CDFW: Evaluation of Petition to List White Shark as Endangered Species

1 Comment

1. Raymond Hasey

   Posted on January 29, 2013 at 3:27 pm

   SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

   I recommend that the petition for CESA listing be declined.
   I am writing in regard to the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to list the white shark under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) because (1) neither the petition nor the staff review assert that listing is necessary to decrease the probability for extinction nor do they (2) discuss if this listing will increase the risk for the extinction of the shark by shifting fishing to waters that are not regulated by California, a risk that I communicated to staff on 10 October 2010.
   As scientist familiar with the white shark scientific literature (I have published two minor scientific papers on this species), The Center for Biological Diversity’s petition does not meet the criteria for CESA listing because it does not provide the Commission with the evidence that CESA listing will benefit the species. A CESA listing might actually represent a threat to species recovery. CFGC §20501 does not permit a listing when it is unknown if the effect of a listing may increase the probability for a white shark extinction. I do not know if CESA listing will increase or decrease the probability for extinction and so I strongly recommend that the Commission not act until it the Commission reasonably can know if the decision to list this species will adversely affect the probability for white shark recovery.
   Legal Sufficiency for CESA Listing
   Center for Biological Diversity’s petition
   • Does CFGC 2050 permit listing if it is unknown if the effect of listing may be to increase the probability for extinction?
   Listing this shark under the CESA may or may not benefit the species and listing has the potential to even increase the risk for extinction. I am unable to recommend for or against the listing petition because the information within the petition is inadequate to determine if listing would increase or decrease the probability for extinction.
   • A completely unaddressed cumulative effect issue is if a CESA listing will result in the shifting of important fisheries from waters subject to state jurisdiction to waters not so subject?
   Economically important fisheries will likely catch as many fish as before the listing but they may shift the fishing to areas outside of California.
   “Other species of fish, wildlife, and plants are in danger of or threatened with extinction because their habitats are threatened with destruction, adverse modification, or severe curtailment, or because of overexploitation, disease, predation, or other factors.” CFGC 2050 (b)
   “A species shall be listed as threatened or endangered if “its continued existence 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.” Cal. Code Regs. § 670.1 (i)(1)(A)”.
   The Department’s report determines whether the petition, along with other relevant information possessed or received by the agency, contains sufficient information indicating that listing “may be warranted.” Fish & Game Code § 2073.5.
   Staff Review per Fish & Game Code § 2073.5
   The staff review did not meet the requirements of Fish and Game Code Section 2073.5 and Section 670.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations because the staff review does not determine if the listing would increase or decrease the probability for species extinction. It states incorrectly: “Overall, the Petition presents adequate information that threats exist, and it is reasonable to further infer that these threats could pose immediate and significant impacts to the population. It correctly states: “However, further analysis is needed to evaluate both degree and immediacy of these threats.”
   The Staff Report incorrectly asserts: “Pursuant to Section 2073.5 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department has evaluated the petition on its face and in relation to other relevant information the Department possesses or received.” The Department received my letter 10 October 2012 that asserts that the listing may reduce the probability for extinction but these concerns are not addressed.
   PRIMARY THREAT – FISHING
   The petition corrects states: “The primary threat to the Northeastern Pacific population of white sharks is commercial fishing. U.S. and Mexican fishing vessels incidentally catch and kill white sharks in unsustainably high numbers. “
   • Will CESA listing have any beneficial effect in reducing inadvertent take and what is the estimated reduction?
   The petitioners did not meet their legal responsibility under Cal. Code Regs. § 670.1 (i)(1)(A)” to support their petition for a CESA listing.
   WILL CESA LISTING INCREASE OR DECREASE THE PROBABILITY FOR EXTINCTION?
   The Effect of a CESA Listing on Fishing Pressure
   California cannot regulate most of the habitat but only regulates a narrow three mile wide portion. Commercially valuable fish will still be taken in Mexican and US waters and merely shifting the harvest to locations where there is a higher probability for a take of juvenile white sharks is likely to increase the probability for extinction. I have no knowledge if a CESA listing will in this way make the extinction of the white shark more likely but this is an important question that should be addressed.
   • The key issue not addressed by the petition is if a CESA listing will shift the take to waters of the North Pacific where California is without jurisdiction?
   Such a shift may increase rather than decrease the risk for extinction. The probability for this is not addressed so the petition may not be legally sufficient to support the requested listing. Until the petitioner can establish that the effect of a CESA listing would not be reasonably expected to increase the probability for species extinction the Commission may not have the legal authority to take a listing action. Because the petition does not address this risk to the species it should be rejected until it is revised.
   Fishing Pressure – Adult White Sharks
   Would a CESA listing better protect adult white sharks? The petition does not make a valid scientific case that CESA listing would decrease the probability for species extinction by reducing the take of adult white sharks. The petitioners did not meet their responsibility under Cal. Code Regs. § 670.1 (i)(1)(A)” to support their petition for a CESA listing.
   • How many adult white sharks will not be taken if the species has a CESA listing?
   • Does the Commission have other options besides the CESA to reduce adults at the very few locations where they are commonly found?
   Fishing Pressure – Juvenile White Sharks
   • Would a CESA listing better protect juvenile white sharks?
   The petition does not make a valid scientific case that CESA listing would decrease the probability for species extinction by reducing the take of juvenile white sharks.
   The petition suggests (by my interpretation) that the take of perhaps ten juvenile sharks occurs annually. Will a CESA listing increase or reduce this take? Would a CESA listing increase or decrease the take of these juvenile white sharks? The petition does not address this key issue. The petition does not make a valid scientific case that CESA listing would decrease the probability for species extinction. It does make a valid scientific case that the continued take of approximately ten juvenile sharks annually is a threat to species recovery.
   • How many juvenile white sharks will not be taken if the species has a CESA listing?

