfish FMP of the PFMC lists three skates: big skate (Raja binoculata), California skate (R. inornata), and longnose skate (R. rhina ) (NPFMC, 1999). Other skates that occur in bottom trawl surveys are Bering skate (Bathyraja interrupta) and black skate (B. trachura). Most skates are landed as unspecified skate and there is no biological sampling to determine species composition of this catch. Landed catch of all skates off the west coast has increased dramatically from an annual average of 153 mt during 1984-1995 to a level of 1,780 mt during 1996-1999 (Table 3.4). It is not known if this increase is due to increased market acceptance, increased abundance, or increased targeting on one or more species of skates. During 1996-1998, a pilot observer program off the northern coast found that discarded catch of all skates was about 50 percent of the total catch. The nominal abundance of all skates in bottom trawl surveys has averaged 3,700 mt with an upward trend and peak abundance occurring in 1998 (Table 3.5) (Shaw et al., 2000). However, earlier trawl surveys using gear that may be more appropriate for skates produced biomass estimates near 30,000 mt.

Table 3.4 Total skate landings (mt) for California, Oregon, and Washington, 1991-2000, organized by species group. Source: PSMFC, PacFIN database, May 2000, (<<www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data>>).

Table 3.5 Abundance (mt) of skates in the NMFS bottom trawl survey conducted off the U.S. west coast from approximately Monterey Bay, California to the U.S.-Canada border in the depth zone 30-200 fathoms. Source: Shaw et al., 2000.

In July 1998, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game submitted a proposal to the NPFMC requesting Federal action to change the management of sharks, skates, and rays to complement the management measures in the territorial waters of Alaska initiated by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. At its October 1998 meeting, the NPFMC initiated analyses of proposed alternatives for plan amendments to the BSAI and GOA groundfish FMPs. In April 1999, the NPFMC released an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and initial regulatory flexibility analysis for Amendments 63/63 to the FMPs for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA to revise management of sharks and skates.

In December 1999, the NPFMC recommended that all "other species," including sharks and skates, be placed on bycatch status (no directed fishery) as part of its quota specification recommendations. NMFS determined, however, that the FMPs did not authorize that action. Final action on the proposed Plan Amendments 63/63 to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska FMPs to consider prohibiting directed fishing on sharks and skates and finning of sharks will be rescheduled for spring 2001.

Research and Management Needs

While an assessment of the status of skates off the west coast has been conducted, the information on distribution, stock structure, and life history characteristics remains extremely limited for "other species" in the GOA (Gaichas et al., 1999). This assessment relied on life history information from the same or similar species in other geographic areas because region and fishery-specific information is lacking. Further investigation is necessary to ensure that all components of other species are not adversely affected by groundfish fisheries.

3.2 Commercial Shark Fisheries

3.2.1 Atlantic Fisheries (Excluding Spiny Dogfish)

The main directed commercial fisheries that catch sharks in Federal waters along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts include the pelagic longline fishery, the bottom longline fishery, the drift gillnet fishery, and the shark handgear fishery (rod and reel, handline, bandit gear or electronic rod and reel). Other commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Federal waters that catch sharks as incidental catch or bycatch include swordfish handgear, tuna purse seine, tuna handgear, tuna harpoon, coastal gillnet, other net (cast, sink, trammel, pound), shrimp trawl, other trawl (bottom, midwater, otter), menhaden purse seine, other seine (common, haul, Scottish), and trap (floating, lobster, blue crab, conch). Authorized gears for directed and incidental fisheries for Atlantic sharks in Federal waters include longline, gillnet, rod and reel, handline, and bandit gear.

