[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20058-20090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07587]



[[Page 20057]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 66

April 6, 2016

Part II





 Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List 
Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia 
mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings 
Under the Endangered Species Act; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 20058]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 120425024-6232-06]
RIN 0648-XB089


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List 
Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia 
mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings 
Under the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS and USFWS issue a final rule to list 11 distinct 
population segments (DPSs) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; 
hereafter referred to as the green turtle) under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA). Based on the best available scientific and commercial data, 
and after considering comments on the proposed rule, we have determined 
that three DPSs are endangered species and eight DPSs are threatened 
species. This rule supersedes the 1978 final listing rule for green 
turtles. It applies the existing protective regulations to the DPSs. 
Critical habitat is not determinable at this time but will be proposed 
in a future rulemaking. In the interim, the existing critical habitat 
designation (i.e., waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico) 
remains in effect for the North Atlantic DPS.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services 
Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. The 
final rule, list of references, and other materials relating to this 
determination can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-
8443, email [email protected]), or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS 
(ph. 904-731-3032, email [email protected]). Persons who use a 
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, and 
7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, collectively referred to as the 
Services, listed the green turtle under the ESA (43 FR 32800). Pursuant 
to the authority that the statute provided, and prior to the current 
statutory definition of ``species'' that includes DPSs, we listed the 
species as threatened, except for the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast 
breeding populations, which we listed as endangered. We published 
recovery plans for U.S. Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS, 1991) and U.S. 
Pacific (including the East Pacific; 63 FR 28359, May 22, 1998; NMFS 
and USFWS, 1998) populations of the green turtle (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm). NMFS designated critical 
habitat for the species to include waters surrounding Culebra Island, 
Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998).
    On February 16, 2012, we received a petition from the Association 
of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle 
population as a DPS and ``delist'' it. On August 1, 2012, NMFS, with 
USFWS concurrence, determined that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (77 
FR 45571). Our 5-year review (NMFS and USFWS, 2007) also recommended a 
review of the status of the species, in light of significant new 
information since its listing and in accordance with our DPS joint 
policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). We convened a Status Review 
Team, green turtle and ESA experts within the Services, who conducted a 
comprehensive status review of the species and published their findings 
as the ``Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) under the 
Endangered Species Act'' (Seminoff et al., 2015; hereafter referred to 
as the Status Review Report and available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/Status%20Reviews/green_turtle_sr_2015.pdf). The Status 
Review Report was peer-reviewed by 15 independent scientists with 
expertise in green turtle biology, genetics, endangered species policy, 
or related fields. We used the Status Review Report and additional 
information, which together provided the best available scientific and 
commercial data, to make our listing determinations.
    On March 23, 2015, we published the 12-month finding on the 
petition and proposed rule (80 FR 15271). We proposed to remove the 
existing ESA listings from 1978 and, in their place, list three 
endangered (Mediterranean, Central West Pacific, and Central South 
Pacific) and eight threatened (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, 
Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest 
Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East Pacific) DPSs. We opened a 90-
day comment period on the proposed rule and extended this comment 
period three times until September 25, 2015, for a total of 187 days 
(i.e., just over 6 months).

Listing Determinations Under the ESA

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine by regulation 
whether ``any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1); hereafter, 
the section 4(a)(1) factors). Section 3 of the ESA defines a 
``species'' as ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 
DPS of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Section 3 of the ESA further 
defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' 
and a ``threatened species'' as one ``which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)). The U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia noted that Congress 
included ``a temporal element to the distinction between the categories 
of endangered and threatened species.'' In Re Polar Bear Endangered 
Species Act Listing and Sec.  4(d) Rule Litigation, 794 F. Supp.2d 65, 
89 n. 27. (D.D.C. 2011). Thus, we interpretlan ``endangered species'' 
to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened 
species,'' on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, 
but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future (i.e., at a 
later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a 
threatened and endangered species is the timing of

[[Page 20059]]

when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently 
(endangered) or within the foreseeable future (threatened). As we 
explained in the proposed rule, the foreseeable future applied in a 
particular listing determination must take into account the life 
history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, 
particular threats under consideration, the ability to predict those 
threats, and the reliability of forecasts of changes in the species' 
status in response to the threats. See also ``The Meaning of 
`Foreseeable Future' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species Act,'' 
(M-37021, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, 
January 16, 2009).
    The ESA does not define ``distinct population segment,'' but our 
1996 joint policy identifies three elements that must be considered 
when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment 
in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) 
the significance of the population segment to the species to which it 
belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status (i.e., 
endangered or threatened; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Section 
4(c)(1) of the ESA requires us to revise the lists of threatened and 
endangered species to reflect recent determinations to list, remove, or 
change the status of a species (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)). Section 
4(b)(1)(A) requires us to make such determinations ``solely on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available . . . after 
conducting a review of the status of the species'' and after 
considering conservation efforts (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). This can be 
thought of as consisting of two steps: The status review and the 
listing determinations.
    As we described more fully in the proposed rule, to identify 
potential DPSs, the Status Review Team members gathered the best 
available scientific and commercial data on green turtles. They 
evaluated the discreteness and significance of population segments. For 
each potential DPS, they described the demographic parameters that 
influence population persistence (i.e., abundance, growth rate or 
trend, spatial structure or connectivity, and diversity or resilience; 
McElhany et al., 2000) and analyzed the section 4(a)(1) factors (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). For their analyses, the Status Review Team used a 
foreseeable future of 100 years, which represents approximately three 
generations of green turtles and is often used for projections of 
extinction risk in recovery plans and status reviews for long-lived 
species, such as whales and sea turtles (Angliss et al., 2002; NMFS, 
2005, 2010, 2011; Conant et al., 2009; Seminoff et al., 2015). To 
assess extinction risk, the Status Review Team used a critical risk 
threshold (i.e., quasi-extinction), which they defined as being met 
where a DPS, ``has such low abundance, declining trends, limited 
distribution or diversity, and/or significant threats (untempered by 
significant conservation efforts) that the DPS would be at very high 
risk of extinction with little chance for recovery'' (Seminoff et al., 
2015). The Status Review Team did not consider the potential loss of 
ESA protections (i.e., potential determination not to list a DPS) in 
their analyses. They incorporated all information and analyses into the 
Status Review Report.
    We reviewed the Status Review Report and concluded that it provided 
the best available scientific and commercial data on the identification 
of DPSs, demographic parameters, and section 4(a)(1) factors, with two 
exceptions. First, in evaluating the extinction risk of a DPS, we 
cannot assume the retention of ESA protections, which would no longer 
apply if a DPS was not listed under the ESA. Second, the critical risk 
threshold (i.e., quasi-extinction) does not directly correlate with the 
ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened'' because it 
requires a condition worse than endangered (i.e., ``very high risk of 
extinction'') and essentially precludes recovery (i.e., ``little chance 
for recovery''). The latter is contrary to the fundamental purpose of 
the ESA, which is to conserve threatened and endangered species. 
Section 3 of the ESA defines conservation as ``to use and the use of 
all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to [the ESA] are no longer necessary'' (16 U.S.C. 
1532); our implementing regulations add ``i.e., the species is 
recovered'' (50 CFR 424.02). Therefore, we did not use the critical 
risk threshold to make our listing determinations.
    To make the listing determinations, we used the best available 
scientific and commercial data on the green turtle, which are 
summarized in the Status Review Report and incorporated herein. We 
applied information from the Status Review Report on the identification 
of DPSs, demographic parameters, and section 4(a)(1) factors, but we 
did not apply the critical risk threshold. Instead, we directly 
evaluated the section 4(a)(1) factors in the context of the demographic 
parameters and considered the potential loss of ESA protections that 
would result if we did not list a DPS as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA. After considering conservation efforts by States and foreign 
nations to protect the DPS, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A), we 
proposed listing determinations based on the statutory definitions of 
endangered and threatened species (80 FR 15271, March 23, 2015). To 
make our final listing determinations, we reviewed all information 
provided during the 6-month public comment period and additional 
scientific and commercial data that became available since the 
publication of the proposed rule. However, this additional information 
merely supplemented, and did not differ significantly from, the 
information presented in the proposed rule. We received no significant 
new information that would cause us to change our listing 
determinations. With this rule, we finalize our proposed listing 
determinations.

Summary of Comments

    We solicited comments on the proposed rule from all interested 
parties (80 FR 15271, March 23, 2015). Specifically, we requested 
information regarding: (1) Historical and current population status and 
trends; (2) historical and current distribution; (3) migratory 
movements and behavior; (4) genetic population structure; (5) current 
or planned activities that may adversely affect green turtles; (6) 
conservation efforts to protect green turtles; and (7) our extinction 
risk analysis and findings. We considered all comments received, which 
included 905 comments from the public, government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, and environmental organizations. The 
majority of comments (over 800) expressed support for the proposed 
listings. Some commenters requested that all DPSs be listed as 
endangered, and some commenters disagreed with the proposed status of 
one or more DPSs. We summarize all comments below by first addressing 
topics that apply to multiple DPSs; we then address comments specific 
to a particular DPS.

Comments on Topics That Apply to Multiple DPSs

    Comment 1: We received several comments regarding public 
engagement. We received several requests for public hearings in Hawaii, 
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and 
American Samoa. One commenter stated that there has been inadequate 
public engagement.
    Response: We held public hearings in Hawaii, Guam, CNMI, and 
American Samoa, exceeding our regulatory obligation of holding at least 
one public hearing (50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)). Further,

[[Page 20060]]

we encouraged maximum public participation by extending the 90-day 
public comment period three times, for a total of 6 months. We made all 
relevant information (both as to the substance of the proposed rule and 
opportunities for public participation) available on our Web pages, 
notified the petitioner via phone and email, provided informational 
meetings via internet and telephone (i.e., ``webinars''), and addressed 
questions on the proposed rule via phone and email. We have thus 
facilitated considerable public engagement, which has been sufficient 
to inform our final determinations.
    Comment 2: We received several comments on our approach for 
identifying DPSs. One commenter stated that while the DPS concept 
started under the ESA, it is now used generally in the scientific 
literature. The commenter also asked whether alternatives were 
considered, such as combining the North and South Atlantic DPSs and 
combining Indian Ocean DPSs, for ease of application of the ESA. Two 
commenters requested a discussion of the potential limitations of 
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) for identifying DPSs, including limited 
sequencing information, maternal inheritance, and neutral genetic 
diversity. One commenter requested clarification on our evaluation of 
genetic population structure at nesting sites, and one commenter asked 
where green turtles mate. One commenter agreed with the designations, 
stating that the designation of DPSs has little potential for negative 
consequences, whereas the over-generalized species listing will 
continue to yield non-individualized conservation methods and runs the 
risk of greater population losses. One commenter provided additional 
scientific information in support of the DPSs; the commenter stated 
that the DPSs may require reevaluation in the future as new information 
becomes available.
    Response: For a detailed explanation of the application of our DPS 
policy to the green turtle, please see the Status Review Report and 
proposed rule. We provide a short summary in the previous section 
entitled, Listing Determinations under the ESA.
    Though the term ``distinct population segment'' may be used 
generally in the scientific literature, our use of the term throughout 
the proposed and final rules refers to the legal term, ``distinct 
population segment,'' as used specifically in the statute and our 
binding policy, which we promulgated after reviewing public comment (16 
U.S.C. 1532 (16); 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The Status Review Team 
considered other potential DPSs, including 17 regional management units 
identified by Wallace et al. (2010); however, the criteria for those 
management units differed from those outlined under our DPS policy (61 
FR 4722, February 7, 1996). We did not combine or separate DPSs to 
facilitate application of the ESA because we concluded it was more 
important to retain a consistent approach to all DPSs. We agree that 
the identification of DPSs will allow us to provide the most 
appropriate and effective conservation strategy for each DPS; however, 
Congress instructs us to exercise our authority with regard to DPSs 
``sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such 
action is warranted'' (S. Rept. 96-151 (1979)).
    Our DPS policy requires a DPS be ``discrete'' and ``significant'' 
(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). To evaluate discreteness, the Status 
Review Team considered tagging and telemetry, morphology, oceanographic 
and ecological features, and genetic data. The genetic data included 
previously published studies of biparentally (nuclear DNA) and 
maternally (mtDNA) inherited neutral genetic markers (Seminoff et al., 
2015). In addition, the Status Review Team considered a global 
phylogenetic analysis based on nearly 400 base pairs of mtDNA sequence 
data from approximately 4,400 turtles sampled at 105 nesting sites 
(Jensen and Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data; M. Jensen, National 
Research Council (NRC), pers. comm., 2013). Samples collected at 
nesting sites provided the best available data due to plenitude (i.e., 
samples are often collected during nesting site surveys) and relevance, 
i.e., the species is somewhat organized around these sites, with 
females (and to a lesser extent males) returning to the waters off 
their natal beaches to mate (Balazs, 1980; Dizon and Balazs, 1982; 
Bowen et al., 1992; Karl et al., 1992). Though mtDNA data do not 
reflect male-mediated gene flow, and additional sequencing may provide 
increased resolution in some cases (e.g., Dutton et al., 2014b), they 
remain the best available scientific data to detect marked genetic 
separation (i.e., discreteness) among population segments throughout 
the range of the species.
    The Status Review Team also considered the significance of the 
population segment to the species. Each DPS was determined to be 
significant because of its unique ecological setting or because its 
loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the species. In 
addition, some DPSs differed markedly from others in their genetic 
characteristics, likely due to exposure to different selective 
pressures and generations of reproductive isolation.
    We reviewed, considered, and incorporated as appropriate scientific 
and commercial data that were not previously included in the Status 
Review Report or proposed rule; however, this additional information 
did not change our identification of any DPS. Scientific or commercial 
data that become available after the publication of this rule will be 
reviewed at a later date as appropriate (e.g., during a 5-year review).
    Comment 3: We received several comments regarding the general 
process for making our listing determinations. One commenter asked why 
some DPSs were proposed to be listed as endangered and others as 
threatened. Some commenters stated that DPSs should be delisted or 
listed as threatened (rather than endangered) to reward conservation 
efforts. Several commenters asked why we did not use the population 
viability analyses (PVAs) or critical risk threshold from the Status 
Review Report. One commenter stated that the listing determinations 
must be based on the best available science, including the information 
provided in the Status Review Report and any additional information 
available. One commenter inquired about our approach to uncertainty 
when making our listing determinations.
    Response: Please see the previous section entitled, Listing 
Determinations under the ESA, which describes the listing process, the 
difference between endangered and threatened species, the sources of 
the best available data, and the reasons that we did not apply the 
critical risk threshold. Regarding the comment that DPSs should be 
delisted or listed as threatened to reward conservation efforts, the 
ESA requires us to base our listing determinations solely on the best 
available scientific and commercial data, after taking into account 
efforts to protect species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). We review 
conservation efforts, as required under the statute, to determine 
whether they will be implemented and effective in ameliorating threats 
to the species. While the existence of such efforts can avoid the need 
for an ESA listing, that determination is based on whether the best 
available data allow us to conclude that those efforts improve the 
status of the species, not on whether a party should be ``rewarded'' 
for their efforts.
    We used information from the Status Review Report on the 
demographic parameters and section 4(a)(1) factors to make our listing 
determinations. The

[[Page 20061]]