   • How many of these ten juvenile sharks are within habitat where the CESA has legal jurisdiction?
   I concur with the petitioners that the take of ten juveniles annually increases the probability for extinction and I doubt that there will be any scientific disagreement on this key point. There likely will also be a consensus that perhaps half or more of these ten juveniles are commonly using habitat that is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to regulate.
   • Does the Commission have other options besides the CESA to reduce juveniles?
   What (if any) new conservation measures can be imposed without this listing? There should be no scientific debate that juvenile white sharks require protection in a few key locations and that the Commission should act to do this if you determine that this will not shift the fishery to waters not regulated by California.
   Other Threats to White Shark Recovery
   CDFG Staff Review
   The CDFG Staff Review does not provide the scientific support necessary to support the petition. It does however an excellent summary of the threats and other scientific issues. The staff review does not adequately document if the proposed action, a CESA listing, will increase or decrease the probability for extinction. It does not assert that a CESA listing is necessary for species recovery.
   This review states “Threats to Habitat: The Petition cites scientific information regarding the threats to white shark habitat off the coast of California, although these threats may or may not be imminent. The habitat threats listed in the Petition include documented pollutant discharge into the waters of the SCB, reduction in prey species such as pinnipeds and fishes through exploitation, and the acidification of the ocean due to absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
   It also correctly states: “In conclusion, habitat degradation through pollutant discharge, overexploitation of prey species, and ocean acidification may pose a reasonable threat to habitat necessary for the survival of white sharks. Although these threats exist, the degree and immediacy of threats is uncertain, and further study is needed to assess the level of risk.”
   Contamination
   The petition correctly states: “In addition to the threat of capture in fishing, other threats face white sharks. New data shows that juvenile Northeastern Pacific white sharks are among the most heavily contaminated with mercury, PCBs, and DDT of all shark species tested to date.”
   The petition correctly states: “New data shows that juvenile Northeastern Pacific white sharks are among the most heavily contaminated with mercury, PCBs, and DDT of all shark species tested to date. Mercury levels in juvenile white sharks greatly exceed levels in all other species of sharks tested in the region and are six times higher than established thresholds known to cause physiological and reproductive harm in other marine fish. Moreover, the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors, including contamination, bycatch, coastal development, pollution, ocean acidification, and climate change, put Northeastern Pacific white sharks at great risk of extinction.”
   The petition does not describe how a CESA listing would reduce this treat and so it may not be legally sufficient to support listing.
   • How will CESA listing manage the threat of mercury, PCBs, and DDT contamination for this species?
   Coastal development
   The petition does not describe how a CESA listing would reduce this threat and so it may not be legally sufficient to support listing.
   • How will CESA listing manage the threat of coastal development for this species?
   Pollution
   The petition does not describe how a CESA listing would reduce this threat and so it may not be legally sufficient to support listing. The staff review correctly states: “The effects of these increased levels of pollutants on white sharks is unknown at this time, however it is reasonable to conclude that pollutant discharge may have a deleterious effect on white sharks and their prey.”
   • How will CESA listing manage the threat of mercury, PCBs, and DDT contamination for this species?
   Ocean acidification
   The petition does not describe how a CESA listing would reduce this threat and so it may not be legally sufficient to support listing. The staff review correctly states: “While studies document the negative effects ocean acidification may have on some marine species, further study is needed to evaluate how this phenomenon has affected and will affect white sharks and the NEP ecosystem as a whole. At this time, the degree and immediacy of this threat is uncertain.”
   • How will CESA listing manage the threat of ocean acidification for this species?
   Climate change
   The petition does not describe how a CESA listing would reduce this threat and so it may not be legally sufficient to support listing.
   • How will CESA listing manage the threat of climate change for this species?
   ACTIONS RECOMMENDED FOR THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
   Recommendation #1
   The petition does not adequately support claims that a CESA listing will provide a benefit to the species per CFGC 2050 and it should be rejected. The petition presumes a beneficial effect but does not describe how CESA listing would benefit this species. The petition may not meet the requirements of the CDF Code for this deficiency. I recommend denial.
   Recommendation #2
   I recommend that the petitioner be asked to provide evidence that CESA listing would not lead to an increased take and probability for extinction by shifting fisheries to waters not regulated.
   Recommendation #3
   I recommend that any measures other than CESA listing be assessed and utilized to prevent or reduce take.
   Recommendation #4
   My comments were submitted in October 2012 and were rejected because of the pdf format that they were submitted in. I recommend that the Commission accept pdf formatted comments.

   Reply