HomeMy WebLinkAboutFish & Game Notice 03.19.14 - Northeastern Pacific white sharkCommissioners
Michael Sutton, President
Monterey
Jack Baylis, Vice President
Los Angeles
Jim Kellogg, Member
Discovery Bay
Richard Rogers, Member
Santa Barbara
Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Member
McKinleyville
August 19, 2014
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
11 It
�pMc coM
yb�y�lVJ'O Y<
TO ALL AFFECTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES:
Sonke Mastmp, Executive Director
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-4899
(916) 653-5040 Fax
v Jgc.ca.gov
AUG 2 5 20%
This is to provide you with a Notice of Findings regarding the Northeastern Pacific white
shark which will be published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on August 22,
2014.
Sincerely,
heri Tiemann
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
J
&&U4
H
PROPOSED FINDINGS
White Shark
(Carcharodon carcharias)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission), at its
June 4, 2014 meeting in Fortuna, California, made a finding pursuant to Fish and Game
Code section 2075.5, that the petitioned action to add the Northeastern Pacific (NEP)
white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) to the list of threatened or endangered species
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.)
is not warranted. (See also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1).)
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that, at its August 6, 2014 meeting in San Diego, California,
the Commission adopted the following findings outlining the reasons for its rejection of
the petition.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petition History
Oceana, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Shark Stewards (collectively,
Petitioners) submitted a petition (Petition) to the Commission on August 20, 2012 to list
the NEP population of white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as a threatened or
endangered species pursuant to CESA. (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2012, No. 37-Z,
p. 1376) The Commission received the Petition on August 20, 2012. The Commission
referred it for evaluation to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department)
on August 27, 2012 pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2073.
The Department evaluated the Petition, using the information in that document and
other relevant information available at that time, and found that the scientific information
presented in the Petition was sufficient to indicate that the petitioned action may be
warranted. On January 7, 2013, the Department submitted to the Commission its
Evaluation of the Petition from Oceana, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and Shark
Stewards to List Northeast Pacific White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as
Threatened or Endangered (Petition Evaluation). The Department recommended that
the Commission accept the Petition pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2073.5.
On February 6, 2013, at its meeting in Sacramento, California, the Commission
received public comment and determined that there was sufficient information in the
Petition to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, accepted for
White Shark Page 1
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
consideration the Petition, and designated the white shark as a candidate species under
CESA. (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2013, No. 9-Z, p. 373.)
The Department promptly notified affected parties by issuing a press release, posting
notice on the Department's website, and sending targeted letters to stakeholder groups
including affected commercial fishing interests and scientific researchers holding
scientific collecting permits for white shark. (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.4.)
Consistent with Fish and Game Code section 2074.6 and its implementing regulations,
the Department commenced a twelve-month status review of the white shark following
published notice of its designation as a candidate species under CESA. As an integral
part of that effort, the Department solicited data, comments, and other information from
interested members of the public and the scientific and academic communities. The
Department and the Commission received 35,502 pieces of correspondence during the
public notice period ending February 1, 2014. The majority of comments were from
members of the public without stated affiliation. In January 2013, two shark experts
opposed to the listing submitted peer reviewed publications and expert scientific
comment. In May of 2013 the Petitioners submitted four peer reviewed scientific
publications. On December 18, 2013, Oceana and CBD submitted supplemental
information, in the form of a non -peer reviewed critical assessment of the analysis of the
NEP white shark population size and risk of extinction prepared by the Biological
Review Team (BRT) of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
On January 6, 2014, the Department submitted a preliminary draft of its status review
for independent scientific peer review by a number of individuals acknowledged to be
experts on white shark, possessing the knowledge and expertise to critique the scientific
validity of the report. (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd.
(f)(2).) On April 3, 2014, the Department submitted its final Status Review of White
Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in California to the Commission (Status Review).
Based on its Status Review and the best available science, the Department
recommended to the Commission that designating white shark as a threatened or
endangered species under CESA is not warranted (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6; Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f).). Following receipt, the Commission made the
Department's Status Review available to the public, inviting further review and input.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (g).)
On June 4, 2014, at its meeting in Fortuna, California, the Commission received public
comment, accepted additional information from Petitioners and the public, and
considered final action regarding the Petition to designate white shark as a threatened
or endangered species under CESA. (Fish & G. Code, § 2075.5; Cal. Code Regs., tit.
14, § 670.1, subd. (i).) After receiving public comment, the Commission closed the
administrative record of proceedings for the Petition. (Fish & G. Code, § 2075.5, subd.
White Shark Page 2
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
(a).) The Commission considered the petition, further information submitted by
Petitioners, public comment, the Department's 2012 Petition Evaluation, the
Department's 2014 Status Review, and other information included in the Commission's
administrative record of proceedings. Following public comment and deliberation, the
Commission determined, based on the best available science, that designating white
shark as a threatened or endangered species under CESA is not warranted. (Fish & G.
Code, § 2075.5, subd. (e)(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(2).) The
Commission directed its staff, in coordination with the Department, to prepare findings
of fact consistent with the Commission's determination and to present those findings for
consideration and ratification at the Commission's August, 6, 2014 meeting in San
Diego, California.