Status Review Team used PVAs as one component in the consideration of 
population trends (i.e., one of the demographic parameters). They 
performed PVAs on nesting sites if adequate data were available; 
therefore, the results did not apply to the entire DPS, and PVAs were 
not available for all DPSs. The required assumptions of the PVAs (i.e., 
constant environmental and anthropogenic pressures) are not likely to 
be met. The PVAs did not incorporate the section 4(a)(1) factors, 
including climate change, or the potential loss of ESA protections. For 
these reasons, we did not base our listing determinations on the PVAs; 
however, we included the PVAs as one measure of trends when considering 
the demographic parameters.
    Regarding our treatment of uncertainty, it is important to note 
that the best available scientific and commercial data are not required 
to be free from uncertainty. We identified uncertainties in the 
demographic parameters and section 4(a)(1) factors throughout the 
proposed rule. Nevertheless, we did not base any listing determination 
solely on uncertain demographic parameters or section 4(a)(1) factors.
    Comment 4: We received several comments on demographic parameters. 
One commenter asked us to define ``low'' total nester abundance. 
Several commenters stated that they observe more foraging or in-water 
green turtles, now compared with previous years.
    Response: Our demographic parameters include the total nester 
abundance, as described in the Status Review Report. Total nester 
abundance ranges from an estimated 404 to 992 nesting females for the 
Mediterranean DPS to an estimated 167,424 nesting females for the North 
Atlantic DPS. As a general guide, we considered total nester abundance 
to be low if there were fewer than 10,000 nesting females. Total nester 
abundance provides one measure of resilience. All else being equal, 
small populations are at greater risk of extinction than large 
populations primarily because of depensation, deterministic density 
effects, environmental variation, genetic processes, demographic 
stochasticity, ecological feedback, and catastrophes (McElhany et al., 
2000).
    The estimates of total nester abundance and trends were based on 
quantitative surveys at nesting beaches; however, qualitative data on 
nesting sites were provided for each DPS. To evaluate the demographic 
parameters, the Status Review Team did not rely on qualitative 
estimates of abundance at foraging habitats or other areas. Such areas 
often include many juvenile turtles, which are characterized by lower 
survival rates relative to adults (Halley et al., in review) and are 
less likely to contribute to population productivity (i.e., 
resilience). Furthermore, observational data are often subject to bias 
based on the observer's prior experience. Population declines in many 
DPSs occurred decades or centuries ago. Under this shifting baseline, 
an observer may conclude that there are ``more'' turtles relative to 
their earlier, personal observations of the depleted population (i.e., 
prior to conservation efforts); however, this conclusion likely 
underestimates the population's pre-exploitation abundance (Pauly 1995; 
Bowen and Avise, 1995; Jackson 1997; Bjorndal et al., 1999; McClenachan 
et al., 2006; Kittinger et al., 2013). For these reasons, we conclude 
that the quantitative surveys at nesting beaches provide the best 
available scientific data to assess abundance and resilience for each 
DPS.
    Comment 5: Two commenters stated that U.S. sea turtle population 
assessments rely too heavily on estimates of nesting females, citing 
the Assessment of Sea Turtle Status and Trends (NRC, 2010).
    Response: The Status Review Team evaluated the section 4(a)(1) 
factors throughout the range of each DPS, including at nesting beaches, 
foraging areas, migratory corridors, and developmental habitats. To 
evaluate demographic parameters, the Status Review Team used total 
nester abundance and nesting trends, which are the best available 
scientific data and most relevant to the resilience of a DPS, as 
described in the response to Comment 4. Though the NRC report 
recommends collecting data at life stages ``in addition to adult 
females'' (NRC, 2010), the ESA requires us to base our listing 
determinations on the best available scientific and commercial data, a 
standard which does not require the collection of new data. As 
explained above, we have determined that data on nesting females are 
the best available scientific data.
    Comment 6: We received many general comments on our analyses of the 
section 4(a)(1) factors. Many commenters stated that 
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) presents a large, and in some DPSs increasing, 
threat; however, two commenters stated that FP does not pose a threat 
to green turtles. One commenter requested that we distinguish between 
native and non-native predators. One commenter indicated that we did 
not give enough weight to unusual mortality events (UMEs), explaining 
that it would take only one algal bloom, oil spill, or other event to 
kill hundreds or thousands of turtles in a short period of time. One 
commenter indicated that we needed to make our oceans safer for turtles 
by eliminating longline fishing, banning plastics, and enforcing 
harassment and litter laws on beaches. One commenter identified 
snorkelers and divers as an additional threat to sea turtles directly 
or indirectly via threats to coral or seagrass (Meadows, 2004; Landry 
and Taggart, 2010). One commenter provided additional scientific 
information in support of our analyses of the section 4(a)(1) factors.
    Response: The following response applies to general comments on the 
section 4(a)(1) factors for all DPSs; however, please see Comments 7 
and 8 for our responses regarding general comments on harvest and 
climate change, respectively. We reviewed, considered, and incorporated 
as appropriate scientific and commercial data that was not previously 
included in the Status Review Report or proposed rule.
    The ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered 
or threatened because of any one or a combination of the section 
4(a)(1) factors, including disease or predation (16 U.S.C. 1533 
(a)(1)(C)). It does not distinguish between native or non-native 
predators; however, we included this information where available. FP is 
a disease that causes tumors in sea turtles. In 2015, NMFS hosted the 
International Summit on Fibropapillomatosis of Marine Turtles: Global 
Status, Trends, and Population Impacts. NMFS (in progress) summarized 
the current state of FP knowledge and concluded that FP has population 
level impacts because it generally results in reduced survivorship; 
however, some turtles recover from FP (Hirama, 2001; Hirama and 
Ehrhart, 2007). Therefore, we included FP in our analyses of section 
4(a)(1) factors and considered the best available data on the incidence 
and expression of the disease for each DPS.
    We considered the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for 
each DPS. For some DPSs, this included identification of inadequate 
harassment and pollution laws, due to lack of implementation and 
enforcement.
    We evaluated other natural or manmade factors that affect the DPSs' 
continued existence. Plastics and other discarded materials (i.e., 
marine debris) often entangle or are ingested by green turtles (e.g., 
Schuyler et al., 2014) and are a significant source of mortality in 
some DPSs. We considered algal

[[Page 20062]]

blooms, oil spills, and cold stunning, which may result in UMEs. The 
impact of a UME is often dependent on the demographic factors of the 
DPS. For example, the North Atlantic DPS, with its high abundance and 
increasing trends, has exhibited resilience during recent UMEs caused 
by cold stunning (Seminoff et al., 2015). In response to the public 
comment, we considered the potential impacts of snorkelers, which may 
damage coral reefs or seagrass beds (Landry and Taggart, 2010), cause 
green turtles to surface more frequently (Meadows, 2004), or alter 
turtles' foraging success; however, we are not aware of information 
demonstrating population-level impacts, which are likely to be small.
    In summary, we considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors for 
each DPS, including disease or predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors. The 
information provided on FP, predation, harassment, pollution, plastics, 
UMEs, and snorkelers does not represent significant new information and 
does not change our proposed listing determinations.
    Comment 7: We received several comments on the harvest of turtles 
and eggs. Several commenters, including Senator Palacios (CNMI) and the 
CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources, requested that the 
Services recognize and allow cultural harvest of green turtles. Some 
commenters suggested farming green turtles for such purposes. Some 
commenters requested take exemptions similar to those for Alaskan 
Natives or Tribes (in regards to threatened salmon). Some commenters 
stated that green turtles were once used for food and traditional 
ceremonies in Guam, CNMI, and Hawai[revaps]i. Two commenters explained 
that Federal regulations prohibiting such take became effective in 
1976, when CNMI became a Commonwealth of the United States (Pub. L. 94-
241, 90 Stat. 263 (1976)). One commenter stated that most people in 
CNMI have no tolerance for the disturbance and taking of the green 
turtle. Several commenters opposed harvest for any purpose, citing 
overexploitation as a threat.
    Response: The take of endangered species is prohibited under 
section 9 of the ESA. Longstanding protective regulations apply the 
section 9 prohibitions to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 17.42(b)(1); 
50 CFR 223.205). These regulations remain in effect and are beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking. Under the ESA, ``take'' means to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 
to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The 
harvest of green turtles and their eggs is prohibited as ``take'' under 
the ESA and its implementing regulations. Specifically, the harvest of 
turtles is equivalent to hunting, and the harvest of eggs is 
collecting. Farming would require trapping, capturing, collecting, and 
eventually killing.
    The ESA exempts from prohibition the take and import of endangered 
and threatened species for subsistence purposes by Alaskan Natives and 
non-native permanent residents of Alaskan native villages (16 U.S.C. 
1539(e)); however, those provisions are specific to Alaskan Natives and 
permanent residents of Alaskan native villages. They provide no basis 
for authorizing take in any other context. The statute contains no 
other exceptions for cultural or subsistence take. Modifications to the 
statute to recognize additional exemptions are beyond our authority.
    With respect to the longstanding regulatory provisions extending 
the section 9 prohibitions to threatened species of sea turtles, 
modifications to the existing protective regulations are beyond the 
scope of this rule. The scope of this rule is limited to the 
identification of green turtle DPSs and the determination of their 
listing statuses based on the best available scientific and commercial 
data. We have not undertaken to review or otherwise modify the 
protective regulations, which remain in effect as noted in the proposed 
rule.
    In addition to the ESA, the Inter-American Convention for the 
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (2001) prohibits the 
intentional capture, retention, or killing of, and domestic trade in, 
sea turtles, their eggs, parts, or products. The United States is a 
Contracting Party to, and is therefore bound by, the treaty and 
required to apply the prohibitions to all persons subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction. The treaty does not identify exceptions for cultural 
take. Currently, U.S. obligations under the treaty are not implemented 
through separate legislation or regulations, as sea turtles are already 
protected under the ESA.
    Historically, the harvest of green turtles and their eggs resulted 
in overexploitation, one of the major factors cited in the original 
listings of green turtles under the ESA (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). 
Green turtle populations are vulnerable to overexploitation due to slow 
growth rates, late sexual maturity, and complex migratory life 
histories (Bjorndal et al., 1999). Low levels of harvest may impede 
local recovery (Bell et al., 2007), and positive population trends are 
quickly reversible (Hays, 2004; Tro[euml]ng and Rankin, 2005; Broderick 
et al., 2006; McClenachan et al., 2006). For each DPS, we considered 
the impact of legal and/or illegal harvest of turtles and eggs.
    Comment 8: We received many comments on climate change. Most 
commenters stated that climate change poses a threat to green turtles. 
Several commenters did not agree with our evaluation of climate change 
and its impact on green turtle DPSs. Some stated that climate change 
and its resulting impacts (e.g., increases in temperature, sea level, 
ocean acidification, and the frequency and intensity of storm events) 
are not likely to occur. One commenter stated that climate change 
science and predictions have limitations and uncertainties. One 
commenter stated that while sea level rise is likely to result in loss 
of nesting habitat at insular nesting beaches, it may result in the 
expansion of nesting habitat at continental beaches. Some commenters 
stated that climate change is not likely to endanger sea turtle DPSs 
within the foreseeable future because turtles will adapt or change 
their behavior. One commenter stated that the species may not be able 
to adapt to climate change due to its life history, the rapidly 
changing shoreline, and ocean pollution. One commenter requested that 
the Services maintain ESA protections for all green turtle DPSs due to 
the increasing threat of climate change, citing the unprecedented rates 
of greenhouse gas emissions, increased global temperatures, accelerated 
sea level rise, increased extreme weather events, and the effects of 
other threats on green turtles (e.g., fisheries bycatch and ocean 
pollution) magnified as a result of climate change. Two commenters 
stated that climate change alone, or in synergy with other factors, 
places DPSs in danger of extinction (i.e., endangered). One commenter 
provided additional scientific information in support of our climate 
change analyses.
    Response: We have reviewed the best available information on 
climate change, including the reports submitted with comments and many 
recently published peer-reviewed publications and government reports on 
climate change and its impacts on green turtles. While we received 
additional information, it is not significantly different from the 
information reviewed for the proposed rule and supports our evaluation 
of climate change impacts on green turtle DPSs in the Status Review 
Report and proposed rule. It does not change our proposed listing 
determinations. To address general comments, we provide the following 
summary of the best available scientific

[[Page 20063]]

and commercial data on climate change and its impact on green turtles.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was 
established by the United Nations Environmental Programme and World 
Meteorological Organization to assess climate change and its potential 
environmental and socio-economic impacts. The Fifth Assessment Report 
(IPCC, 2014) summarizes the best available scientific knowledge 
relevant to climate change, considering different greenhouse gas 
concentration pathways (https://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm). The IPCC 
Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 is based on increasing 
radiative forcing through 2100. It is based on current rates of 
emissions continuing into the future. We use this pathway because it 
requires the least assumptions (i.e., future rate changes) and, in the 
absence of data to the contrary, it is prudent to make resource 
management decisions based on status quo evidence. Though there is 
uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of future effects, there is 
very little uncertainty as to the fact that climate change is occurring 
and the direction of impacts from climate change. This is consistent 
with NMFS' recent coral listing determinations (79 FR 53852, September 
10, 2014) and NMFS' recent Guidance for Treatment of Climate Change in 
NMFS ESA Decisions (NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Eileen 
Sobeck, Memorandum to NMFS Leadership Council, January 4, 2016; in 
revision). As described by the IPCC (2014), under Pathway 8.5:
     The global mean surface temperature is likely to increase 
2.6 [deg]C to 4.8 [deg]C by 2100;
     Ocean acidification is likely to increase 100 to 109 
percent by 2100;
     Global mean sea level will likely rise 0.45 to 0.82 m by 
2100; sea level will very likely rise in at least 95 percent of the 
ocean area; approximately 70 percent of coastlines are projected to 
experience a sea level rise of within 20 percent of the global mean; 
and
     There is high confidence that warming, ocean 
acidification, and sea level rise will continue to increase for 
centuries beyond 2100.
    Based on the above information, we do not agree with the commenters 
who state that climate change and its resulting impacts are not likely 
to occur. The IPCC provides conservative estimates of the effects of 
climate change. For example, its estimates of sea level rise represent 
the mean sea level rise that is likely to occur; under Pathway 8.5, the 
maximum is 0.98 m, and there is a 17 percent risk of exceeding that 
maximum (IPCC, 2014). In addition, studies published since the Fifth 
Assessment Report identify the potential for higher rates of sea level 
rise due to the destabilization of West Antarctic ice sheets (Joughin 
et al., 2014; Rignot et al., 2014; Trusel et al., 2015) and volume or 
mass loss from other polar ice sheets (Helm et al., 2014; Dutton et 
al., 2015). Thus, the best available scientific and commercial data 
indicate that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur 
within the foreseeable future, likely resulting in increases in 
temperature, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
    Regarding the comment on limitations and uncertainties in climate 
change science, the IPCC uses qualitative descriptions of likelihood 
and confidence. In the Fifth Assessment Report, the term ``high 
confidence'' refers to the authors' judgments about the validity of 
findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement; 
the term ``likely'' refers to a 66 to 100 percent likelihood of an 
outcome (IPCC, 2010). In our review of the Fifth Assessment Report, we 
focused on and applied outcomes and findings that were ``likely'' to 
occur and with ``high confidence'' findings. For example, the IPCC 
reports with high confidence that a large fraction of species faces 
increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 
21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other 
stressors (IPCC, 2014). This conclusion is based on observational 
evidence that lower rates of natural climate change caused significant 
ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of 
years, and the current changes are occurring at a faster rate over less 
time. The IPCC also reports with high confidence that marine organisms 
will face progressively lower oxygen levels and higher rates of ocean 
acidification and that coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk 
from sea level rise (IPCC, 2014).
    We agree with commenters that climate change and its impacts are a 
threat to green turtles. Species with high fecundity and low juvenile 
survival, such as sea turtles, are the most vulnerable to climate 
change and elevated levels of environmental variability (Cavallo et 
al., 2015; Halley et al., in review). Temperature changes and sea level 
rise are likely to change ocean currents and the movements of 
hatchlings, surface-pelagic juveniles, and adults (Hamann et al., 2007; 
Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009; Cavallo et al., 2015). 
Though ocean acidification is likely to affect the forage-base of green 
turtles, including invertebrates, seagrasses, and algae, it is not 
clear how these changes will impact green turtles (Hamann et al., 2007; 
Poloczanska et al., 2009). Nesting beaches are likely to be impacted by 
climate change. Sea level rise is likely to reduce the availability and 
increase the erosion rates of nesting beaches, particularly on low-
lying, narrow coastal and island beaches (Fish et al., 2005; Baker et 
al., 2006; Jones et al., 2007; Fuentes et al., 2009; Hawkes et al., 
2009; Anast[aacute]cio et al., 2014; Pike et al., 2015). On undeveloped 
and unarmored beaches with no landward infrastructure, a typical beach 
profile may maintain its configuration but will be translated landward 
and upward (Bruun, 1962); however, along developed coastlines, and 
especially in areas where erosion control structures have been 
constructed to limit shoreline movement, sea level rise is likely to 
cause severe effects on nesting females and their eggs (Hawkes et al., 
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased storm frequency and 
intensity are likely to result in altered nesting beaches and decreased 
egg and hatchling success (Pike and Stiner, 2007; Van Houtan and Bass, 
2007; Hawkes et al., 2009; Fuentes et al., 2011a; Dewald and Pike, 
2014; Brost et al., 2015). Increasing air and sea surface temperatures 
are strongly correlated to sand temperatures (Fuentes et al., 2009; 
Santos et al., 2015a), which could lead to embryonic mortality at 35 
[deg]C (Ackerman, 1997) and the loss of male hatchlings at 30.3 [deg]C 
(Godfrey and Mrosovsky, 2006; Fuentes et al., 2010b; 2011b).
    Some commenters stated that sea turtles would respond to climate 
change via adaptation or behavioral changes. Adaptation by natural 
selection occurs when individuals with one heritable trait survive and 
reproduce (passing that trait onto their offspring) at a higher rate 
than individuals with other heritable traits. It occurs over many 
generations, and one green turtle generation is approximately 30 years 
(Seminoff et al., 2015). As climate change progresses (i.e., 
temperatures increase, ocean acidification increases, sea level rises, 
and storms increase in frequency and intensity), sea turtles that nest 
on low-lying beaches with inhospitable sand temperatures will produce 
less viable offspring than previously and as compared to those nesting 
at higher elevations and on beaches with sand temperatures conducive to 
embryonic development. This adaptation scenario will have a net effect 
of reducing the overall abundance of sea turtle populations in the 
future (e.g., reduced production at the low-lying beaches and constant 
production at the higher