In order to manage sharks effectively in these fisheries, NMFS initially separated 39 shark species into three species groups in the first Secretarial FMP (NMFS, 1993). An additional 34 species (including spiny dogfish) were included in data collection programs but not included in the management unit. These species groups (large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic) were based on the fishery in which the sharks were caught and not on biological factors. In 1999, NMFS added two additional species groups (prohibited species and deepwater/other sharks). Also in 1999, NMFS implemented limited access for the Atlantic commercial shark fishery and has issued 287 directed permits to target sharks and 585 incidental permits to land shark caught during fishing operations for other species (K. Brewster-Geisz, NMFS, personal communication, 2000). Although the management unit is split into several species groups, any fisherman with a permit can land any species of shark (except prohibited species), within the appropriate retention limits. Fishermen without a permit are only authorized to land sharks under the recreational limit and cannot sell any sharks they land.

Large Coastal Sharks

The U.S. Atlantic commercial shark fishery for large coastal sharks is primarily a southern coastal fishery extending from North Carolina to Texas (NMFS, 1998). About 90 percent of recent U.S. Atlantic large coastal shark landings came from the southeastern region (NMFS, 1998). Although the majority of these sharks are taken by longline gear in the bottom longline fishery, they are also caught in the pelagic longline fishery, the drift gillnet fishery, and the shark handgear fishery. Commercial landings of large coastal sharks in all fisheries (including those in state waters) peaked in 1989 at 351,000 fish or approximately 4,600 mt dressed weight (dw) (NMFS, 1998). Pelagic longline dead discards from 1981 to 1998 fluctuated between 900 and 20,900 fish (NMFS, 1998; Cortes, 1999c). Commercial fishermen who target large coastal sharks usually land blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus) and sandbar sharks (C. plumbeus) (Table 3.6). The remainder of the catch is generally comprised of dusky (C. obscurus), bull (C. leucas), bignose (C. altimus), tiger (Galeocerdo cuvieri), sand tiger (Odontaspis taurus), lemon (Negaprion brevirostris), spinner (C. brevipinna), scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), and great hammerhead sharks (S. mokarran), with catch composition varying by region. These species are less marketable and often released so that they are reflected in the overall catches but not landings.

Large coastal sharks as a group are considered overfished. The most recent stock assessment for the species included in the large coastal sharks management unit was held in June 1998 (NMFS, 1998). The 1998 stock assessment estimated that the large coastal aggregate was between 30 and 36 percent of maximum sustainable yields (MSY) levels in 1998, and the 1997 catch was 218 to 233 percent of MSY (the ranges are defined by the mean values from two alternative catch scenarios). When analyses were disaggregated into sandbar and blacktip sharks, then the sandbar shark current stock size was estimated to be between 58 and 70 percent of MSY levels, and the 1997 catch was estimated to be 85 to 134 percent of MSY. For blacktip sharks, the current stock size was estimated to be between 44 and 50 percent of MSY levels, and the 1997 catch was estimated to be 163 to 184 percent of MSY. Thus, projections indicated that the large coastal aggregate complex and blacktip sharks might still require additional reductions in effective fishing mortality rate in order to ensure increases of this resource toward MSY. Projections for sandbar sharks were more optimistic, suggesting that current catches are closer to replacement levels.

Based on these and other results, the FMP for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks developed separate rebuilding schedules for species complexes based on sandbar sharks and blacktip sharks, and did not develop a rebuilding schedule for the large coastal shark aggregate. The rebuilding program for the sandbar shark complex established a 39-year rebuilding time frame, implemented a minimum size for both commercial and recreational fisheries, and reduced the recreational bag limit. The rebuilding program for the blacktip shark complex established a 30-year rebuilding time frame, reduced the commercial quota level, and reduced the bag limit and implemented a minimum size for recreational fisheries.

Current commercial regulations for large coastal sharks include limited access permitting and reporting requirements, quotas for ridgeback and non-ridgeback subgroups, a trip limit of 4,000 pounds dw for directed permits, a trip limit of 5 large coastal sharks for incidental permits, a ban on finning, a minimum size for the ridgeback subgroup of 4.5 feet fork length, prohibited species, and authorized gears. Certain commercial measures for large coastal sharks are not in force pending a litigation settlement agreement.

Table 3.6 Estimated large coastal shark commercial landings (pounds dw) in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico by species. Source: Cortes, 1999c and 2000.