Species Description
The white shark is a large migratory apex predator that is globally distributed throughout
the world's oceans, most commonly found in temperate waters between 54 and 68°F.
While it is believed to be a mostly solitary animal, individuals congregate in specific
areas off most continents. White sharks range in size from 3.9 to 5.9 feet total length
(measured from the nose to the tip of the upper lobe of the tail [TL]) at birth to greater
than 20 feet TL for females and 18 feet TL for males (e.g., Cailliet et al. 1985; Ebert
2003; Castro 2012). New aging techniques estimate that white sharks live longer than
previously thought, possibly to 70 or more years.
White sharks are oophagous (developing embryos feed on eggs within the mother's
uterus) and litters of 2 to 14 pups have been documented. Females are believed to give
birth in or near the Southern California Bight (SCB) and northern Mexico in late spring
and summer. Similar to other large apex predators, white sharks mature relatively late,
have naturally low abundance, low fecundity, and relatively long life spans. Relatively
few offspring are likely to reach maturity, as apex predator populations usually support
fewer individuals than species lower on the food chain. This makes white shark
populations potentially vulnerable to overexploitation.
Juvenile white sharks feed on fish and invertebrates (e.g., Klimley 1985). As they grow
in size and become sub -adults they begin to forage on marine mammals. Little is
known about the period of transition from juvenile to adult including the age at which
these transitions occur, where they go during this time, and when they begin to make
inshore/offshore migrations or utilize adult aggregation sites (e.g., Domeier 2012a).
Some researchers (e.g., Klimley 1985; Domeier 2012) speculate that at approximately
three years of age sub -adults begin to range farther from the nursery grounds into
colder waters. In this stage they may range widely from Oregon (or farther north) to
southern Mexico and the Gulf of California. These theories are supported by the limited
information available on this life stage; however, validation through mark -recapture and
White Shark Page 3
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
other studies is needed to have more conclusive information on movement patterns for
sub -adults.
The NEP population of white sharks found in California waters is a demographically -
isolated population that shows significant genetic divergence from other global
populations in Australia and South Africa (e.g., Jorgensen et al. 2010; Gubili et al.
2012). The known range of the NEP population of white shark extends from Mazatlan,
Mexico and the Gulf of California north to the Bering Sea; and from the west coast of
North America to the Hawaiian Islands. White sharks inhabit both inshore and offshore
areas, from the continental shelf to the Shared Offshore Focal Area (SOFA) between
California and Hawaii. The SOFA is a vast area of deep open water habitat that is
shared by white sharks from both central California and Guadalupe Island during the
offshore phase of their migration.
Federal Status
In June 2012, WildEarth Guardians submitted a petition to NMFS requesting that the
NEP population of white shark be listed as endangered or threatened under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In August 2012, Petitioners submitted a similar petition
to NMFS. In September 2012, NMFS published a 90 -day finding (77 Fed. Reg. 59582
(2012)) announcing that both petitions presented substantial scientific information
indicating that the NEP population of white shark may warrant listing under ESA and
that NMFS would conduct an ESA status review. To aid in this review, NMFS formed a
Biological Review Team (BRT), consisting of scientists from the Southwest Fisheries
Science Center. The BRT prepared its Status Review of the Northeastern Pacific
Population of White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) under the Endangered Species
Act. On June 28, 2013, based on the BRT's peer-reviewed analysis, NMFS issued its
12 -Month Finding on Petitions to List the Northeastern Pacific Ocean Distinct Population
Segment of White Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species
Act, in which NMFS found that the NEP population of white shark was a distinct
population segment but was not in danger of extinction under ESA criteria nor was it
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. (78 Fed. Reg. 40104 (2013).)
Although not a listed or candidate species under ESA, white shark is protected under
several federal laws, regulations, and management efforts.
Federal law prohibits trade in all white shark products, as the U.S. recognizes the
Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species (CITES) treaty.
This is supported by the Lacey Act, which makes it unlawful to import, export,
sell, acquire or purchase any fish, animal or plant protected by state or
international law, including CITES.
White Shark Page 4
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
o Take of white shark is prohibited under the West Coast Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The scope of this prohibition covers all
United States vessels that fish for HMS species using authorized gear within the
United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; 370 kilometer, 200 nautical miles)
as well as the west coast state territorial waters of California, Oregon, and
Washington. Additionally this applies to those vessels fishing the high seas and
landing in the States of California, Oregon, and Washington. The large mesh
drift gill net fishery targeting swordfish and thresher shark is a federally managed
fishery under the HMS FMP. Originally managed by the State of California, this
fishery came under federal jurisdiction with the adoption of the HMS FMP, and
California's protective measures for white shark were incorporated into the
federal regulations.