[[Page 20064]]

elevation beaches). The capacity for green turtles to quickly adapt is 
questionable because they are long-lived and late maturing, and the 
species has previously evolved in a climate that changed at a much 
slower rate than projections suggest for the next 100 years (Hamann et 
al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Slow 
evolutionary rates (Avise et al., 1992) and smaller population sizes 
(as a result of previous declines and relative to pre-exploitation 
populations; McClenachan et al., 2006) may further limit the species' 
ability to adapt (Hawkes et al., 2009). Therefore, adaptation by 
natural selection for green turtles is likely to be limited and may not 
match the rate of climate change impacts within the foreseeable future.
    We agree that in response to climate change, green turtles may 
alter their behavior; for example, nesting females may use beaches with 
higher elevation or cooler sands (Santos et al., 2015). However, the 
likelihood of altered behavior is difficult to estimate because green 
turtles exhibit high nesting site fidelity at some locations (Carr and 
Carr, 1972; Dizon and Balazs, 1982; Mortimer and Portier, 1989; 
Marquez, 1990; Bowen et al., 1992) and low nesting site fidelity at 
others (Basintal 2002; Abe et al., 2003). Dizon and Balazs (1982) 
state, ``It is imperative for the well-being of the population that no 
alterations in the habitat be made since once imprinted the green 
turtle is unlikely to switch its breeding habitat.'' Santos et al. 
(2015a) conclude that no environmental condition may be important 
enough to deter a faithful nester. In addition, alternative nesting 
sites may not be available. Furthermore, coastal squeeze, where coastal 
development prevents the landward migration of beaches, may prevent the 
use of higher elevation areas (Fish et al., 2008; Mazaris et al., 
2009), even on continental beaches. Alternative beaches may not provide 
the optimal substrate for nesting (Fuentes et al., 2010a). Therefore, 
the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that green 
turtle nesting behavior alterations are not likely to ameliorate all 
effects of climate change on the species.
    Our consideration of climate change includes efforts to limit 
future emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. After the 
publication of the proposed rule, 195 nations adopted the landmark 
Paris Agreement at the Twenty-First Conference of the Parties to the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the 2015 Paris 
Climate Conference, or COP 21). The Agreement will be open for 
signature for one year beginning on April 22, 2016, and will come into 
effect when ratified by 55 nations, representing 55% of global 
greenhouse gas emissions. Article 2.1 of the Agreement states that it 
``aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate 
change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to 
eradicate poverty, including by . . . [h]olding the increase in the 
global average temperature to well below 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial 
levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 
[deg]C above pre-industrial levels. . . .'' (UNFCCC, Dec. 12, 2015, 
Article 2.1(a), http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf 
). Contracting parties will design their own reduction targets (their 
``intended nationally determined contributions''), which are to become 
progressively more ambitious through successive iterations over time. 
The parties will be required to submit plans for achieving their 
intended reductions and to account for their actual performance through 
transparent means. See Articles 3 and 4. Since the Paris Agreement is 
not yet in force, sufficient information regarding the plans of the 
parties for reducing emissions and the likely impact on global 
greenhouse gas emissions over the foreseeable future is not yet 
available. At this time, on the current record, we must conclude there 
is no basis to examine how these recent efforts may ameliorate the 
likely impacts of climate change in the foreseeable future. As time 
progresses and more information becomes available on implementation and 
effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, we expect that information will 
be incorporated into the ongoing assessments of the IPCC, which is 
well-recognized to be the source of the best available scientific and 
commercial information on climate change trends and impacts. Our future 
determinations under the ESA will continue to be informed by the 
information available from the IPCC, as well as other available climate 
analyses, and thus will take into account new information as 
appropriate.
    One study assessed possible mitigation measures, which included 
shading or sprinkling nests with water to reduce temperatures (Jourdan 
and Fuentes, 2015); however, the effectiveness of such strategies to 
address climate change impacts has yet to be determined and is likely 
to be dependent on conservation resources and site-specific 
characteristics.
    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
data, we conclude that the effects of climate change present a threat 
to all green turtle DPSs. While this threat alone does not put any DPS 
in danger of extinction, climate change together with other threats 
places some DPSs in danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) and makes 
others likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (i.e., 
threatened).
    Comment 9: Several commenters stated that DPSs proposed as 
endangered (i.e., the Central West and Central South Pacific DPSs) 
should be listed as threatened due to inadequate data. Several 
commenters stated that nesting estimates in the Central West and 
Central South Pacific DPSs are based on a limited number of survey 
locations. Some commenters, including the Guam Department of 
Agriculture, requested a 6-month extension for the publication of the 
final rule.
    Response: Please see the previous section entitled, Listing 
Determinations under the ESA, which describes the listing determination 
process and the difference between endangered and threatened species. 
The ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or 
threatened because of any one or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) 
factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) and based solely on the best available 
scientific and commercial data (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)); it does not 
require quantitative analyses, and it does not require us to collect 
new data or perform additional surveys. These requirements apply 
equally to endangered and threatened determinations.
    Regarding the comment on the number of nesting survey locations, 
for each DPS we compiled the best available scientific and commercial 
data including peer-reviewed scientific publications, government 
reports, and verified unpublished data on green turtle biology and 
threats. The Status Review Team and two post-doctoral researchers 
evaluated over 600 publications on green turtles for the Status Review 
Report, which was peer-reviewed by 15 scientists. To further ensure 
that the listing determinations are based on the best available data, 
we requested additional information and allowed over 6 months for 
response (80 FR 15271, March 23, 2015). We did not receive any new 
information on nesting sites in the Central West or Central South 
Pacific DPSs. We did not receive any information that changed the 
listing determination for any DPS.
    Regarding the request for an extension, the ESA provides that if we 
find that there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency 
or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination, we may 
delay the publication of the final rule

[[Page 20065]]

for 6 months to solicit additional data (16 U.S.C. 1533 (b)(6)(B)(i)). 
In this instance, we do not find that there is a substantial 
disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available 
data on the Central West or Central South DPSs, or for any other DPS. 
To the contrary, we find that the best available scientific and 
commercial data support our proposed listing determinations, without 
the need for additional data. The commenters did not identify 
additional information that will become available and would be 
fundamental to our determinations. We allowed a 6-month public comment 
period on the proposed rule, which exceeded the 60-day minimum as 
outlined in our regulations (50 CFR 424.16(c)(2)). Therefore, we find 
there is no basis upon which to grant the request to extend the 
deadline for publication of the final rule.
    Comment 10: The Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable 
Development provided information on the National Programme for the 
Conservation of Marine and Continental Turtles in Colombia that 
includes education, conservation, and outreach plans; in addition, 
Colombia works with the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific on 
the Southeast Pacific Action Plan (based on the Lima Convention of 
1981), which protects sea turtles and their habitats by mitigating 
threats through participatory strategies designed using the best 
available scientific and socioeconomic information. The Colombian 
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development also stated that in 
areas where utilization of sea turtles is deeply ingrained in the local 
culture, such as the La Guajira region of Colombia, changing people's 
attitudes about the use of sea turtles can be a long, slow process; 
however, these communities play a fundamental role in the conservation 
of sea turtles.
    Response: We appreciate the comment and the efforts made to 
conserve green turtles. We added the information on conservation 
efforts in Colombia to the relevant sections of this notice on the 
South Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs.
    Comment 11: One commenter identified several spelling mistakes, 
misused words, and typos.
    Response: We corrected the spelling mistakes, misused words, and 
typos in the final rule.

Comments on the North Atlantic DPS

    Comment 12: We received comments from State agencies including the 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Georgia Department 
of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division, the North Carolina 
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Virginia Department of Game and 
Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). They supported the DPS listings. The FWC and 
FDEP emphasized the conservation programs currently in place in 
Florida. The VDGIF recommended that more emphasis be placed on nesting 
beaches north of Florida, such as in North Carolina, as they may become 
more important in the future due to climate change.
    Response: Regarding climate change, please see our response to 
Comment 8. We appreciate the positive response from the State agencies 
and their continued support on listed species conservation. We 
considered the best available data on green turtle demographic 
parameters, threats, and conservation efforts for this DPS. The 
estimate of total nesting abundance includes the nesting sites north of 
Florida (Seminoff et al., 2015). Nesting beaches north of the high 
density nesting beaches in southeast Florida may become more important 
to the DPS in the foreseeable future. By listing the DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA, we protect all nesting green turtles, 
including those that nest on beaches in North Carolina.
    Comment 13: We received many comments from the public on the 
listing determination of the North Atlantic DPS. Several commenters 
supported the listing determination. One commenter supported the 
listing determinations and provided information on nesting abundance in 
Florida and an observed increase in juvenile green turtles on the reefs 
off Hutchinson Island, the Central Indian River Lagoon, and the Key 
West National Wildlife Refuge. Many commenters stated that the DPS 
should be listed as endangered due to the severity of threats. Several 
commenters stated that turtles of the Florida breeding population, 
originally listed as endangered, would lose protections if listed as 
threatened. One commenter referenced the high abundance of green 
turtles prior to commercial exploitation and identified the possible 
threat of harvest if ESA protections were removed. One commenter stated 
that the listing determination did not agree with the critical risk 
threshold in the Status Review Report, i.e., that the standard for 
extinction was lower than the statutory definition and that the horizon 
for foreseeable future was beyond what could reasonably be predicted. 
The commenter stated that the DPS is not likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future, citing population increases, PVAs, and 
the critical risk threshold analysis described in the Status Review 
Report. This commenter requested the information used to make the 
listing determination.
    Response: Please see the section entitled, Listing Determinations 
under the ESA, which describes the listing process, the difference 
between endangered and threatened species, our explanation for using a 
foreseeable future of 100 years, and the reasons that we did not apply 
the critical risk threshold, which is a higher standard (i.e., requires 
a condition worse than the statutory definition of endangered). The 
best available scientific and commercial data allow us to make 
reasonable projections over that time frame as to the key threats that 
are impacting the species as well as the species' biological response 
(over three generations). The primary threats leading to listing are 
already operating on the species, so we are not relying solely on the 
ability to project effects into the future. Please see our response to 
Comment 3 for the reasons that we did not base our determination on the 
PVAs. The information used to make the listing determination is 
provided in the Status Review Report, proposed rule, and final rule; 
these documents and the list of references cited in the proposed rule 
are available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm.
    We do not agree with commenters who state that the North Atlantic 
DPS is endangered or should not be listed under the ESA. The North 
Atlantic DPS is not presently in danger of extinction because of its 
high nesting abundance, increasing trends, connectivity, and spatial 
diversity, which provide some resilience against the section 4(a)(1) 
factors. However, the DPS is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
due to the following threats: habitat degradation, harvest of turtles 
and eggs, disease and predation, bycatch, channel dredging, marine 
debris, cold stunning, and climate change. Removing ESA protections 
would further increase the likelihood of endangerment. The large 
abundance and increasing trend of nesting females are a direct result 
of ESA protections and State, local, and foreign protections, which are 
influenced by the ESA status. If we did not list the DPS under the ESA, 
the important protections, financial resources, and conservation 
benefits associated with the ESA would not continue. Further, without 
listing under the ESA, it is possible that some State,

[[Page 20066]]

local, and foreign protections would be rescinded.
    Regarding the comment on turtles from the Florida breeding 
population, the change in status (from endangered to threatened) will 
not reduce protections afforded under the ESA. Threatened and 
endangered sea turtles receive similar protections under the ESA 
because longstanding protective regulations apply the prohibitions of 
section 9 of the statute (which automatically apply to endangered 
species) to threatened sea turtle species (50 CFR 17.42(b)(1); 50 CFR 
223.205). As discussed in the proposed rule and in a prior response, 
those regulations are not affected by this listing determination 
rulemaking and remain in effect for threatened DPSs, such as the North 
Atlantic DPS. One minor change for turtles from the Florida breeding 
population is that, under the USFWS and FWC section 6(c)(1) agreement, 
any authorized employee or agent of the FWC may, when acting in the 
course of official duties, take or issue a conservation permit 
authorizing take of a green turtle for purposes consistent with the ESA 
and provisions of the section 6(c)(1) agreement.
    Comment 14: One commenter stated, ``To the extent that the Services 
take the position that they will not delist species unless specifically 
petitioned to do so, API [American Petroleum Institute] requests that 
the Services treat this letter as a delisting petition.''
    Response: The Services do not take the position ``that they will 
not delist a species unless specifically petitioned to do so.'' As 
discussed in the proposed rule, we initiated a status review of the 
entire species to comprehensively identify DPSs and determine their 
appropriate listing status, including whether any DPSs no longer 
warrant listing. Thus, with or without a petition directed at any 
particular DPS, we used the best available scientific and commercial 
data (including comments submitted on the proposed rule) to make 
appropriate ESA listing determinations for each DPS. Stated 
differently, filing of such a petition at this time would not trigger 
consideration of new issues that are not already being thoroughly 
evaluated as part of the ongoing rulemaking. We considered the 
information presented in API's comment letter fully when making our 
final listing determinations. It is thus unnecessary by the commenter's 
own terms to consider the comment as a petition.
    We find that the purported petition fails to constitute a valid 
petition for three additional reasons. First, were the Services to 
process comments on a proposed rule as petitions seeking to determine 
the status of the species already the subject of the proposed rule, it 
would create a circular and redundant process. When a petition is 
filed, the Services must make a 90-day finding to the maximum extent 
practicable, and if that initial finding is positive, it triggers a 
status review and ultimately a 12-month determination (50 CFR 
424.14(b)(3)). If the relevant status review has already been conducted 
and a proposed rule to determine the status of the affected species is 
available for comment, there is nothing more that processing a new 
petition at that time could accomplish. Second, API's letter can be 
read as attempting to petition the Services to delist the North 
Atlantic DPS before the rule to list it as such has become a final 
agency action. To the extent that was the commenter's intent, such a 
preemptive petition is improper as it does not seek an action that can 
be presently taken. Finally, we note that our regulations require that 
every petition clearly identify itself as such (50 CFR 424.14(a)), a 
requirement not clearly met where the document is self-described as a 
comment letter filed within the context of an ongoing, docketed 
proceeding.
    Comment 15: We received many comments on the section 4(a)(1) 
factors for the North Atlantic DPS. Though commenters generally agreed 
with our identification of threats, several disagreed with our analyses 
of these threats. One commenter provided information on the threats of 
climate change, fisheries bycatch, pollution, direct harvest, disease, 
and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, to provide 
further support for our determination and the need to continue 
protection under the ESA without any weakening of regulations. Several 
commenters stated that green turtles are especially sensitive to 
habitat destruction at nesting sites as a result of coastal 
development, artificial lighting, and beach nourishment projects and in 
water as a result of eutrophication, pollution, and harmful algal 
blooms. One commenter stated that poaching is a major threat in the 
North Atlantic DPS. Several commenters stated that the DPS should be 
considered endangered as a result of the high incidence of FP in green 
turtles found in Florida and the spread of the disease geographically 
(from central and southern Florida to northeast and northwest Florida) 
and in incidence. One commenter stated that ``from 1980-2005, 22.2 
percent of stranded green sea turtles were afflicted; last year, 28.7 
percent of all green sea turtles were afflicted.'' Several commenters 
stressed the importance of increasing threats, such as FP, climate 
change, marine debris, bycatch, and boat strikes. Several commenters 
stated that climate change should be considered a significant threat 
for the North Atlantic DPS, and the listing status for Florida green 
turtles should remain as endangered based on this threat. One commenter 
stated that green turtles are especially sensitive to sea level rise, 
because they prefer to nest on narrower, steeper, and eroded beaches. 
They stated that the combination of coastal development and sea level 
rise could be devastating to the DPS; however, the removal of 
structures such as seawalls and buildings might mitigate such effects. 
One commenter stated that the long-term effects of the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill (Mississippi Canyon 252) remain to be seen. One 
commenter stated that the North Atlantic DPS is not exposed to any 
threats that warrant its listing as threatened under the ESA. The 
commenter stated that the amount of coastal armoring permits in Florida 
has decreased between 2001 and 2005, protection has increased in other 
countries, artificial lighting is controlled by local lighting 
ordinances, and sea level rise is not considered an imminent threat. 
The commenter stated that impacts from armoring are offset by beach 
nourishment programs that place sand on eroding beaches, increasing 
green turtle nesting habitat.
    Response: For our general responses regarding the section 4(a)(1) 
factors, please see Comments 6, 7, and 8. We list the North Atlantic 
DPS as threatened because of habitat destruction and modification, the 
harvest of turtles and eggs, disease and predation, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, bycatch, channel dredging, marine debris, cold 
stunning, and climate change. Based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, the DPS is not presently in danger of 
extinction due to a single factor (e.g., FP or climate change) or the 
section 4(a)(1) factors cumulatively, when considered in the context of 
the demographic parameters (i.e., high abundance, increasing trends, 
and spatial diversity), which provide resilience to the DPS at present. 
While a species may be listed based on any one of the five factors, in 
many instances, more than one factor may cause the species to meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species. Alternatively, while 
each individual factor may not cause the species to meet the definition 
of threatened or endangered, the cumulative effect of multiple factors 
may cause the species to be listed.

