Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Reviews for Six Foreign Elasmobranch Species
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service is checking up on some kinds of sharks and skate-like fish from other countries to see if they still need special protection because they are in danger. They are asking people to share what they know about these animals by September 15, 2025, to help them decide.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service is starting 5-year reviews of six foreign elasmobranch species, including some types of sharks and guitarfish. These reviews, required by the Endangered Species Act, aim to determine if a species should remain on the endangered list or be reclassified based on new data. Public input is requested, and people can provide relevant information electronically until September 15, 2025. The agency will use the best available scientific and commercial data to make their decisions.
Abstract
NMFS announces the initiation of 5-year reviews of six foreign elasmobranch species: Argentine angelshark (Squatina argentina), spiny angelshark (S. guggenheim), narrownose smoothhound shark (Mustelus schmitti), striped smoothhound shark (M. fasciatus), common guitarfish (Rhinobatos rhinobatos), and blackchin guitarfish (R. cemciculus). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires us to conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years to determine whether a species should be removed from the list (i.e., delisted), reclassified from an endangered species to a threatened species (i.e., downlisted), or reclassified from a threatened species to an endangered species (i.e., uplisted). The determination must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we request relevant data (e.g., biology, threats, and conservation efforts) that have become available since the previous reviews of these species.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has issued a public notice about starting 5-year reviews for six foreign elasmobranch species, which include certain types of sharks and guitarfish. This process is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which mandates a periodic review to determine if a species' status should be updated based on new scientific and commercial data. The NMFS is soliciting public input to supplement their review with the best available information, and submissions are open until September 15, 2025.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Technical Language and Legal Jargon: The document is filled with specialized terminology related to environmental law and species conservation (e.g., "delisted," "downlisted," "uplisted"), which may not be easily understood by the general public without prior knowledge of the ESA. Legal references such as "16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)" may also limit accessibility for those without a legal background.
Submission Process: Instructions for submitting information are not entirely clear for individuals new to the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Further guidance on navigating this platform could help ensure meaningful public participation.
Confidential Information: The document warns against submitting "confidential business information" without clearly defining what this entails, potentially causing confusion about what is appropriate to submit.
Anonymity Concerns: While anonymity in submissions is allowed, the document simply advises entering “N/A” to retain privacy. More detailed guidance is necessary to ensure the public understands how to protect their identities if desired.
Examples of Relevant Data: The lack of specific examples concerning useful conservation efforts or monitoring data could lead to varied interpretations and inconsistent submissions.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Public Interest and Participation: This document could increase public awareness and interest in the conservation status of these foreign elasmobranch species. However, the complex language and submission process might deter broader public engagement.
Environmental Organizations and Scientists: These stakeholders might view the document positively, as it opens a channel for them to provide critical data and insights gained since the last reviews. However, they might also seek clearer guidance on what data is deemed useful and how they can effectively contribute.
Legal and Commercial Entities: Businesses that have dealings in areas relevant to these species might be concerned about potential changes in regulations following these reviews. Legal clarity and examples of how past reclassifications have impacted businesses could alleviate some concerns.
Overall, while the NMFS's effort to incorporate diverse data sources is commendable, making the process more accessible and providing clearer guidance would likely enhance participation and compliance from the public and concerned stakeholders.
Issues
• The document uses technical jargon specific to legislative and environmental contexts (e.g., 'delisted,' 'downlisted,' 'uplisted'), which might not be immediately clear to all readers without specific knowledge of the Endangered Species Act.
• The use of legal references (e.g., '16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)', '16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)') may not be easily understood by those without a legal background, potentially limiting accessibility.
• The instructions for submitting information could be confusing for some readers. For example, specific procedures on how to navigate the Federal eRulemaking Portal may not be clear to those unfamiliar with the platform.
• Clarification is needed on what constitutes 'confidential business information' or 'sensitive or protected information', to ensure compliant submissions from the public.
• There is a lack of specific guidance on how to ensure anonymity in comments beyond entering 'N/A', potentially confusing individuals who wish to retain privacy.
• The document lacks specific examples of what kinds of conservation efforts or monitoring data would be considered as illustrative of effectiveness, which may lead to varied interpretations by stakeholders.