The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) and the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), have prohibitions on
attracting white sharks. Additionally, the GFNMS also prohibits vessels from
approaching within 50 meter (164 feet) of white sharks within 3.7 kilometer (2
nautical miles) of the islands. These prohibitions were put in place to manage
adventure tourism, filming, and research activities associated with white sharks
that have potential to cause disturbance to natural behavior. The GFNMS issues
permits to allow some activities related to education and research that allow
exceptions to prohibitions on a case-by-case basis.
o The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 amended the Magnuson -Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and prohibits shark finning
within the jurisdiction of the United States. This Act also prohibits the custody,
control, or possession of shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the carcass or
landing of shark fins without the carcass.
o The Shark Fin Conservation Act of 2010 strengthens the prohibitions on shark
finning under the MSA and under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act (HSDFMPA). The prohibitions on shark finning under MSA and
the HSDFMPA provide some additional protections for white shark.
II. STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
These proposed findings are prepared as part of the Commission's final action under
CESA regarding the Petition to designate white shark as a threatened or endangered
species under CESA. As set forth above, the Commission's determination that listing
white shark is not warranted marks the end of formal administrative proceedings under
CESA. (See generally Fish & G. Code, § 2070 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
670.1.) The Commission, as established by the California Constitution, has exclusive
statutory authority under California law to designate endangered, threatened, and
White Shark Page 5
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
candidate species under CESA. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 20, subd. (b); Fish & G. Code, §
2070.)
The CESA listing process for white shark began in the present case with Petitioners'
submittal of their Petition to the Commission in August 2012 (Cal. Reg. Notice Register
2012, No. 37-Z, p. 1376.). The regulatory process that ensued is described above in
some detail, along with related references to the Fish and Game Code and controlling
regulation. The CESA listing process generally is also described in some detail in
published appellate case law in Cal ifomia; including:
• Mountain Lion Foundation v. California Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16
CalAth 105, 114-116;
• California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission (2007)
156 Cal.AppAth 1535, 1541-1542;
• Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission (2008)
166 Cal.AppAth 597, 600; and
• Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish and Game Commission
(1994) 28 Cal.AppAth 1104, 1111-1116.
The "is not warranted" determination at issue here for white shark stems from
Commission obligations established by Fish and Game Code section 2075.5(e). Under
this provision, the Commission is required to make one of two findings for a candidate
species at the end of the CESA listing process: whether the petitioned action is
warranted or is not warranted. Here with respect to white shark, the Commission made
the finding under Section 2075.5(e) that the petitioned action is not warranted.
The Commission was guided in making this determination by various statutory
provisions and other controlling law. The Fish and Game Code, for example, defines an
endangered species under CESA as a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal,
fish, amphibian, reptile or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct
throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including
loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease
(Fish & G. Code, § 2062.). Similarly, the Fish and Game Code defines a threatened
species under CESA as a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish,
amphibian, reptile or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is
likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the
special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. (Id., § 2067.)
As established by published appellate case law in California, the term "range" for
purposes of CESA means the range of the species within California (California Forestry
Association v. California Fish and Game Commission, supra, 156 Cal. AppAth at p.
1540, 1549-1551.).
White Shark Page 6
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
The Commission was also guided in making its determination regarding white shark by
Title 14, section 670.1, subdivision (i)(1)(A), of the California Code of Regulations. This
provision provides, in pertinent part, that a species shall be listed as endangered or
threatened under CESA if the Commission determines that the continued existence of
the species is in serious danger or is threatened by any one or any combination of the
following factors:
1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;
2. Overexploitation;
3. Predation;
4. Competition;
5. Disease; or
6. Other natural occurrences or human -related activities.
Fish and Game Code section 2070 provides similar guidance. This section provides
that the Commission shall add or remove species from the list of endangered and
threatened species under CESA only upon receipt of sufficient scientific information that
the action is warranted. Similarly, CESA provides that all state agencies, boards, and
commissions shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall
utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2055.).
This policy direction does not compel a particular determination by the Commission in
the CESA listing context. Yet, the Commission made its determination regarding white
shark mindful of this policy direction, acknowledging that "'[I]aws providing for the
conservation of natural resources' such as the CESA `are of great remedial and public
importance and thus should be construed liberally" (California Forestry Association V.
California Fish and Game Commission, supra, 156 Cal. AppAth at pp. 1545-1546, citing
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. City of Moreno Valley (1996) 44 Cal.AppAth
593, 601; Fish & G. Code, §§ 2051, 2052.).
Finally in considering these factors, CESA and controlling regulations require the
Commission to actively seek and consider related input from the public and any
interested party (See, e.g., Id., §§ 2071, 2074.4, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1,
subd. (h).). The related notice obligations and public hearing opportunities before the
Commission are also considerable (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2073.3, 2074, 2074.2, 2075,
2075.5, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subds. (c), (e), (g), (i); see also Gov.
Code, § 11120 et seq.). All of these obligations are in addition to the requirements
prescribed for the Department in the CESA listing process, including an initial evaluation
of the petition and a related recommendation regarding candidacy, and a 12 -month
status review of the candidate species culminating with a report and recommendation to
the Commission as to whether listing is warranted based on the best available science
(Fish & G. Code, §§ 2073.4, 2073.5, 2074.4, 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1,
subds. (d), (f), (h).).