[[Page 20067]]

    Regarding the comments on FP, the disease results in internal and/
or external tumors that may grow large enough to hamper swimming, 
vision, feeding, and potential escape from predators. We acknowledge 
the increasing distribution and incidence of FP, particularly in 
Florida. The threat is likely to increase, given the continuing, and 
possibly increasing, human impacts to, and eutrophication of, coastal 
marine ecosystems that may promote this disease (NMFS, in progress). 
However, FP is not always lethal, and photographic evidence from 
Florida shows that the tumors on some green turtles go into regression 
(Hirama, 2001; Hirama and Ehrhart, 2007; NMFS, in progress).
    Regarding the comments on habitat destruction and protection, we 
considered habitat modification and destruction impacts to the extent 
they are known and based on the best available data, including 
qualitative information (i.e., the ESA does not require quantitative 
data, which in this case are limited). There has been an increase in 
coastal armoring structures permitted by the FDEP over the last 5 years 
particularly on Singer Island in Palm Beach County, a high density 
nesting beach. In many areas, residential and commercial properties, as 
well as breakwaters, jetties, seawalls, and other erosion control 
structures designed to protect public and private property, continue to 
be permitted and built. Such coastal development places increasing 
pressure on beach systems and negatively affects nesting habitat. While 
mitigation measures (e.g., lighting ordinances and construction 
setbacks) provide important protections, they do not remove the threats 
or reduce them to insignificant levels. Beach nourishment programs can 
provide nesting habitat where it had been previously destroyed or 
offset impacts from other coastal measures; however, they also alter 
sand characteristics and nearshore foraging habitat. At best, such 
programs help to reduce impacts but do not provide new benefits to the 
turtles.
    Regarding the comment on poaching, as explained in more detail in 
the Status Review Report, the harvest of turtles and eggs remains legal 
in several countries within the range of the North Atlantic DPS. 
Turtles are legally and illegally harvested in foraging areas. Eggs are 
harvested at many nesting beaches.
    Regarding the comment on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, we agree 
that the long-term effects remain to be seen because the spill was 
particularly harmful to post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic juveniles 
(Witherington et al., 2012) by temporarily destroying their Sargassum 
habitat (Powers et al., 2013) and resulting in the ingestion of 
contaminants.
    Numerous other natural and manmade factors affect the continued 
existence of this DPS. Regulatory mechanisms contained within 
international instruments are inconsistent and likely to be 
insufficient. While some regulatory mechanisms should address direct 
and incidental take for this DPS, it is unclear to what extent such 
measures are implemented and effective. The species is conservation-
dependent and positive population trends are likely to be curtailed or 
reversed without alternate mechanisms in place to continue existing 
conservation efforts and protections afforded under the ESA. We 
conclude that the North Atlantic DPS is threatened by the above section 
4(a)(1) factors.
    Comment 16: Several commenters supported an endangered listing 
determination for the North Atlantic DPS, citing the criteria in the 
Recovery Plan for the U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle (NMFS 
and USFWS, 1991); however, one commenter cited the criteria in the 
Recovery Plan as a basis for delisting the North Atlantic DPS.
    Response: The ESA requires us to determine whether a species is 
threatened or endangered because of the 4(a)(1) factors, based solely 
on the best available data after considering conservation efforts. 
Section 4(f)(1) requires us to develop and implement recovery plans for 
the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species 
unless the Secretary finds that such a plan will not promote the 
conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1)). The information 
included in such plans informs but does not dictate listing 
determinations. See Friends of Blackwater v. Salazar, 691 F.3d 428 
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
    The 1991 Recovery Plan was written prior to the identification of 
the DPS and only applies to the U.S. population of the Atlantic green 
turtle (whereas the North Atlantic DPS includes foreign populations and 
does not include turtles nesting in the U.S. Virgin Islands). The 1991 
Recovery Plan identifies recovery criteria (NMFS and USFWS, 1991); 
however, these criteria apply to delisting, not to changes in listing 
status (i.e., from endangered to threatened). Some, but not all, of the 
recovery criteria for this population have been met. Nesting in Florida 
averages over 14,000 nests annually for the last 6 years (http://myfwc.com/media/2988445/greenturtlenestingdata10-14.pdf; FWC, pers. 
comm., 2015); however, less than 25 percent of all available nesting 
beaches and less than 50 percent of nesting activity are in public 
ownership. Similarly, the species' status in nearshore and inshore 
waters and reduction in stage class mortality have not been evaluated.
    To make our listing determination, we evaluated the section 4(a)(1) 
factors in the context of the demographic parameters for this DPS 
(i.e., we did not directly evaluate whether the U.S. Atlantic 
population has met the recovery criteria). Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we conclude that the North Atlantic DPS 
is not presently in danger of extinction but is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range (i.e., threatened under the ESA) 
because of habitat destruction and modification, the harvest of turtles 
and eggs, disease and predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 
bycatch, channel dredging, marine debris, cold stunning, and climate 
change.

Comments on the Mediterranean DPS

    Comment 17: One commenter requested a discussion of the threat from 
wars in Syria and Libya.
    Response: Green turtles nest on Syrian beaches and forage in the 
waters off Libya; there is a migratory corridor between these nesting 
and foraging hotspots (Stokes et al., 2015). Stokes et al. (2015) 
tracked 34 turtles from Cyprus, Turkey, Israel, and Syria; over half of 
the turtles migrated to the Gulf of Sirte and the Gulf of Bomba in 
Libya. The Gulf of Bomba and nearby Ain Gazala have been identified as 
potential marine protected areas (Badalamenti et al., 2011); the 
authors also recommend the Gulf of Sirte for consideration as a marine 
protected area (Stokes et al., 2015). As summarized by Stokes et al. 
(2015), much of Libya's coastline is not degraded and is relatively 
unpopulated; total fisheries catch is an order of magnitude lower than 
that of neighboring Egypt and Tunisia. Marine exploitation has 
increased, however, and conservation efforts have been delayed by 
political unrest (Badalamenti et al., 2011). Geopolitical instability 
further complicates conservation efforts (Katsanevakis et al., 2015). 
In an interview on the Stokes et al. (2015) findings, B.J. Godley 
indicated that political instability can have positive (by slowing 
exploitation and development and creating de-facto wildlife refuges) 
and negative (by delaying the identification of marine protected areas) 
effects on conservation (Gertz, 2015; http://www.takepart.com/

[[Page 20068]]

article/2015/02/14/endangered-green-turtle-mediterranean-libya). 
Because of the possibility of positive and negative effects, and 
without specific information on the likely impacts on green turtles, we 
cannot determine how such conflicts are likely to impact the 
Mediterranean DPS. In any case, we proposed to list this DPS as an 
endangered species, and such information would not change our listing 
determination.

Comments on the South Atlantic DPS

    Comment 18: One commenter suggested combining the North and South 
Atlantic DPSs; however, another commenter stated that the separation of 
the North and South Atlantic DPSs is supported by recent studies 
(Putman and Naro-Maciel, 2013; Naro-Maciel et al., 2014b). The United 
Kingdom (UK) Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs 
supported the threatened status of the South Atlantic DPS but provided 
the following information about the Ascension Island nesting site: The 
best available data on the Ascension Island population is provided by 
Weber et al. (2014); the average size of nesting females declined from 
a mean carapace length of 116.0 cm in 1973-1974 to 111.5 cm in 2012 
(Weber et al., 2014); and predation by feral dogs and especially cats, 
which were eradicated in 2004, is no longer a significant source of 
mortality for hatchlings. One commenter stated that fewer than 10 green 
turtles nest on monitored index beaches annually in Dominica and that 
these numbers are lower than a generation ago due to poaching of 
turtles and eggs. One commenter suggested renaming the South Atlantic 
DPS because its boundary occurs north of the equator.
    Response: We appreciate the comments from the UK Department for 
Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and their efforts to conserve 
green turtles. We reviewed and evaluated the information on turtles at 
Ascension Island and Dominica and determined that it does not change 
the proposed listing determination for the South Atlantic DPS.
    Regarding the suggestion to combine the North and South Atlantic 
DPSs, the best available scientific and commercial data support the 
identification of the North and South Atlantic DPSs. Genetic, tagging, 
tracking, and modeling studies support the discreteness of the North 
and South Atlantic DPSs (Baudouin et al., 2015; Seminoff et al., 2015). 
In addition to the information provided in the Status Review Report, 
nuclear (microsatellite) and mtDNA analyses reveal a strong, ancient 
barrier to dispersal between northern and southern Atlantic green 
turtles (Naro-Maciel et al., 2014b), as divided by our definition of 
the North and South Atlantic DPSs (i.e., the equator lies south of and 
does not coincide with the genetic barrier). The breeding seasons of 
the DPSs are temporally distinct, potentially limiting mixing during 
reproductive migrations (Naro-Maciel et al., 2014b). Ocean circulation 
models (i.e., a potential proxy of juvenile turtles, though see Putman 
and Mansfield, 2015) indicate that the majority of particles arising 
from the northern or southern Atlantic are likely to remain within the 
northern or southern Atlantic, respectively (Putman and Naro-Maciel, 
2013).
    Regarding the suggestion to rename the South Atlantic DPS, the vast 
majority of the range of the South Atlantic DPS lies in the South 
Atlantic Ocean. We find that the nomenclature appropriately 
distinguishes this DPS from the North Atlantic DPS and is consistent 
with the terminology used to name all DPSs.

Comments on the Southwest Indian DPS

    Comment 19: The UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural 
Affairs provided additional information on the British Indian Ocean 
Territory (BIOT), which occurs within the range of the Southwest Indian 
DPS, stating that: (1) Available information on nesting turtles within 
the BIOT includes ``only fairly crude assessments of population size 
and seasonality,'' while satellite data indicate movement throughout 
the Indian Ocean; and (2) it is highly unlikely that, given its 
isolation, the BIOT nesting population would be supplemented by 
immigrants from elsewhere. The Department for Environment, Food, and 
Rural Affairs recommends waiting for additional census data before 
considering whether to downgrade the conservation status of these sea 
turtles. The Embassy of the Republic of Mauritius agreed with the 
proposed listing.
    Response: We appreciate the comments from the UK Department for 
Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and the Embassy of the Republic of 
Mauritius and their efforts to conserve green turtles. The status for 
this DPS has not been changed; we listed the species as threatened in 
1976 and now list the Southwest Indian DPS as threatened under the ESA. 
The ESA requires us to base our listing determinations on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of 
the status of the species and considering conservation efforts (16 
U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). Because we have sufficient data to determine the 
listing status of this DPS and did not receive additional data during 
the 6-month comment period on the proposed rule, there is no basis to 
delay our determination while additional census data are collected.
    The Status Review Team considered the BIOT, which includes the 
seven atolls of the Chagos Archipelago, where sea turtle nesting is 
common (Mortimer and Day, 1999). The estimated total nester abundance 
of 1,800 nesting females (Seminoff et al., 2015) was based on the 
Mortimer and Day (1999) estimate of 400 to 800 females nesting annually 
at the Chagos Archipelago, which we consider to be the best available 
scientific and commercial data. Mortimer and Day (1999) state that 
green turtles and their habitat are well protected by the BIOT 
administration; however, monitoring and conservation efforts are not 
sufficient to adequately reduce all threats.

Comments on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    Comment 20: The Forestry Bureau of the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Representative Office agrees with the listing under the ESA.
    Response: We appreciate the comment from the Forestry Bureau of the 
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and their efforts to 
conserve green turtles.

Comments on the Central West Pacific DPS

    Comment 21: We received several comments on the section 4(a)(1) 
factors for the Central West Pacific DPS. One commenter stated that 
human populations in Guam, CNMI, and the Federated States of Micronesia 
are decreasing. One commenter stated that development is not a threat. 
Several commenters stated that poaching of nesting turtles is a problem 
in the Central West Pacific DPS; one commenter stated that allowing 
cultural take would resolve this issue, though another disagreed. One 
commenter stated that bycatch is a threat in CNMI. One commenter stated 
that 4,000 years ago, sea level was 1.8 m higher than it is today in 
CNMI (Amesbury, 2007), and one commenter stated that sea level rise is 
not a threat.
    Response: Regarding cultural take, please see our response to 
Comment 7. The harvest of sea turtles or their eggs is illegal under 
the ESA and its regulations, the Inter-American Convention for the 
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, and local laws in CNMI 
(CNMI Public Law 02-51 1981) and Guam (Endangered Species Act of Guam, 
1979). Despite these

[[Page 20069]]

protections, poaching occurs in CNMI (CNMI-DLNR 2006-2009, 2011, 2013; 
Summers et al., in progress) and Guam (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080729_seaturtle.html; http://dawr.guam.gov/wildlife/sea-turtles/). The best available data indicate that past poaching and 
harvest have led to the low nesting abundance of the Central West 
Pacific DPS, whereas the protection of turtles and their habitat has 
led to recent increases in foraging turtles (Martin et al., 2016). 
Based on the demographic parameters of the DPS, including its low 
nesting abundance, we conclude that it has little resilience against 
threats, especially those that remove turtles from the population, such 
as poaching and the harvest of turtles and eggs. Bycatch in subsistence 
and small-scale commercial fishing operations is also a concern.
    Regarding the comments on development and human population size, 
threats to nesting beaches include construction (and associated 
lighting), military activities, public use of beaches, and beach 
driving (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; CNMI Coastal Resources Management 
Office, 2011; Palacios, 2012; Wusstig, 2012). Coastal erosion has been 
identified as a high risk in the CNMI due to the existence of 
concentrated human population centers near erosion-prone zones; it is 
likely to be exacerbated by sea level rise (CNMI Coastal Resources 
Management Office, 2011). In Guam, turtle densities are highest where 
there are healthy coral reefs and seagrass beds, low human densities, 
and marine protected areas (Martin et al., 2016). Though human 
population density is correlated with turtle density, our major concern 
is with coastal development and the resulting degradation of nesting 
beaches and foraging areas. Human populations in Guam, CNMI, and the 
Federated States of Micronesia have increased since the listing of the 
green turtle in 1976. Since 2000, human populations have increased in 
Guam and decreased in CNMI and the Federated States of Micronesia 
(World Bank, 2015; https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn179.html).
    Regarding the comments on sea level rise, sea level changes have 
occurred throughout the history of the species (e.g., Grant et al., 
2012), but rarely at the rate likely to occur as a result of 
anthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2014). Furthermore, sea level rise 
did not occur in the presence of other threats, such as unprecedented 
ocean acidification (Honisch et al., 2012), overexploitation, fisheries 
bycatch, and habitat degradation due to coastal development, pollution, 
and other anthropogenic causes. Additionally, the effects of sea level 
rise are likely to be exacerbated by the increased frequency and 
intensity of storm events (IPCC, 2014). As described by Summers et al. 
(in progress), water inundation and accompanying erosion from tropical 
storms, typhoons, and storm water drainage impacted 7.5 percent of 
inventoried Saipan nests (N = 160) between 2007 and 2013. We expect 
increases in the rate of such impacts within the foreseeable future.
    We conclude that the Central West Pacific DPS is endangered by a 
combination of section 4(a)(1) factors.
    Comment 22: We received several comments on the listing 
determination for the Central West Pacific DPS. Senator Palacios (CNMI) 
stated that though NMFS supports a contractor to perform research on 
green turtles in CNMI, resources for data collection are insufficient. 
Some commenters stated that data are limited and lacking quantitative 
analyses and that they often observe in-water sea turtles (though 
another commenter never sees sea turtles). The Guam Department of 
Agriculture suggests listing the DPS as threatened due to data 
limitations (including limited survey effort) and naturally low 
abundances; the Guam Department of Agriculture also requests 
information on whether nations within the range of the Central West 
Pacific DPS were contacted, how the endangered listing would solidify 
protection of the species, and whether the recovery plan will be 
updated. The CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources provided 
comments on the many in-water turtles around Tinian, suggested the 
possibility of nesting in the northern islands, and disagreed with the 
endangered listing status because it might increase the extinction risk 
and hinder recovery (though another commenter did not agree with this 
assessment and did not understand how the harvest of turtles for 
cultural reasons would result in conservation) and further reduce the 
possibility of cultural harvest.
    Response: Please see our responses to Comment 3 (regarding turtle 
observations), Comment 7 (regarding cultural harvest), and Comment 9 
(regarding perceived data limitations).
    Regarding the comments on data, to make our proposed listing 
determination, we evaluated the best available scientific and 
commercial data, which included information from several surveys (NMFS 
and USFWS, 1998; Bureau of Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; Palau 
Bureau of Marine Resources, 2008; Trevor, 2009; Maison et al., 2010; H. 
Suganuma, Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm., 2012; J. Cruce, 
Ocean Society, pers. comm., 2013). For our final listing determination, 
we also reviewed additional surveys, which did not provide significant 
new information or change our listing determination (Kolinski et al., 
2001; Kolinski et al., 2004; Kolinski et al., 2005; Kolinski et al., 
2006; Jones and Van Houtan, 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Summers et al., 
in progress). We conclude that data on nesting turtles (rather than 
foraging turtles, as discussed in comments and at public hearings) 
provide the best available scientific and commercial data for assessing 
resilience.
    Regarding the suggestion to list the DPS as threatened, based on 
the best available scientific and commercial data, we find the species 
to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a portion of its range 
as a result of the present and threatened modification of its habitat, 
poaching of turtles and eggs, disease and predation, fisheries bycatch, 
marine debris, and climate change. Regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation efforts are inadequate to remove the impact of these 
threats, and the DPS has little resilience to such threats due to its 
low nesting abundance and limited nesting site diversity.
    Regarding the comment on naturally low abundance and the 
possibility of additional nesting sites, the low nesting abundance is 
likely a result of previous and continued harvest of turtles and eggs 
(Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989). We are not aware of any additional 
nesting data for the northern islands and did not receive any 
information on additional nesting sites during the 6-month public 
comment period.
    Regarding the information requests and concerns over the endangered 
status, upon publication of the proposed rule, we notified other 
nations and requested their comments. We intend to update the recovery 
plans in the future after the DPS listings are finalized; however, we 
do not have an anticipated completion date for such plans at this time. 
The updated listings will allow for more specialized protection of each 
DPS. The endangered status of the Central West Pacific DPS will 
highlight it as a conservation priority among green turtle DPSs. We do 
not agree that the endangered status will increase the extinction risk 
and hinder recovery. Past ESA protections have led to improving trends 
in the Central West Pacific (Martin et al., 2016), and we expect such 
improvements to continue.

[[Page 20070]]

Comments on the Central South Pacific DPS

    Comment 23: We received several comments on the listing 
determination for the Central South Pacific DPS. The Governor of 
American Samoa stated that the endangered status would impact 
fisheries, fishing grounds, and the economy without providing the DPS 
with additional protection (i.e., relative to the current threatened 
status). In addition to these concerns, the Department of Marine and 
Wildlife Resources of American Samoa stated that the Status Review 
Report and proposed rule do not provide rigorous scientific assessment 
of threats of the Central South Pacific DPS because a PVA was not 
performed, there was limited survey effort in the Central South 
Pacific, the estimate of nesting female abundance was not weighted to 
potential available habitats, and the recorded decline was based on one 
nesting site in French Polynesia. Others provided similar comments and 
requested further study of the DPS. One commenter stated that the 
nesting estimate should be weighted for survey effort. One commenter 
questioned whether turtles from American Samoa and French Polynesia 
should be part of the same DPS.
    Response: Please see our responses to Comment 3 and Comment 9 
regarding the process and data used to make listing determinations and 
the difference between threatened and endangered species. The ESA does 
not allow consideration of economic issues for listing determinations.
    Regarding the comment on the impacts of the change in status, the 
new listings will allow for more specialized protection of each DPS. 
The endangered status of the Central South Pacific DPS will highlight 
it as a conservation priority among green turtle DPSs. This may 
encourage conservation actions in other nations. The status change for 
turtles in American Samoa is unlikely to result in additional 
implementation burdens because of longstanding regulations protecting 
threatened species in a manner similar to endangered species (50 CFR 
17.42(b)(1); 50 CFR 223.205).
    Regarding the comments on surveys and assessments, for the Central 
South Pacific DPS, the best available scientific and commercial data 
are summarized in the Status Review Report and include, but are not 
limited to, unpublished nesting and in-water surveys data in American 
Samoa collected by NMFS and the Department of Marine and Wildlife 
Resources of American Samoa. In the proposed rule, we requested all 
data on nesting locations, abundance, trends, and threats, to ensure 
the identification and application of the best available data; however, 
we did not receive additional information for this DPS. We conclude 
that the data identified in the Status Review Report and applied in the 
proposed and final rule represent the best available scientific and 
commercial data and are sufficient to make a listing determination on 
the Central South Pacific DPS.
    Regarding the comments on weighting data, to determine the status 
of the DPS, we analyzed the best available data on the section 4(a)(1) 
factors in the context of demographic parameters, including nesting 
abundance and trends. Nesting abundance was not weighted to potential 
available habitat or survey efforts because such data are not 
available. Instead, the Status Review Team provides two estimates of 
total abundance of nesting females. The first estimate of approximately 
2,900 nesting females was based on 37 quantified nesting sites 
(Seminoff et al., 2015). The Status Review Team provided a second 
estimate (approximately 3,600 nesting females) based on an additional 
700 nesting females at 22 unquantified nesting sites, for which only 
qualitative information was available (Seminoff et al., 2015). Such 
levels of abundance do not provide resilience against threats that 
remove green turtles from the population, such as harvest and 
stochastic events, which increase the extinction risk for small 
populations (Schaffer, 1981; Wright and Hubbell, 1983; Lande et al., 
2003). There appears to be a declining trend at the largest nesting 
beach in French Polynesia, which is considerably larger in abundance 
than all other known nesting beaches (Seminoff et al., 2015). In 
addition, previous reports on nesting abundance in American Samoa 
indicate significant declines relative to historical levels (Tuato'o-
Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 2004). Though we considered 
increasing nesting trends at smaller nesting beaches (Seminoff et al., 
2015), we conclude that such trends provide little resilience to the 
DPS, which is endangered by habitat destruction and modification, 
overexploitation, predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 
fisheries bycatch, marine debris, and climate change.
    Regarding the comments on the composition of the DPS, turtles 
nesting in American Samoa and French Polynesia commonly exhibit 
haplotypes from Clade III, which are uncommon in other DPSs; satellite 
tagging data indicate that these turtles share foraging habitat in 
Fiji, French Polynesia, and American Samoa (Seminoff et al., 2015; 
NMFS, unpublished data, 2015). Therefore, we include turtles nesting 
and foraging in American Samoa and French Polynesia in the Central 
South Pacific DPS.
    Comment 24: One commenter reported reef damage as a result of the 
recent tsunami in American Samoa and requested a discussion of the 
impacts.
    Response: Tsunamis can destroy or modify nesting beach and marine 
habitats for green turtles. They deposit marine debris, which can 
entangle or be ingested by foraging turtles, on reefs. After the 
tsunami of September 29, 2009, over 8,000 pounds of debris were removed 
from 74 km of coral reef habitat in American Samoa (http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/news/featuredstories/dec09/asdebris/welcome.html). The frequency and intensity of storms are likely to 
increase as a result of climate change (IPCC, 2014) and are considered 
an increasing threat to the DPS. We considered these threats in our 
analysis of the Central South Pacific DPS, which we list as endangered.

Comments on the Central North Pacific DPS

    Comment 25: We received many comments on the listing determination 
for the Central North Pacific DPS. Most commenters agreed with our 
listing determination, stating that the DPS should be listed under the 
ESA because it still faces numerous threats. One commenter stated that 
the Services cannot rely on politics or personal observation but must 
list the DPS as threatened (and cannot delist it) to comply with ESA, 
which requires us to base our listing determinations on the best 
available scientific and commercial data. Some commenters stated that 
the DPS should be listed as endangered because of the numerous threats 
and small nesting population abundance. Several commenters stated that 
the DPS should be delisted because of increasing nesting trends, 
observations of increasing in-water sea turtle abundance, or to reward 
conservation efforts and encourage similar efforts throughout the 
Pacific Islands. Several commenters questioned why the PVA and critical 
risk threshold were not used to determine the status of the DPS. Two 
commenters requested that NMFS perform in-water surveys to assess 
abundance prior to making a determination. The State of Hawai[revaps]i 
Department of Land and Natural Resources (Hawai[revaps]i DLNR) 
expressed support for the conservation efforts of the Services in 
partnership with Hawai[revaps]i DLNR, nonprofit organizations, and

[[Page 20071]]

communities, and stated that their Marine Wildlife Program, funded by 
NMFS' Species Recovery Grants to States, has distributed over 200,000 
barbless circle hooks to the fishing community.
    Response: Please see our responses to Comment 3 (regarding the 
listing determination process, rewarding conservation efforts, PVAs, 
and critical risk thresholds), Comment 4 (regarding turtle 
observations), and Comment 9 (regarding perceived data limitations and 
requests for additional surveys).
    We considered the increasing nesting trend, along with the small 
nesting population size and limited spatial structure, during our 
evaluation of the demographic factors. We concluded that these 
demographic parameters do not demonstrate adequate resilience against 
the threats of habitat loss and modification, disease and predation, 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, bycatch, marine debris, boating 
activities, climate change, and limited nesting site diversity (i.e., 
96 percent of nesting occurs at one low-lying atoll). For these 
reasons, we must list the DPS under the ESA. We do not list the DPS as 
endangered because of the positive nesting trend, conservation efforts, 
and the success of ESA protections in reducing the impact of some 
threats (especially the harvest of turtles and eggs). We list the DPS 
as threatened because it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
because of the section 4(a)(1) factors, listed above. We made this 
determination solely on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial data (identified in the proposed rule and Status Review 
Report) and after taking into account the conservation efforts of the 
State of Hawai[revaps]i, which include a variety of effective outreach 
and education programs, including the distribution of barbless circle 
hooks to reduce hook and line bycatch of turtles.
    Comment 26: We received many comments on the section 4(a)(1) 
factors for the Central North Pacific DPS. Many commenters identified 
threats to the Central North Pacific DPS, including entanglement in and 
ingestion of marine debris, accidental take in fisheries, FP, climate 
change, coastal development and beach use in the main Hawaiian Islands 
(MHI), and harvest of turtles and eggs. One commenter identified an 
increase in nesting turtles at Turtle Bay on Oahu but stated that nests 
are destroyed by high surf, beach driving, and beach usage (including 
using a nest as a fire pit) and that turtles are threatened by 
poaching, harassment, pollution, and bycatch. One commenter requested a 
discussion of the impacts on the DPS caused by pollution around 
Johnston Atoll, vessel groundings in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 
(NWHI), natural disasters, and random variation and stochasticities. 
One commenter requested a discussion of how impacts to individuals 
affect the DPS (e.g., how the loss of Whale-Skate Island impacted the 
DPS). One commenter stated that there is little that can be done to 
protect known nesting beaches from the public, unless all development 
activities come to a halt and are reversed. One commenter described an 
increase in turtles at the Honokohau Harbor since poaching ended about 
a decade ago. One commenter stated that hatchlings at Moomomi have no 
significant predators. Several commenters stated that FP is not a 
threat to the DPS. One commenter stated that Hawai[revaps]i-based 
longline fisheries are not a threat to green turtles of any DPS and 
that the new listing should not result in the reinitiation of ESA 
section 7 consultations. Hawai[revaps]i DLNR identified several threats 
to nesting habitat including, in the NWHI, the inundation of nests due 
to sea level rise and in the MHI, coastal development, vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic, beach pollution and modification, and erosion. They 
also identified fishing and FP as threats. Regarding inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, Hawai[revaps]i DLNR stated a need to increase 
coordination and data sharing; they stated their intention to compare 
existing State regulations to Federal regulations to identify needs or 
gaps and to work with NOAA fisheries to develop a State management 
plan. Hawai[revaps]i DLNR provided information on laws regulating the 
use of gill nets that have reduced bycatch by requiring inspection 
every 2 hours and removal after 4 hours; lay nets (a type of gill net) 
must be registered and tagged, and usage is restricted to one at a 
time, only during daylight hours, and in depths of less than 25 feet 
(for non-commercial users).
    Response: Please see our responses to Comments 6 and 8 for general 
information on the section 4(a)(1) factors and the impacts of climate 
change. We appreciate the State of Hawai[revaps]i DLNR's comments and 
continued efforts to conserve green turtles. As indicated by the State 
of Hawai[revaps]i DLNR and other commenters, the Central North Pacific 
DPS is threatened by the following 4(a)(1) factors, described in detail 
in the Status Review Report and proposed rule: Present and threatened 
habitat loss and degradation, disease and predation, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, vessel 
activities, limited spatial diversity, and climate change. We do not 
have adequate data on poaching to assess the impact of this threat on 
the DPS.
    Regarding the comment on the destruction or modification of habitat 
at Johnston Atoll, previous military activities, including nuclear 
testing and chemical weapons incineration, polluted the beaches and 
surrounding marine ecosystem (http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=12515). Balazs (1985) described the potential impacts, 
which include petroleum contamination that adversely affects turtles by 
external fouling, ingestion, and interference with olfactory perception 
and food supply (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). Underwater explosions 
of previously unexploded ordnances destroy turtle foraging habitats 
(Balazs, 1985). Radioactive particles were spread over a portion of 
Johnston Atoll and nearshore waters and potentially concentrated in 
algae eaten by turtles (Balazs, 1985). Additional discharges include 
heavy metals, nerve gas, chemical weapons, herbicides, organophosphorus 
compounds, and the unknown contents of discarded 55 gallon drums, which 
have the potential to directly impact turtles and contaminate the 
turtles' forage base (Balazs, 1985).
    Regarding the comment on destruction or modification of habitat by 
vessel groundings, such incidents damage foraging habitat and reef-
associated organisms (i.e., green turtles' prey base) and release 
contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous substances, etc.), which threaten 
foraging habitat and prey (Keller et al., 2009). Such groundings are 
possible wherever ships navigate through shallow waters (i.e., 
nearshore areas throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago). Thirteen reported 
vessel groundings have occurred in the NWHI in the last 60 years 
(Keller et al., 2009); recent groundings in the MHI include the 2005 M/
V Cape Flattery and 2009 USS Port Royal incidents. It is impossible to 
predict the number or severity of future vessel groundings; however, 
given the data on previous groundings, it is reasonable to expect 
additional groundings near green turtle foraging habitat, which occurs 
throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago. Like past events, these groundings 
are expected to modify foraging habitat and reduce the amount of 
available prey in the area.
    Regarding the comment on loss of habitat at Whale-Skate Island, the 
disappearance of Whale-Skate Island at French Frigate Shoals (FFS) was 
due to