White Shark Page 7
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
III. FACTUAL AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
The factual and scientific bases for the Commission's finding that designating white
shark as a threatened or endangered species under CESA is not warranted are set forth
in detail in the Commission's administrative record of proceedings. The evidence in the
administrative record in support of the Commission's determination includes, but is not
limited to, the Department's 2013 Petition Evaluation and 2014 Status Review, and
other information specifically presented to the Commission and otherwise included in
the Commission's administrative record as it exists up to and including the Commission
meeting in Fortuna, California on June 4, 2014. The administrative record also includes
these findings.
The Commission finds the substantial evidence highlighted in the preceding paragraph,
along with other evidence in the administrative record, supports the Commission's
determination that the continued existence of white shark in the State of California is not
in serious danger of becoming extinct or threatened by on or a combination of the
following factors:
1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;
2. Overexploitation;
3. Predation;
4. Competition;
5. Disease; or
6. Other natural occurrences or human -related activities.
The Commission also finds that the same evidence constitutes sufficient scientific
information to establish that designating white shark as a threatened or endangered
species under CESA is not warranted. The Commission finds in this respect that white
shark is not in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion,
of its range in California. Similarly, the Commission finds that white shark is not
presently threatened and it is unlikely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts
required by CESA.
The following Commission findings highlight in more detail some of the scientific and
factual information and other evidence in the administrative record of proceedings that
support the Commission's determination that designating white shark as a threatened or
endangered species under CESA is not warranted:
1. The first attempt to estimate the NEP white shark population consisted of two
independent Photo -ID studies in Central CA and Mexico. The Petitioners
combined these results into a non -peer reviewed estimate of 339 adults and sub -
White Shark Page 8
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
adults in the NEP. Although a population of apex predators is expected to be
relatively small, the Department concluded that this estimate likely
underestimates the population. The Department found the limited geographic
range of these studies and the short time span of the central California study
problematic in particular, in addition to other factors. This conclusion is
supported by several scientific publications, including a peer reviewed
assessment of the population conducted by National Marine Fisheries Service
scientists that estimates 3,000 total individuals of all life stages (e.g., Domeier
2012b; Dewar et al. 2013). This estimate utilized augmented datasets from both
photo -ID studies and accounted for biases found in the original studies.
2. Historically, the largest threat to white sharks—primarily young -of -the -year (YOY)
and juveniles—in the NEP has been incidental take in set gill net fisheries.
Commercial fishing records indicate a peak in white shark interactions in the mid-
1980s. Since this peak, protections for white shark have progressively
increased, and commercial gill net effort off California has dropped to a fraction
of its historic size and the geographic area open to fishing has been dramatically
reduced by state and federal regulations (Cal. Fish & G. Code, §§ 5517, 8575,
8575.5, 8599, 8610.3, 8664.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 28.06, 104.1).
3. Interactions with commercial set gill net gear in California have started to
increase over the past ten years even as fishing effort has continued to decline.
Current research suggests this trend could signal an increase in the population of
young white sharks in the SCB (e.g., Lowe et al. 2012; Lyons et al. 2013).
4. Prior to 2010 there were essentially no observed white shark attacks on
California sea lions by marine mammal researchers in the northern Channel
Islands. In 2011, approximately 136 bite marks were recorded and over 300
were recorded in 2012 (e.g., Dewar et al. 2013). Similarly, over the past five
years, researchers have documented a dramatic increase in the number of
California southern sea otter mortalities linked to white shark bites in Monterey
Bay, north of Santa Cruz, and in San Luis Obispo County (e.g., M. Harris,
CDFW-OSPR pers. comm.). While it is not definitive that these increases are
due to an increase in the NEP white shark population, there have not been
notable decreases in attacks in other locations (e.g., Dewar et al. 2013).
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer there may be more sharks foraging on marine
mammals and sharks moving to different forage areas.
5. Recent research in the SCB has found that young white sharks can carry a
significantly high level of persistent toxins such as PCBs, DDT, and mercury in
their tissues (e.g., Mull et al. 2012; Mull et al. 2013). Despite these high levels of
contaminants, young white sharks do not seem to show any deleterious effects
and there is no evidence that these toxic loads affect their ability to survive.
6. Recent models of climate change suggest a potential increase in the availability
of suitable habitat for adult white shark (e.g., Hazen et al. 2012). An increase in
water temperature could expand the white sharks range into areas that are
White Shark Page 9
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
currently too cold for the species to utilize, but this remains speculative and
limited across the population's life stages.
7. In addition to large size, even at birth, utilization of shallow nearshore habitat
during the first three years of life likely provides some level of protection for YOY
and juveniles from large predators (e.g., Pyle et al. 1999), and it is unlikely that
predation is a significant threat to the population.
8. White sharks are larger, in all life stages, than most of the predators in which
they share habitat, reducing the risk from competition with other species. In
addition, their ability to feed on a range of prey make it unlikely the population
would be susceptible to catastrophic decline from the absence of a specific prey
species (e.g., Klimley 1985; Carlisle et al. 2012; Domeier 2012a; Dewar et al.
2013; Kim et al. 2012).