[[Page 20072]]

erosion from severe winter storms in 1998 and 1999 (Antonelis et al., 
2006; Lowry et al., 2011). We do not know how the disappearance of 
Whale-Skate Island impacted the population because regular surveys had 
not been performed on that island. Turtles may have nested at 
neighboring islets of FFS; however, some may not have nested or may 
have nested in suboptimal habitats. Survey data indicate that the 
disappearance of Whale-Skate Island did not result in unusual increases 
in nesting at East Island in 1998, 1999, or 2000 relative to prior 
years (Humburg and Balazs, 2014). Furthermore, radio telemetry of four 
nesting females and four females at Trig and Whale-Skate Islands 
demonstrated that the turtles remained near these islands and did not 
travel the 9 km to East Island within a nesting season; over multiple 
years, only 33 percent of males and 24 percent of females strayed from 
Trig and Whale-Skate Islands (Dizon and Balazs, 1982). The authors 
concluded that once imprinted on a nesting beach, a green turtle is 
unlikely to switch its breeding habitat (Dizon and Balazs, 1982). Dizon 
and Balazs (1982) also emphasized the importance of maintaining 
foraging habitats and nesting beaches as free from disturbing 
influences as possible. Coastal development may result in the loss or 
modification of nesting and basking beaches and the nearshore habitats 
necessary for the reproductive success of the DPS.
    Regarding the comment that little can be done to protect nesting 
beaches without halting or reversing all development, our listing 
determination is based on whether the species meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered, not whether activities could be performed. 
Nevertheless, we note that less drastic measures (such as minimizing 
impacts of artificial lighting, construction, vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic, and pollution on beaches during nesting seasons) are effective 
for protecting nesting beaches.
    Regarding the comments on predation, introduced species, such as 
mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and cats, prey on eggs and hatchlings 
at some nesting beaches in the MHI. Although hatchlings at Moomomi may 
have no significant land predators, they are likely to encounter 
predators at sea, including sea birds, sharks, and other large fish.
    Regarding the comments on FP, we agree with the commenters who 
identified FP as a threat to the DPS. In a study of 3,732 green turtle 
strandings in Hawai[revaps]i between 1982 and 2003, FP was the most 
common cause of stranding (28 percent) and had a specific mortality 
rate of 88 percent (Chaloupka et al., 2008).
    Regarding the comments on bycatch and the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, after FP, fishing line and gillnet entanglement 
are the leading cause of stranding and mortality of green turtles in 
Hawai[revaps]i (Work et al., 2015). The State of Hawai[revaps]i has 
enacted important laws for gill and lay net fisheries. Requiring 
inspection of nets every 2 hours reduces, but does not eliminate, 
bycatch risk; entanglement and drowning still occur and are likely 
underreported (NMFS, 2012; Francke, 2013). As stated in the proposed 
rule, measures employed by U.S. longline fisheries have reduced green 
turtle interactions to negligible levels; however, reinitiation of 
consultation is still required if a new species is listed and may be 
affected by a Federally permitted action (50 CFR 402.16(d)).
    Regarding the comment on natural disasters, since 1950, more than 
50 hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions have affected 
Hawai[revaps]i. We expect climate change to increase the frequency and 
intensity of such events (IPCC, 2014). Storm events during the nesting 
season are likely to disrupt green turtle nesting activity and 
hatchling production by flooding or exposing nests and altering thermal 
conditions (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007), resulting in reduced cohort 
abundance. These events can also degrade turtle nesting habitat by 
reducing or eliminating sandy beaches and creating barriers to adult 
and hatchling movements. A single event is unlikely to result in large-
scale losses over multiple nesting seasons; however, the increased 
frequency of such events combined with the effects of sea level rise 
increase the likelihood of this scenario (Baker et al., 2006; Keller et 
al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2012).
    Regarding the comment on stochasticities, irregular, random, and 
stochastic events, such as those described above, increase the 
extinction risk of small populations (Schaffer, 1981; Wright and 
Hubbell, 1983; Lande et al., 2003). Stochastic perturbations (such as 
demographic, environmental, and genetic stochasticities and natural 
catastrophes) may result in extinction even in an environment that, on 
average, is favorable for growth and persistence (Schaffer, 1981). 
Therefore, we are especially concerned about the effects of such 
threats on the Central North Pacific DPS.
    Comment 27: We received many comments regarding the impact of 
climate change on the Central North Pacific DPS. One commenter did not 
think that climate change would affect nesting at FFS because the 
turtles would find alternative nesting sites and because nesting across 
the season and years provides resilience against storm events. One 
commenter asked how coastal development and climate change together 
would affect the DPS. Hawai[revaps]i DLNR requested additional 
information regarding the projected timeframe when FFS might be 
inundated and the nesting sites unavailable.
    Response: Please see our responses to Comments 8 (regarding climate 
change) and 24 (responses to nesting habitat loss). The following 
information on climate change is specific to the Central North Pacific 
DPS.
    Baker et al. (2006) estimated that the islets of FFS would lose 15 
to 65 percent of area under the median sea level rise scenario (0.48 m) 
and 26 to 99 percent of area under the maximum sea level rise scenario 
(0.88 m) by 2100. Sea level rise is expected to continue after 2100, 
and virtually all land at FFS would be submerged at a sea level rise of 
2 m (Baker et al., 2006). East Island, where 50 percent of nesting 
occurs at FFS (Balazs et al., 2015), would persist the longest; 
however, it is not clear that displaced nesters from other areas of FFS 
(i.e., the other 50 percent of nesting) would begin nesting at East 
Island. Dizon and Balazs (1982) conclude that once imprinted on a 
nesting beach, a green turtle is unlikely to switch its breeding 
habitat.
    Using a simulation model, Tiwari et al. (2010) estimated carrying 
capacity at East Island under current conditions and based on 
predictions of sea level rise by 2100. With 30 percent loss of nesting 
habitat and a 20 percent increase in mortality (to simulate the effects 
of sea level rise and crowding), carrying capacity would be reached at 
60,000 to 100,000 nests (Tiwari et al., 2010). The model considered all 
available area on the island suitable for nesting (Tiwari et al., 
2010); however, Balazs (1980) reports that very few turtles have nested 
in 5 of 17 available areas at East Island, despite apparently suitable 
habitat. Therefore, while there appears to be adequate suitable habitat 
at East Island, it is uncertain how many turtles would use this habitat 
for nesting if their current nesting habitat were lost.
    Reynolds et al. (2012) examined sea level rise scenarios of 0.0 to 
2.0 m, focusing on mean high water, which is lower than the spring tide 
estimates used by Baker et al. (2006) and Tiwari et al. (2010). At FFS, 
they projected 12 percent land loss at 1.0 m sea level rise and 32 
percent land loss at 2.0 m sea level rise, which would result in the 
complete submergence of five of the nine islets (Reynolds et al., 
2012).

[[Page 20073]]

Reynolds et al. (2012) concluded that the decreases in nesting areas at 
FFS are likely to limit nesting habitat for the green turtles if 
philopatry (i.e., natal beach fidelity) prevents their dispersal. They 
also predicted that along the coastline, groundwater levels and turtle 
nesting density will likely change as a result of sea level rise and 
that these changes, along with increasing temperatures, would 
negatively impact green turtle nesting (Reynolds et al., 2012). They 
identified the need for additional climate change adaptation strategies 
and planning for marine wildlife dependent on the terrestrial breeding 
habitats of FFS and Pearl and Hermes Atoll, which are likely to be 
inundated before 2100 (Reynolds et al., 2012).
    It must be noted that these studies used a passive, inundation or 
``bathtub'' model, which is conservative and does not consider storm 
surges or the projected increases in storm intensity and frequency 
(Hawkes et al., 2009). In addition, the flooding scenarios do not 
consider erosive recession of the shoreline causing land loss, long-
shore drift redistribution of sediments (resulting in both gains and 
losses of land area), net permanent loss of sand volume offshore, and 
onshore sand deposition by overwash during high wave activity (Baker et 
al., 2006).
    These considerations appear to be important in Hawai[revaps]i, 
where historical shoreline changes (i.e., coastal erosion) are one to 
two orders of magnitude greater than sea level rise (Romine et al., 
2013). In addition, erosion rates vary among the Hawaiian Islands as a 
result of sea level rise, sediment availability, anthropogenic changes, 
littoral processes, wave conditions, and coastal and nearshore 
geomorphology (Romine et al., 2013). At 9 of 10 sites in the MHI, the 
shorelines are projected to retreat 1 to 24 m by 2050 and 4 to 60 m by 
2100 (Anderson et al., 2015). Sea level rise is likely to lead to 
doubling of the shoreline recession by 2050 (and 2.5 times by 2100) as 
compared to extrapolations based on historical erosion (Anderson et 
al., 2015). In addition, changes in storminess, wave climate, sediment 
availability, and climate related modifications in reef geomorphology 
will enhance erosion and inundation of low-lying coastal areas 
(Anderson et al., 2015).
    The MHI may also be exposed to ``coastal squeeze,'' i.e., as sea 
level rises, the landward migration of nesting beaches (and available 
nesting habitat) is inhibited due to coastal development and beachfront 
barriers (Fish et al., 2005; Fish et al., 2008). Therefore, as one 
commenter suggests, habitat modification due to coastal development is 
likely to be exacerbated by sea level rise.
    In addition to sea level rise, we considered the effects of 
increased temperatures (including nest failure and skewed sex ratios), 
ocean acidification, and the impact of sea level rise on the movement 
of hatchlings, oceanic juveniles, and adults. Hawkes et al. (2014) 
conclude that breeding ecology may be fundamentally affected by climate 
change and that altered thermal regimes may have the most dramatic and 
insidious effects on sea turtles. This is especially a concern in 
Hawai`i, where from 1990 to 2014, the sea surface temperature warmed an 
average of 0.034 [deg]C annually (roughly three times the observed 
global average over this period), a change that is likely to result in 
the cessation of basking, an adaptive trait exhibited by turtles of the 
Central North Pacific DPS, by 2100 (Van Houtan et al., 2015).
    Comment 28: Two commenters requested exemptions to existing take 
prohibitions. Their comments suggested that the Services should make 
specific findings for each of the threatened DPSs that protective 
regulations are necessary and advisable. The State of Hawai`i DLNR 
recommended that the Services partner with DLNR and communities to 
develop appropriate exemptions to take prohibitions under section 4(d) 
of the ESA to allow for more flexible, responsive, and enhanced 
management.
    Response: As noted in the proposed rule and explained further in 
response to Comment 7, longstanding protective regulations apply the 
prohibitions of Section 9 (including the ``take'' prohibitions) to 
threatened sea turtles, with limited exceptions, and continue to remain 
in effect (50 CFR 17.42(b), 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207). 
Modifications to such regulations are beyond the scope of this rule, 
which finalizes the listing determinations for green turtle DPSs. The 
Services may extend the prohibitions of section 9 through protective 
regulations that apply generally to a group of threatened species and 
are not required to make species-specific determinations as new species 
are listed. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon v. 
Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 
17 F.3d 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1994), rev'd, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). While we 
noted the existence of the existing regulations in the proposed rule to 
apprise the public of the full regulatory landscape for green turtles, 
we did not undertake a review, extension or modification of those 
rules, which are entirely separate. This is consistent with the 
approach we took for the listing determinations of nine DPSs of 
loggerhead sea turtles (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).
    Comment 29: We received several comments on the recovery (or lack 
thereof) of the Central North Pacific DPS. Several commenters stated 
that the DPS was recovered; however, one commenter stated that the DPS 
has not recovered because it has not met the recovery criteria.
    Response: Please see our response to Comment 16. Because the 
commenters raised the issue of whether the species had met its recovery 
criteria, we provide the following information.
    Prior to the identification and proposed listing of the Central 
North Pacific DPS, the Services published the Recovery Plan for U.S. 
Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (i.e., the Recovery Plan; NMFS 
and USFWS, 1998). The Hawaiian population was included in the Recovery 
Plan. One of the recovery criteria has been met: We have identified all 
regional stocks to source beaches. The other recovery criteria have not 
been met. The DPS does not average 5,000 females nesting annually. 
Although the nesting population at East Island has increased over the 
past four decades, 25 years of monitoring data are not available for 
other nesting beaches. There are numerous threats at key foraging 
areas, where population trend data are not available. First priority 
tasks that have not been implemented include: Determination of 
distribution and abundance of post-hatchlings; assessment and 
prevention of degradation of reefs by boating and diving activities; 
and prevention of degradation of reefs by pollution, coastal erosion, 
siltation, and blasting. There is no management plan to maintain 
sustained populations of turtles in the absence of ESA protections, and 
there are no international agreements to reduce bycatch (and bycatch 
mortality) in foreign longline fisheries.
    Comment 30: We received several comments on the carrying capacity 
of the Central North Pacific DPS. Several commenters stated that the 
DPS is overpopulated or has reached carrying capacity (K), citing 
Chaloupka and Balazs (2007) or similar publications and disagreeing 
with Kittinger et al. (2013).
    Response: Balazs et al. (2015) summarized all existing data and 
knowledge on the demographic variables of Hawaiian green turtles. After 
reviewing all data, from 1973 to 2012, they concluded that the Hawaiian 
green turtle is not at carrying capacity (Balazs et al., 2015). 
Specifically, they

[[Page 20074]]

found that the population growth rates from 1973 to 2003 (Chaloupka et 
al., 2008), 1973 to 2004 (Chaloupka and Balazs, 2007), and 1973 to 2012 
``are statistically indistinguishable, indicating that the last 10 
years have not demonstrated any slowing of population growth or 
negative density dependence as some predicted (e.g., Chaloupka and 
Balazs, 2007)'' (Balazs et al., 2015). The authors concluded that the 
population is ``still growing at a robust rate and underscore 
historical analyses (e.g., Kittinger et al., 2013; Van Houtan and 
Kittinger, 2014) that suggest the population was significantly more 
abundant historically'' (Balazs et al., 2015). Because the Balazs et 
al. (2015) paper reviews all current and historical demographic data, 
we consider it the best available scientific data. We provide the 
following information to further explain this complex topic and resolve 
any perceived disagreement regarding available data.
    There have been numerous studies on carrying capacity in the 
Hawaiian green turtle population, focusing on foraging, nesting site, 
and overall carrying capacity (e.g., Balazs and Chaloupka, 2004a; 
2004b; 2006; Chaloupka and Balazs, 2007; Snover et al., 2008; Tiwari et 
al., 2010; Wabnitz et al., 2010). Bjorndal et al. (2000) were the first 
to evaluate compensatory responses resulting from density-dependent 
effects for a green turtle population (i.e., sea turtles foraging in a 
Bahamian bay of approximately 20 km\2\). They found three lines of 
evidence to support a density-dependent effect: Significant inverse 
correlation between population density and mean annual growth rate; 
correlations between condition index and mean annual growth rates 
(positive) and population density (negative); and the population 
abundance fluctuated around carrying capacity at levels likely to 
experience density-dependent effects (i.e., K of approximately 100 
turtles; Bjorndal et al., 2000). Balazs and Chaloupka (2004a) applied 
this approach to five foraging areas in Hawai`i: Midway Atoll; Kane'ohe 
Bay, O'ahu; Pala'au, Moloka'i; and Kiholo Bay and Punalu'u Bay, 
Hawai`i. They found significant, long-term declines in size-specific 
growth rates at Pala'au, Kiholo Bay, and Punalu'u Bay, which may 
reflect limited food availability or nutritional quality (Balazs and 
Chaloupka, 2004a). Balazs and Chaloupka (2004a) did not state that 
carrying capacity had been reached at any location; instead, they 
interpreted these data to mean that carrying capacity for Kiholo and 
Punalu'u ``might'' have been reached. The authors concluded that 
density-dependent effects are not well understood and warrant further 
investigation (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2004a). Wabnitz et al. (2010) used 
an ecosystem model to confirm that the green turtle aggregation has 
reached carrying capacity at Kaloko-Honok[omacr]hau National Historical 
Park. Based on these studies, we conclude that foraging carrying 
capacity has likely been reached at this one location on the Big Island 
of Hawai`i, which may be ecologically representative of green turtle 
habitats spanning 100 km on the west coast of that island (Balazs et 
al., 2015). This does not, however, mean that green turtles have 
reached carrying capacity in their foraging habitat throughout the 
Hawaiian Archipelago. Numerous publications identify current or 
historically important foraging areas on: Kaua'i (Princeville, 
northwestern coastal areas of Na Pali, and southern coastal areas from 
Kukuiula to Makahuena Point); O'ahu (Kawela Bay, Kailua and Kaneohe 
Bays, northwestern coastal areas from Mokuleia to Kawailoa, Maunalua 
Bay, West Beach, and Sandy Beach); Moloka'i (southern coastal areas 
from Kamalo to Halena and Pala'au); Lana'i (northern and northeastern 
coastal areas bordering Kalohi and Auau Channels, Keomuku, Kuahua, and 
Polihua Beach); Maui (Hana District and Paia, Kahului Bay, Honokowai, 
Maliko Bay, and Olowalu); Hawai`i (Kau and North Kohala Districts, and 
Kapoho); and the NWHI (Necker Island, FFS, Lisianski Island, Pearl and 
Hermes Reef, Laysan Island, Midway Atoll, and Kure Atoll) (Balazs, 
1980; Balazs, 1987; Arthur and Balazs, 2008). Furthermore, green 
turtles not only forage on native seagrass and algal species but also 
thrive on nonnative species (Arthur and Balazs, 2008; Russell and 
Balazs, 2009; McDermid et al., 2015). Finally, if foraging carrying 
capacity were reached, we would expect nutritional constraints to lead 
to reduced nesting frequency due to density-dependent effects resulting 
from competition for limited food resources (Bjorndal et al., 2000). 
However, the 3 to 4 year female remigration interval has remained 
constant since 1973 (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2004b; 2006; Balazs et al., 
2015), indicating that females do not spend additional time foraging 
before returning to nest. For these reasons, we conclude that the DPS 
has not reached foraging carrying capacity.
    One study has also considered nesting carrying capacity. Tiwari et 
al. (2010) used a simulation model to estimate carrying capacity on the 
nesting beach of East Island, FFS. They found that East Island is well 
below carrying capacity and is capable of supporting a larger nesting 
population (Tiwari et al., 2010). Therefore, we conclude that the DPS 
has not reached nesting carrying capacity.
    Other studies considered overall carrying capacity (Balazs and 
Chaloupka, 2004a; 2006; Chaloupka and Balazs, 2007; Snover et al., 
2008). Three publications on modeling cited the long-term increase in 
the abundance of nesting females at East Island and a constant level of 
new recruits as possible evidence of nearing carrying capacity (Balazs 
and Chaloupka, 2004a; 2006; Chaloupka and Balazs, 2007); however, these 
studies were not conclusive and did not claim that the population was 
at carrying capacity (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2004a; 2006; Chaloupka and 
Balazs, 2007; Snover et al., 2008). There were also several issues with 
these analyses. For example, Chaloupka and Balazs (2007) indicated the 
data were uninformative for K and that K was estimated with significant 
uncertainty. Furthermore, their model did not indicate that the 
population was near K because the plot of nester abundance showed an 
exponentially growing population (Snover et al., 2008).
    Finally, since the original consideration of carrying capacity in 
2004, the abundance of nesting females at East Island has continued to 
increase from an estimated average of 338 nesting females (2000-2003) 
to an estimated average of 464 nesting females (2009-2012; Humburg and 
Balazs, 2014). Had carrying capacity been reached in 2004, we would 
have expected nesting abundance and population growth rates to level 
off or decrease by now.
    Kittinger et al. (2013) analyzed data from middens (i.e., domestic 
waste sites) and observational data from historical sources, including 
interviews with community elders who described the harvest of nesting 
turtles at Kaua'i beaches prior to 1960. It is unlikely that the 
community elders would have confused nesting and basking turtles, as 
suggested by some commenters. The Hawaiian Gazette (July 19, 1912) 
cited Judge Kapoikai watching ``baby turtles scuttle down the beach'' 
in Maui; hatchlings are not likely to be confused with other life 
stages. These examples are indicative of nesting in the MHI prior to 
ESA protections. Van Houtan and Kittinger (2014) analyzed nearly three 
decades (1948 to 1974) of data on commercial landings data from a green 
turtle fishery in the MHI. These data indicate that the small-scale 
fishery and local market demand were key factors in the decline of 
Hawaiian green turtles, which were already significantly

[[Page 20075]]

depleted by prior exploitation (Van Houtan and Kittinger, 2014).
    In summary, we conclude that historically the DPS was significantly 
more abundant and has not yet reached foraging, nesting, or overall 
carrying capacity.
    Comment 31: One commenter indicated that the determination on the 
Central North Pacific DPS is inconsistent with the 2012 International 
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened 
SpeciesTM (i.e., Red List) assessment, which categorized the 
Hawaiian subpopulation of green turtles as ``least concern.''
    Response: Species classifications under the ESA and Red List are 
not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and 
treatment of uncertainty are not the same, nor is the legal effect.
    Unlike the ESA, the Red List is not a statute and is not a legally 
binding or regulatory instrument. It does not include legally binding 
requirements, prohibitions, or guidance for the protection of 
threatened (i.e., critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable) 
taxa (IUCN, 2012). Rather, it provides taxonomic, conservation status, 
and distribution information on species. The Red List is based on a 
system of categories and criteria designed to determine the relative 
risk of extinction (http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/introduction), 
classifying species in one of nine categories, as determined via 
quantitative criteria, including population size reductions, range 
reductions, small population size, and quantitative extinction risk. 
The ESA requires the Services to list species if they are endangered or 
threatened by any or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) factors (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), as based on the best available scientific and 
commercial data, which may include a qualitative threats analysis.
    Thus, the ESA and Red List are inherently different. To the extent 
that the information described within Red List is relevant to our 
determination, we do not agree that the DPS ``is approaching full 
recovery to pre-exploitation levels'' (IUCN, 2012). The IUCN cites the 
modeling study by Chaloupka and Balazs (2007), which has been refuted 
by more recent and complete data (Balazs et al., 2015), which we 
consider to be the best available scientific data. In response to 
Comment 30, we identify the problems with the Chaloupka and Balazs 
(2007) study. Their pre-exploitation estimate of 320,000 turtles is 
likely an underestimate because it is based solely on small-scale 
fishery landings from 1944 to 1973; however, broad-scale commercial 
exploitation of the population began in the early 19th century and may 
have been quite extensive (Amerson, 1971; Van Houtan and Kittinger 
2014). In addition, traditional exploitation occurred for centuries 
prior (Chaloupka and Balazs, 2007; Kittinger et al., 2013). Therefore, 
it is likely that the DPS was significantly more abundant historically 
(Kittinger et al., 2013; Van Houtan and Kittinger, 2014; Balazs et al., 
2015).
    We agree with the IUCN's identification of the following threats to 
the DPS: Restricted location (i.e., utilization of one rookery); 
erosion and habitat loss throughout the NWHI; climate impacts; illegal 
harvesting; FP, which causes debilitating tumors of the skin and 
internal organs; coastal development and urbanization, fishing line 
ingestion or entanglement from recreational shore based fisheries, 
entanglement in gill nets, vessel collisions, miscellaneous hazards 
such as spear wounds; and climate change (increasing sea surface 
temperature and increasing intensity and frequency of severe storms) 
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16285718/0). Because of these 
factors, the Central North Pacific DPS is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range.
    Comment 32: One commenter stated that the recapture of three 
Central North Pacific turtles in Japan, the Marshall Islands, and the 
Philippines out of 7,360 total recaptures signifies adequate gene flow 
to homogenize populations (i.e., the populations are not genetically 
discrete).
    Response: We have not detected any shared mtDNA haplotypes between 
the Central North Pacific DPS and the Central West Pacific or the East 
Indian-West Pacific DPSs. If gene flow had been adequate to homogenize 
the DPSs, we would expect shared haplotypes and consistent haplotypic 
frequencies in these DPSs. Furthermore, in 50 years of extensive 
nesting surveys in the Hawaiian Archipelago, no recaptures or 
haplotypes from the Central West or East Indian-West Pacific DPSs have 
been encountered.
    Comment 33: Several commenters stated that green turtles were 
consuming too much limu (i.e., Hawaiian algae).
    Response: The extent of turtle consumption of limu is not relevant 
to our listing determination because it does not represent a threat to 
turtles; however, we believe a fuller understanding of this issue is 
important to promoting conservation of green turtles and dispelling 
misinformation. We provide the following information because reductions 
in limu are likely caused by other species. Nonnative algae pose one of 
the greatest threats to native algae by competing for space. Additional 
threats to limu include: storm water discharges, pollution, 
development, and overharvesting by humans (Wianecki, 2010; Lapointe and 
Bedford, 2011). At Kaloko-Honok[omacr]hau National Historical Park, 
Wabnitz et al. (2010) determined that sea urchins have the greatest 
impact (45 percent) on algal resources, followed by herbivorous fish 
(14.4 percent), with green turtles only accounting for 0.2 percent of 
total herbivory consumption.
    Green turtles are selective foragers that target specific species 
(Balazs, 1980). Only two of these species (U. fasciata and C. edule, 
which are both common; Abbott, 1984) are favored by humans. In fact, 
green turtles may provide benefits to limu by consuming nonnative algae 
(Arthur and Balazs, 2008; Russel and Balazs, 2009).
    Comment 34: One commenter stated that the increase in green turtles 
is linked to an increase in sharks and shark attacks on humans. One 
commenter stated that green turtles damage coral in Kaneohe Bay, 
Hawai`i.
    Response: As we noted in our response to Comment 33, our listing 
determination must be based solely on a review of the status of the 
species; extraneous considerations are not relevant. Nevertheless, the 
best available scientific and commercial data do not link the 
increasing abundance of green turtles to increasing shark abundance or 
attacks (http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/February-2016/Why-Are-There-So-Many-Shark-Attacks-in-Hawaii/). Furthermore, 
green turtles likely improve the overall health of coral reefs in 
Kaneohe Bay by controlling the overgrowth of nonnative algae (Pandolfi 
et al., 2005; Russel and Balazs, 2009).

Comments on the East Pacific DPS

    Comment 35: The Instituto del Mar del Per[uacute] suggested 
breaking the East Pacific DPS into two DPSs and listing the southeast 
Pacific as endangered for the following reasons: (1) While there is an 
increasing trend at Michoac[aacute]n nesting beaches (Delgado-Trejo and 
Alvarado-Diaz, 2012), there have not been substantial increases at 
Gal[aacute]pagos nesting beaches in the past 15 years (IAC, 2011, 2012, 
2013, 2014); (2) Peru lists the species as endangered (D.S. No. 004-
2014-MINAGRI) and prohibits hunting, capture, possession, and 
transportation of specimens, products and/or byproducts; in addition, 
Per[uacute] is

[[Page 20076]]

a signatory of several international agreements for the conservation of 
sea turtles that developed their work plan and resolutions on the basis 
of the IUCN Red List category of endangered (Seminoff, 2004); (3) 
southeast Pacific turtles face numerous threats including bycatch, 
harvest, illegal trade of turtle meat, oil, and derivatives (Alfaro 
Shigueto et al., 2010, 2011; de Paz et al, 2002); and (4) increasing 
threats include coastal development, artisanal fisheries, and 
aquaculture, which occur close to foraging areas and cause habitat 
degradation.
    Response: We appreciate the Instituto del Mar del Per[uacute]'s 
comments and efforts to conserve sea turtles. For differences between 
the ESA and IUCN Red List, please see Comment 31. Turtles of the East 
Pacific DPS share phenotypic traits, including size (i.e., small) and 
color (i.e., black), that are not found in other Pacific DPSs. They 
share haplotypes from Clade VIII and do not exhibit haplotypes from 
other clades (Seminoff et al., 2015). There is significant genetic 
structure within the DPS (i.e., four regional stocks; Seminoff et al., 
2015); however, the divergence among stocks is much less than the 
divergence among DPSs, as indicated by nuclear (Roden et al., 2013) and 
mtDNA (Seminoff et al., 2015). Furthermore, the most significant 
differences do not occur between turtles nesting at Mexican and 
Gal[aacute]pagos beaches, but rather between the turtles nesting at the 
Revillagigedos Islands (Mexico) and all others (Seminoff et al., 2015). 
Genetically, females nesting at Michoac[aacute]n (Mexico) are more 
similar to females nesting in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands than to 
those nesting at the Revillagigedos Islands (Seminoff et al., 2015). 
Satellite tracking indicates that turtles nesting in Michoac[aacute]n, 
Costa Rica, and the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands converge at foraging areas 
in Central America (Hart et al., 2015), and at least one 
Michoac[aacute]n turtle was recovered as far south as Colombia 
(Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa, 1990). Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data which indicates connectivity within the 
DPS, we conclude that the East Pacific DPS is discrete and significant 
and should not be further divided.
    Conservation efforts have led to increasing abundance at numerous 
nesting sites throughout the range of the DPS. In addition to the 
increasing trends at Michoac[aacute]n, we found stable to slightly 
increasing nesting trends at Gal[aacute]pagos nesting beaches, which 
host the second largest nesting aggregation of the DPS (Seminoff et 
al., 2015). We do not find that the East Pacific DPS is presently in 
danger of extinction; however, it is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range due to habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, disease 
and predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, 
marine debris, boat strikes, red tide poisoning, and climate change. 
Therefore, we finalize our proposal to list the East Pacific DPS as 
threatened under the ESA.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We make the following changes from the proposed rule:
     We change the boundaries of the ranges for the North and 
South Atlantic DPSs because all islands of the U.S. Virgin Islands (not 
just St. Croix) should be included in the range of the South Atlantic 
DPS, as indicated by genetic and other data presented in the Status 
Review Report.
     In the proposed rule, we erroneously listed the California 
and Oregon border as 41[deg] N.; we remove the reference to the 
California and Oregon border, however, 41[deg] N. remains the northern 
boundary for the range of the East Pacific DPS.
     We corrected typographical errors in the listing tables 
and throughout the preamble, including correcting the citation to the 
existing critical habitat designation for the North Atlantic DPS, at 50 
CFR 226.208.
     We include information on the National Colombia Programme 
for Conservation of Marine and Continental Turtles in our consideration 
of conservation efforts for the South Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs.
     We indicate that the BIOT, located within the range of the 
Southwest Indian DPS, protects green turtles and their habitat; 
however, conservation efforts are not sufficient to adequately reduce 
all threats (Mortimer and Day, 1999).
     We reviewed, and incorporate as appropriate, scientific 
data from references that were not included in the Status Review Report 
and proposed rule. We include the following references, which together 
with previously cited references, represent the best available 
scientific and commercial data; however, these new references do not 
present significant new findings that change any of our proposed 
listing determinations: Benaka et al., 2013; Adimey et al., 2014; 
Bourjea et al., 2014; Brei et al., 2014; Carreras et al., 2014; Casale 
and Mariani, 2014; Dutton et al., 2014a; Dutton et al., 2014b; 
Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al., 2014; Hays et al., 2014; Keller et al., 
2014; Lagueux et al., 2014; Naro-Maciel et al., 2014a; Naro-Maciel et 
al., 2014b; Ng et al., 2014; Read et al., 2014; Schuyler et al., 2014; 
Senko et al., 2014; Shamblin et al., 2014; Van Houtan et al., 2014; 
Balazs et al., 2015; Baudouin et al., 2015; Brost et al., 2015; Cavallo 
et al., 2015; Esteban et al., 2015; Guilder et al., 2015; Hart et al., 
2015; Jourdan and Fuentes, 2015; Katsanevakis et al., 2015; Mancini et 
al., 2015; Rhodes, 2015; Ruiz-Izaguirre et al., 2015; Santidri[aacute]n 
Tomillo et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2015b; Stokes et al., 2015; 
Stringell et al., 2015; Ullmann and Stachowitsch, 2015; Van Houtan et 
al., 2015; Wedemeyer-Strombel et al., 2015; Wilcox et al., 2015; Work 
et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2016; Halley et al., in 
review; Summers et al., in progress; NMFS, in progress.