IV. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS INFORMING THE COMMISSION'S FINAL
DETERMINATION
The Commission's determination that designating white shark as a threatened or
endangered species under CESA is not warranted; it is informed by various additional
considerations. In general, the Fish and Game Code contemplates a roughly twelve-
month long CESA listing process before the Commission, including multiple
opportunities for public and Department review and input and peer review (See
generally Fish & G. Code, § 2070 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1.). From the
initial receipt of the Petition in August 2012 through the Commission's decision on
June 4, 2014 that listing is not warranted, the Department and the Commission received
numerous comments and other significant public input regarding the status of white
shark from a biological and scientific standpoint and with respect to the petitioned action
under CESA. The Commission, as highlighted below, was informed by and considered
all of these issues, among others, in making its final determination that designating
white shark as a threatened or endangered species under CESA is not warranted (Fish
& G. Code, § 2075.5, subd. (e)(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(2).).
V. SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN POPULATION OF WHITE SHARK
CESA defines an endangered species as one "which is in serious danger of becoming
extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes,
including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or
disease' (Fish & G. Code, § 2062.). CESA defines a threatened species as one "that,
although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered
White Shark Page 10
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management
efforts required by [CESA]" (Id., § 2067).
Pursuant to CESA's implementing regulations, a "species shall be listed as endangered
or threatened ... if the Commission determines that its continued existence is in serious
danger or is threatened by anyone or any combination of the following factors: (1)
present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat; (2) overexploitation; (3)
predation; (4) competition; (5) disease; or (6) other natural occurrences or human -
related activities" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1)(A).).
Present or threatened Modification or Destruction of Habitat
White sharks, like other apex predators, can accumulate contaminants over their
lifespan. However, high tissue levels of elemental and organic contaminants
have not been found to cause deleterious effects in NEP white sharks.
Environmental monitoring data have shown that contaminant inputs have greatly
been reduced off California through federal, state, and local regulatory efforts,
reducing risks from habitat degradation (e.g., Mull et al. 2012; Mull et al. 2013).
Similar to other large marine species, white sharks may be susceptible to
ingestion and entanglement by marine debris, but risks to the population appear
to be low. There have been no documented entanglements involving white
sharks in the NEP (e.g., Taylor 2010). Additionally, lamnid sharks have the
capability of evacuating their stomachs, which may reduce ingestion risks (e.g.,
Kerstetter et al. 2004; Brunnschweiler et al. 2011).
Recent models of climate change suggest a potential increase in the availability
of suitable habitat for adult white shark, but this remains speculative and limited
across the population's life stages (e.g., Hazen et al. 2012). White sharks are
highly migratory and range across large expanses of the NEP, and there is
evidence indicating that white sharks are able to deal with wide variations in
temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration (e.g., Boustany et al. 2002;
Nasby-Lucas et al. 2009; Siebel 2011; Nasby-Lucas et al. 2012). At this time
there is not sufficient scientific information to assess the specific potential or
actual impacts of ocean warming, acidification or de -oxygenation on the
population of white sharks inhabiting the NEP.
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by present or threatened modification or destruction of habitat.
Overexploitation
o White sharks in the NEP are widely protected on the west coast through state,
federal, and international efforts directly through take prohibitions for this species,
as well as through regulation of fisheries and sharks generally that provide
White Shark Page 11
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
protections indirectly ( Cal. Fish & G. Code, §§ 5517, 8575, 8575.5, 8599,
8610.3, 8664.8; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 28.06, 104.1).
o White sharks have been a protected species under California law since 1994
(Cal. Fish & G. Code, §§ 5517, 8599).
o Interactions are also known to occur in Mexican commercial gill net fisheries.
However, prohibitions on take of white shark have become progressively
stringent, reducing risk, although limited resources for monitoring and
enforcement exist (e.g., DOF 2002, 2007, 2014; Barreira 2007).
o Nearshore set gill net fisheries account for over 80 percent of documented
interactions with white shark off California (e.g., Lowe et al. 2012). Catch records
of incidental white shark take by gill net gear off California declined steadily from
1990 until 2005, indicating gill net area closures implemented during the 1990s
were effective in reducing incidental take of juvenile white shark in the nearshore
waters of the SCB (e.g., Lowe et al. 2012; CDFW 2014).
o The recent increase in interactions with gill net gear is likely due to an increase in
the population of YOY and juvenile white sharks in the SCB (e.g., Lowe et al.
2012; Lyons et al. 2013).
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by overexploitation.
Predation
o White sharks are apex predators and generally considered to be at the top of the
food chain during most life history stages. However, available interaction data
show some white shark predation by orcas and larger sharks (e.g., Pyle et al.
1999). In addition to large size, even at birth, utilization of shallow nearshore
habitat during the first three years of life likely provides some level of protection
for YOY and juveniles from large predators.
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by predation.
Competition
o Competition for prey (mainly fish for juveniles and pinnipeds for adults) between
white sharks and other species in their habitat is not well understood. There may
be competition from other large predator species (e.g., Dewar et al. 2013), but
there is no indication this poses a significant population risk. White sharks are
generalist feeders and are considered resilient to changes in prey abundance
and distribution. Populations of their prey species are healthy and likely to
support predator populations.
White Shark Page 12
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by competition.
Disease
o All species of sharks may develop disease; and tumors have recently been
documented in single white shark in Australia (e.g., Robbins et al. 2013).
However, like other shark species, white sharks have a generalized immune
system and other adaptations that make disease rare (e.g., Compagno 2001;
Ebert 2003).
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by disease.
Other Natural Occurrences or Human -Related Activities
o Strikes by commercial shipping vessels are a potential risk for white sharks. The
frequency and severity of ship strikes are not well known, even for marine
mammals, due to failures to report collisions, delayed death post impact, inability
to locate carcasses after an impact, and the difficulty of determining the actual
cause of death. There is little documentation on the frequency and effects of
ship strikes on white sharks. However, the risk of ship strikes to white sharks in
the NEP may be reduced by the recent relocation of shipping lanes adjacent to
the Gulf of the Farallones, Channel Islands, and Cordell Banks National Marine
Sanctuaries adopted by the International Maritime Organization (e.g., Drake
2013; NOAA 2012). While the full risk of ship strikes are still unknown they do
not appear to pose a significant risk to the population at this time.
o Based on the best scientific information available, the Commission finds that the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger
or threatened by other natural occurrences or human -related activities.
Summary of Key Findings
Based on the criteria described above, the best scientific information available to the
Commission indicates that white shark is not currently in serious danger of becoming
extinct in California within the next few decades, nor in the foreseeable future in the
absence of special protection and management under CESA.
The current size of the NEP population is uncertain. While there are no historic
estimates for comparison, independent trends in incidental catch in fisheries and
increases in attacks on marine mammals suggest a stable or increasing population
which is supported by genetic analysis indicating a robust population.
White Shark Page 13
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
Incidental take of juvenile white sharks in set gill net fisheries is a potential risk factor for
this population. However, this risk has been reduced considerably as these fisheries
have become more restricted through regulation and declining effort. Based on trends
in commercial fisheries and existing regulations, the Department does not consider
future impacts of commercial gill net fishing to a be an immediate threat to the continued
existence of the NEP population of white sharks in California.
The Department evaluated other factors, such as contaminants and non -point source
pollution, predation, disease, competition, climate change, and availability of prey.
Based on the Department's analysis, none of these factors is considered to be a serious
threat to the continued existence of the NEP white shark population.
Based on the best scientific information available, the Department concludes the
continued existence of the NEP population of white shark is not in serious danger or
threatened. Minimizing impacts to individuals could be achieved by managing
interactions with commercial and recreational fisheries. Currently California gill net
fisheries are heavily regulated and do not appear to be increasing in effort now, nor
does it appear likely they will in the near future. Interactions should continue to be
monitored but are likely not a threat to the increasing population. Further, the
Department generated the following recommendations to prioritize conservation,
research, regulation and monitoring activities.
o Increase coordination with other fisheries agencies to establish continuity in
management goals, enforcement, and conformance in regulations. Encourage
studies designed to reduce lethal interactions with fishing operations, especially
with nearshore gill net fisheries that are more likely to have interactions with YOY
and juvenile white sharks. Research should include exploration of gear and
method modifications (soak time, etc.) that reduce lethal interactions.
o Increase observer coverage on commercial fishing vessels, especially those
participating in the nearshore gill net fisheries.
o Implement regulation of recreational tourism (cage diving, viewing, etc.).
o Implement a public outreach and education program, especially in the shore
based sector of the recreational fishery. The program should inform constituents
about the presence of YOY and juvenile white sharks in the SCB, and how they
can help protect this species through appropriate fishing practices and by
avoiding interaction with the species.
o Increase monitoring and enforcement of recreational tourism in areas where
interactions with white sharks are high.
o Support research specifically focused on juvenile and sub -adult white shark
movements through the SCB, Mexico, and other areas within the species' range.
White Shark Page 14
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
o Encourage the expansion of efforts to determine current population and
abundance trends. Efforts should include:
• The continuation of photo -ID studies in Guadalupe Island and central
California, including a comparison of the two databases, consideration of
alternate methods of identification (e.g., Computer identification via DARWIN;
Towner et al. 2013), and expansion of spatial and temporal scope to
additional pinniped rookeries and seasons.
• The expansion of genetic research to include comparison of samples from
both aggregation sites and throughout range, and identification of parentage.
• Support continued life history research of all life stages of white shark.
Including migration, habitat use and range, feeding ecology, and
reproduction.
■ Expand the range and scope of tagging studies to include:
Areas outside of the two main aggregation sites,
Increased focus on mature females,
Increased acoustic tagging of YOY and juvenile white sharks in SCB
and Mexican nursery areas,
Increased deployment of acoustic sensors from Mexico to Washington.
o Continue current efforts to determine the effects of persistent environmental
pollutants, and environmental changes related to climate change, such as ocean
acidification, on large shark species and their preferred prey species.
o Encourage research and awareness of less common factors, such as predation
and disease, across all life stages.
o Encourage the Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend that U.S.
delegates to international regulatory bodies and regional fisheries management
organizations support measures to make white sharks a prohibited species.
Specifically, the U.S. delegates to entities including the Inter -American Tropical
Tuna Commission and the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
VI. FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION
The Commission has weighed and evaluated all information and inferences for and
against designating white shark as a threatened or endangered species under CESA.
This information includes scientific and other general evidence in the Petition, the
Department's 2012 Petition Evaluation, the Department's 2014 peer-reviewed Status
Review, and the Department's related recommendations based on the best available
science, written and oral comments received from the public and the scientific
community, and other evidence included in the Commission's administrative record of
White Shark Page 15
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
proceedings. Based on the evidence in the administrative record, the Commission has
determined that the best scientific information available indicates that the continued
existence of white shark in California is not in serious danger or threatened in the
foreseeable future by present or threatened modifications or destruction of white shark
habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other natural occurrences
or human -related activities (See generally Fish & G. Code, §§ 2062, 2067; Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1)(A).). The Commission finds, for the same reason,
that there is not sufficient scientific information at this time to indicate that the petitioned
action is warranted (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2070, 2075.5.). The Commission finds that
designating white shark as a threatened or endangered species under CESA is not
warranted and that, with adoption of these findings, for purposes of its legal status
under CESA shall revert to its status prior to the filing of the Petition (Fish & G. Code, §
2075.5, subd. (e)(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd., (i)(2).)
Sonke Mastrup
Executive Director
Fish and Game Commission
Dated: August 6, 2014
White Shark Page 16
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
References
Barreira A. 2007. The protection of sharks: A legal and policy analysis. Prepared for
Oceana by Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente. 1-69.T
Boustany AM, Davis SF, Pyle P, Anderson SD, Le Boeuf BJ, Block BA. 2002. Expanded
niche for white sharks. Nature. 415:35-36.
Brunnschweiler JM, Nielsen F, Motta P. 2011. In situ observation of stomach eversion in
a line -caught Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus). Fisheries Research. 109:212-
216.
Cailliet GM, Natanson LJ, Welden B, Ebert D. 1985. Preliminary Studies on the Age and
Growth of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, Using Vertebral Bands
Sibley G, Seigel JA, Swift CC, editors. Biology of the White Shark, a Symposium.
9:49-60.
Carlisle AB, Kim SL, Semmens BX, Madigan DH, Jorgensen SJ, Perle CR, Anderson
SD, Chapple TK, Kanive PE, Block BA. 2012. Using Stable Isotope Analysis to
Understand the Migration and Trophic Ecology of Northeastern Pacific White
Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias). PLoS ONE. 7(2):1-15.
Castro JI. 2012. A Summary of Observations on the Maximum Size Attained by the
White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias. In: Domeier ML, editor. Global
Perspectives on the the Biology and Life History of the White Shark. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press. pp. 85-90.
Compagno LJV. 2001. Family Lamnidae. In: Compagno LJV, editor. Sharks of the
world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date.
Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel, and carpet sharks (Heterodontformes,
Lamniformes, and Orectolobiformes). Vol. 2. FAO Species Catalouge for Fishery
Purposes; pp. 96-107.
Dewar, H., T. Eguchi, J. Hyde, D. Kinzey, S. Kohin, J. Moore, B. L. Taylor, and R.
Vetter. 2013. Status review of the northeastern Pacific population of white sharks
(Carcharodon carcharias) under the Endangered Species Act. Prepared by the
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA.
DOF. 2002. Normal Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-ECOL-2001, Proteccion ambiental—
Especies nativas de Mexico de flora y fauna silvestres—Categorias de riesgo y
especificaciones para su inclusion, exclusion ocambio—Lista de especies en
riesgo. SEMARNAT, Diario Oficial de la Federaci6n, 6 de marzo de 2002,
segunda seccibn.
White Shark Page 17
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
DOF. 2007. Normal Oficial Mexicana NOM-029-PESC-2006, Pesca responsable de
tiburones y rayas: Especificaciones para su aprovechamiento. SAGARPA. Diario
Oficial de la Federaci6n, 14 de febrero de 2007, primera secci6n.
DOF. 2014. ACUERDO por el que se establece veda permanente para la pesca de
tibur6n blanco (Carcharodon carcharias) en aguas de jurisdicci6n federal de los
Estados Unidos Mexicanos. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federaci6n, 27 de
enero 2014, primera secci6n.
Domeier ML. 2012a. A New Life -History Hypothesis for White Sharks, Carcharodon
carcharias, in the Northeastern Pacific. In: Domeier ML, editor. Global
Perspectives on the the Biology and Life History of the White Shark. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press; pp. 199-224.
Domeier ML. 2012b. How Many White Sharks are Swimming in the Northeast Pacific?
Marine CSI [Internet]. Available from: http://www.marinecsi.org/news-events/ {
Drake N. 2013. California Shipping Lanes Moved in Attempt to Avoid Killing Whales.
Wired Science [Internet]. [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available from:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/whales-and-shipstrikes/ {
Ebert, D.A. 2003. Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras of California. University of California
Press, 284 pages. Berkeley, California.
Gubili C, Duffy CAJ, Cliff G, Wintner SP, Shivji MS, Chapman DD, Bruce BD, Martin AP,
Sims DW. 2012. Application of Molecular Genetics for Conservation of the White
Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, L. 1758. In: ML D, editor. Global Perspectives on
the Biology and Life History of the White Shark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; pp.
357-380.
Hazen EL, Jorgensen SJ, Rykaczewski RR, Bograd SJ, Foley DG, Jonsen ID, Shaffer
SA, Dunne JP, Costa DP, Crowder LB, Block BA. 2012. Predicted habitat shifts
of Pacific top predators in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change. 1-5.
Jorgensen SJ, Reeb CA, Chapple TK, Anderson S, Perle CR, Van Sommeran SR, Fritz -
Cope C, Brown AC, Klimely AP, Block BA. 2010. Philopatry and migration of
Pacific white sharks. Proceedings of The Royal Society. 277:679-688.
Kerstetter DW, Polovina JJ, Graves JE. 2004. Evidence of shark predation and
scavenging on fishes equipped with pop-up satellite archival tags. Fishery
Bulletin. 102(4):750-756.
White Shark Page 18
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
Kim SL, Tinker MT, Estes JA, Koch PL. 2012. Ontogenetic and Among -Individual
Variation in Foraging Strategies of Northeast pacific White Sharks Based on
Stable Isotope Analysis. PLoS ONE. 7(9):1-11.
Klimley AP. 1985. The Areal Distribution and Autoecology of the White Shark,
Carcharodon carcharias, off the West Coast of North America Sibley G, Seigel
JA, Swift CC, editors. Biology of the White Shark, a Symposium. 9:15-40.
Lowe CG, Blasius ME, Jarvis ET, Mason TJ, Goodmanlowe GD, O'Sullivan JB. 2012.
Historic Fishery Interactions with White Sharks in the Southern California Bight.
In: Domeier ML, editor. Global Perspectives on the Biology and Life History of the
White Shark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; pp. 169-185.
Lyons K, Jarvis ET, Jorgenson SJ, Weng K, O'Sullivan J, Winkler CE, Lowe CG. 2013.
The degree and result of gillnet fishery interactions with juvenile white sharks in
southern California assessed by fishery -independent and -dependent methods.
Fisheries Research. 147, pp. 370-380
Mull CG, Lyons K, Blasius ME, Winkler C, O'Sullivan JB. 2013. Evidence of Maternal
Offloading of Organic Contaminants in White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias).
PLoS ONE 8(4):1-8.
Mull CG, Blasius ME, O'sullivan JB, Lowe CG. 2012. Heavy Metals, Trace Elements,
and Organochlorine Contaminants in Muscle and Liver Tissue of Juvenile White
Sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, from the Southern California Bight. In: Domeier
ML, editor. Global Perspectives on the Biology and Life History of the White
Shark. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; pp. 59-75.
Nasby-Lucas N, Domeier ML. 2012. Use of Photo Identification to Describe a White
Shark Aggregation at Guadalupe Island, Mexico. In: Domeier ML, editor. Global
Perspectives on the Biology and Life History of the White Shark. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press; pp. 381-392.
Nasby-Lucas N, Dewar H, Lam CH, Goldman KJ, Domeier ML. 2009. White Shark
Offshore Habitat: A Behavioral and Environmental Characterization of the
Eastern Pacific Shared Offshore Foraging Area. PLoS ONE. 4(12):1-14.
NOAH, 2012. National Marine Sanctuaries Press Release. Shipping Lanes to be
Adjusted to Protect Endangered Whales Along California Coast [Internet]. [cited
2013 Dec 20]; Available from:
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/press/2012/prl22712.html {
Pondella DJ II, Allen LG. 2008. The decline and recovery of four predatory fishes from
the Southern California Bight. Marine Biology. 1-7.
White Shark Page 19
NOTICE OF FINDINGS - White Shark
Pyle P, Schramm MJ, Keiper C, Anderson SD. 1999. Predation on a White Shark
(Carcharodon carcharias) by a Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) and a Possible Case
of Competitive Displacement. Marine Mammal Science. 15(2):568-575.
Robbins R, Bruce B, Fox A. 2013. First reports of proliferative lesions in the great white
shark, Carcharodon carcharias, and bronze whaler shark, Carcharhinus
brachyurus Gunther. Journal of Fish Diseases. doi: 10.11.
Seibel BA. 2011. Critical oxygen levels and metabolic suppression in oceanic oxygen
minimum zones. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 214:326-336.
Taylor J. 2010. The Story of Strappy. Rodney Fox Expeditions [Internet]. South
Australia, Australia: Rodney Fox Expeditions. [cited 2013 Dec 30]. Available
from: https:/fwww.rodneyfox.com.au/index.php/selectedContent/624827680 {
Towner AV, Weisel MA, Reisinger RR, Edwards D, Jewell OJD. 2013. Gauging the
Threat: The First Population Estimate for White Sharks in South Africa Using
Photo Identification and Automated Software. PLoS ONE. 8(3):e66035.
{ Marked references have not been peer reviewed.
Personal Communications
M. Harris, California Department of Fish and Wildlife -Office of Spill Prevention and
Response.
White Shark Page 20