Identification of DPSs

    The comments that we received on the proposed rule did not change 
our conclusions regarding the identification of DPSs. We reviewed 
relevant and recently available scientific data that were not included 
in the Status Review Report and proposed rule (Carreras et al., 2014; 
Casale and Mariani, 2014; Dutton et al., 2014a; Dutton et al., 2014b; 
Hays et al., 2014; Naro-Maciel et al., 2014a; Naro-Maciel et al., 
2014b; Ng et al., 2014; Read et al., 2014; Shamblin et al., 2014; 
Baudouin et al., 2015; Esteban et al., 2015; Hart et al., 2015; Mancini 
et al., 2015; Stokes et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015). The 
identification of fine-scale genetic structure or mixing at foraging 
areas for some DPSs does not change our findings for the proposed DPSs. 
Based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we conclude 
that the DPSs identified in the proposed rule are discrete and 
significant. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the 
identification of DPSs in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, 
with the following exception as discussed above: We changed the 
boundary between the North and South Atlantic DPSs so that all islands 
of the U.S. Virgin Islands (not just St. Croix) would be included in 
the South Atlantic DPS.
    In summary, we applied our joint DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 
7, 1996) to identify 11 discrete and significant DPSs: North Atlantic, 
Mediterranean, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East 
Indian-West Pacific, Central West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central 
South Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East Pacific (Figure 1).

[[Page 20077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AP16.000

North Atlantic DPS

    The comments that we received on the North Atlantic DPS and 
additional information that became available since the publication of 
the proposed rule did not change our conclusions regarding its listing 
determination. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the 
North Atlantic DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed 
rule, with the following exceptions: The boundary of the DPS (which was 
changed to exclude all islands of the U.S. Virgin Islands), and the 
application of the critical risk threshold from the Status Review 
Report (which, as we explained in the proposed rule, does not directly 
correlate with the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and 
``threatened''). The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the DPS extends from the boundary of South and Central 
America, north along the coast to include Panama, Costa Rica, 
Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States. It extends 
due east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48[deg] N. and follows the coast 
south to include the northern portion of the Islamic Republic of 
Mauritania (Mauritania) on the African continent to 19[deg] N. It 
extends west at 19[deg] N. to the Caribbean basin to 65.1[deg] W., then 
due south to 14[deg] N., 65.1[deg] W., then due west to 14[deg] N., 
77[deg] W., and due south to 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., the boundary of 
South and Central America. It includes Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Cuba, 
Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cayman 
Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS includes the Florida 
breeding population, which was originally listed as endangered under 
the ESA (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978).

Demographic Parameters for the North Atlantic DPS

    The DPS exhibits high nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 167,424 females at 73 nesting sites. More than 
100,000 females nest at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, and more than 10,000 
females nest at Quintana Roo, Mexico. Nesting data indicate long-term 
increases at all major nesting sites. There is little genetic 
substructure within the DPS, and turtles from multiple nesting beaches 
share common foraging areas. Nesting is geographically widespread and 
occurs at a diversity of mainland and insular sites.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the North Atlantic DPS

    Nesting beaches are degraded by coastal development, coastal 
armoring, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand extraction, and vehicle 
and pedestrian traffic. Foraging habitat is degraded by pollution 
(including oil spills, agricultural and residential runoff, and 
sewage), propeller scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand mining, 
marina construction, and beach nourishment. The harvest of green 
turtles and eggs remains legal in several countries (e.g., Lagueux et 
al., 2014), and illegal harvest occurs in many areas. FP is a chronic, 
often lethal disease that affects turtles throughout the range of the 
DPS, and (as discussed in a summit held since the publication of the 
proposed rule) especially in areas with some degree of environmental 
degradation resulting from altered watersheds (NMFS, in progress). It 
may be increasing in prevalence in some areas (e.g., Stringell et al., 
2015). As recently described by Brost et al. (2015), predation is one 
of the main sources of egg and hatchling mortality in some areas. 
Jaguars also prey on nesting females, as recently described by Guilder 
et al. (2015). Though numerous regulatory mechanisms apply to the DPS, 
many are inadequate due to limited implementation and enforcement. 
There has been one regulatory change since the publication of the 
proposed rule, which reduces the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms: 
The State of Louisiana repealed the prohibition on enforcement of 
turtle excluder device regulations (LA HB668, July 1, 2015). Fisheries 
bycatch in artisanal and industrial fishing gear (e.g., gill net, 
trawls, and dredges) results in substantial mortality (e.g., Benaka et 
al., 2013). Periodic dredging of sediments from navigational channels 
can also result in incidental mortality of sea turtles (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/takes.cfm?Type=Total&Code=Table). 
Vessel strikes are a significant and increasing source of mortality in 
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and likely in other locations. In 
some areas, there has been an increase in strandings

[[Page 20078]]

due to entanglement in marine debris and the ingestion of plastics, as 
recently described by Adimey et al. (2014), which causes blockage in 
the gut and dilutes the nutritional contribution of the diet. Cold 
stunning, the hypothermic reaction that occurs when sea turtles are 
exposed to prolonged cold water temperatures, occurs regularly 
throughout the range of the DPS and may result in a UME. Oil spills may 
also result in a UME. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was particularly 
harmful to post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic juveniles by temporarily 
destroying their Sargassum habitat (Powers et al., 2013) and resulting 
in the ingestion of contaminants (Witherington et al., 2012). Climate 
change is likely to have a negative effect on the DPS. Sea level rise 
is likely to alter green turtle nesting habitat and reduce nesting 
success. Increased sand temperature is likely to result in skewed sex 
ratios and lethal incubation conditions, as recently described by 
Santos et al. (2015a).

Conservation Efforts for the North Atlantic DPS

    Conservation efforts include bycatch reduction measures, nesting 
beach acquisitions, and nest protection programs to reduce harvest and 
predation. Numerous initiatives, such as the Colombia National 
Programme for the Conservation of Marine and Continental Turtles, 
promote education, conservation, and outreach. The recovery of the DPS 
is dependent on ESA protections and those provided by local, State, and 
foreign laws, some of which may have been triggered by the original ESA 
listing. Though ESA protections would be lost if the DPS were not 
listed under the ESA, it is unclear whether local, State, and foreign 
laws would remain in place.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the North Atlantic DPS

    The high nesting abundance, increasing trends, connectivity, and 
spatial diversity provide the DPS with some resilience against current 
threats (i.e., the threats have not prevented positive population 
growth in recent years). The DPS is threatened by several factors: The 
current and projected destruction and modification of its habitat; 
legal and illegal harvest of turtles and eggs; disease and predation; 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to regulate the underlying threats; 
and other factors (i.e., fisheries bycatch, channel dredging, marine 
debris, cold stunning, and climate change). Though beneficial, the 
conservation efforts do not adequately reduce the threats. Based on the 
above information, we conclude that the DPS is not presently in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing is warranted because numerous threats remain, several of which 
are likely to increase within the foreseeable future; all threats are 
likely to increase if ESA protections are lost, resulting in curtailed 
or reversed population trends. We conclude that the North Atlantic DPS 
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the North Atlantic DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the North Atlantic DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA.

Mediterranean DPS

    The comments that we received on the Mediterranean DPS and 
additional information that became available since the publication of 
the proposed rule did not change our conclusions regarding its listing 
determination. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the 
Mediterranean DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed 
rule, with the exception of the application of the critical risk 
threshold from the Status Review Report, which does not directly 
correlate with the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and 
``threatened,'' as explained in the proposed rule. The following 
represents a brief summary of that information.
    The range of the DPS includes the Mediterranean Sea (excluding the 
Black Sea), with the Strait of Gibraltar as its western boundary.

Demographic Parameters for the Mediterranean DPS

    The DPS exhibits low abundance, with an estimated total nester 
abundance of 404 to 992 females at 32 sites. The DPS is severely 
depleted relative to historical levels; however, five of seven nesting 
sites indicate slightly increasing trends. Connectivity is high (i.e., 
little to no genetic substructure), but nesting site diversity is low.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Mediterranean DPS

    Nesting habitat is destroyed or modified by coastal development, 
construction, beachfront lighting, sand extraction, beach erosion, 
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and beach pollution. Fishing and 
pollution result in the destruction and modification of foraging 
habitat. The harvest of turtles and eggs contributed to the historical 
decline of this DPS and continues in several areas. Numerous species 
prey on eggs and hatchlings. Many international and national regulatory 
mechanisms exist; however, fisheries bycatch and tourism impacts are 
poorly regulated. Fisheries bycatch results in substantial mortality 
and is a major threat to the DPS. Vessel activity and strikes result in 
mortality, injury, and abandoned nesting attempts. Marine debris is a 
major concern. Climate change is likely to alter thermal sand 
characteristics; in some areas, hatchling sex ratios are already highly 
female biased (up to 95 percent).

Conservation Efforts for the Mediterranean DPS

    Conservation efforts include protection of nesting beaches, removal 
of marine debris, and establishment of marine protected areas. In a 
recent study, Ullmann and Stachowitsch (2015) identified 49 stranding 
response (i.e., rescue) centers, stations, and institutions throughout 
the Mediterranean; however, communication among such facilities is 
limited, and there are gaps in coverage.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Mediterranean DPS

    As a result of low nesting abundance (concentrated primarily in one 
area), weak population growth rates, and low diversity of nesting 
sites, the DPS has little resilience to threats, which include: Habitat 
loss and degradation, overexploitation, predation, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, vessel traffic, marine 
debris, and climate change. Although they are beneficial, the 
conservation efforts do not adequately reduce threats. We conclude that 
the Mediterranean DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the Mediterranean DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Mediterranean DPS as an 
endangered species under the ESA.

South Atlantic DPS

    The comments that we received on the South Atlantic DPS and 
additional information that became available since the publication of 
the proposed rule did not change our conclusions regarding its listing 
determination. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the 
South Atlantic DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed 
rule, with the following exceptions: the boundary of the DPS (which was 
changed to include all islands of the U.S. Virgin Islands), and the 
application of the critical risk threshold from the Status Review 
Report (which, as we

[[Page 20079]]

explained in the proposed rule, does not directly correlate with the 
ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened''). The following 
represents a brief summary of that information.
    The range of the South Atlantic DPS begins at the border of Panama 
and Colombia at 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., heads due north to 14[deg] N., 
77[deg] W., then east to 14[deg] N., 65.1[deg] W., then north to 
19[deg] N., 65.1[deg] W., and along 19[deg] N. latitude to Mauritania 
in Africa, to include the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. It 
extends along the coast of Africa to South Africa, with the southern 
border being 40[deg] S. latitude.

Demographic Parameters for the South Atlantic DPS

    The DPS exhibits high nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 63,332 females. Two nesting sites have greater than 
10,000 nesting females: Poil[atilde]o, Guinea-Bissau and Ascension 
Island, UK (Weber et al., 2014). Nesting trends are increasing at the 
14 sites where abundance data are available. Within the DPS, there is 
little genetic substructure, and turtles share important foraging 
areas. Nesting is geographically widespread and diverse, occurring 
along the western coast of Africa, on Caribbean and South Atlantic 
islands, and along eastern South America.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the South Atlantic DPS

    Nesting habitat is destroyed or modified by coastal development and 
construction, placement of erosion control structures and other 
barriers to nesting, beachfront lighting (e.g., Brei et al., 2014), 
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach erosion, beach 
sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and 
planting of non-native vegetation. Foraging habitats are degraded by 
pollution, including agriculture and industrial runoff, and anchor 
damage to seagrass beds. The harvest of turtles and eggs contributed to 
the historical declines of the DPS and continues in some areas, legally 
and illegally. FP is highly variable in its presence and severity 
throughout the range of the DPS. Predators eat eggs, hatchlings, and 
nesting females. Throughout the range of the DPS, laws protecting sea 
turtles and their nesting habitats are implemented to varying degrees, 
but regulatory mechanisms to address fisheries bycatch are limited. 
Turtles are incidentally captured throughout the South Atlantic DPS in 
pelagic and demersal longlines, drift and set gill nets, bottom and 
mid-water trawls, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, haul and purse 
seines (e.g., Bourjea et al., 2014), pots and traps, and hook and line 
gear. There is a high prevalence of marine debris and plastic ingestion 
(e.g., Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al., 2014). Sea level rise and 
increased storm frequency and intensity are likely to eliminate the 
functionality of nesting beaches on low-lying islands. Some beaches 
will likely experience lethal incubation temperatures that will result 
in the complete loss of hatchling cohorts.

Conservation Efforts for the South Atlantic DPS

    Most nations in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa have 
national legislation or programs sponsored by state governments, local 
communities, academic institutions, and organizations to protect sea 
turtles and their nesting and foraging habitats. Conservation efforts 
at the primary nesting beaches, such as Ascension Island, include legal 
prohibitions as well as extensive monitoring, outreach, and research 
(http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/ascension.shtml).

Extinction Risk Analysis for the South Atlantic DPS

    As a result of the high population abundance, increasing nesting 
trend, and diverse nesting sites, the DPS is somewhat resilient to 
current threats, which include: Habitat loss and degradation, 
overexploitation, disease and predation, inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, oil exploration and 
extraction, and climate change. The conservation efforts vary in 
consistency and efficacy throughout the range of the DPS and do not 
adequately mitigate all threats. We conclude that the DPS is not 
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Listing is warranted because numerous threats 
remain, some of which are likely to increase within the foreseeable 
future; the loss of ESA protections would further exacerbate all 
threats. We conclude that the DPS is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the South Atlantic DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the South Atlantic DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA.

Southwest Indian DPS

    The comments that we received on the Southwest Indian DPS did not 
change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. Therefore, 
we incorporate herein all information on the Southwest Indian DPS 
provided in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, with the 
exception of the application of the critical risk threshold from the 
Status Review Report, which does not directly correlate with the ESA 
definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained in the 
proposed rule. The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the Southwest Indian DPS has as its western boundary 
the shores of continental Africa from the equator, just north of the 
Kenya-Somalia border, south to the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa), 
and extends south from there along 19[deg] E. longitude to 40[deg] S., 
19[deg] E. Its southern boundary extends along 40[deg] S. latitude from 
19[deg] E. to 84[deg] E., and its eastern boundary runs along 84[deg] 
E. longitude from 40[deg] S. latitude to the equator. Its northern 
boundary extends along the equator from 84[deg] E. to the continent of 
Africa just north of the Kenya-Somalia border.

Demographic Parameters for the Southwest Indian DPS

    The DPS exhibits high abundance, with an estimated total nester 
abundance of 91,059 females at 15 nesting sites (four of which host 
more than 10,000 females). Nesting data at these mostly protected 
beaches indicate increasing trends. Within the DPS, there is a moderate 
degree of genetic substructure (i.e., at least two stocks), with 
connectivity between proximate sites. The high diversity of nesting 
habitat includes insular and continental beaches.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Southwest Indian DPS

    Nesting beaches are threatened by increased tourism and artificial 
lighting. Foraging habitats are degraded by development of the 
coastline, dredging, land-fill, sedimentation, and sand extraction. 
Legal and illegal harvest of turtles and eggs persists throughout the 
DPS. Poaching of nesting females has led to declines at some beaches, 
and foraging turtles are heavily poached in several areas. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms to address poaching and bycatch are often 
inadequately implemented and/or enforced, as demonstrated by the high 
level of illegal harvest and bycatch within this DPS. The DPS is 
threatened by bycatch in demersal and pelagic longlines, trawls, gill 
nets, and purse seines (e.g., Bourjea et al., 2014). Sea level rise and 
increasing storm events (as a result of climate change) are likely to 
reduce nesting habitat throughout the range of

[[Page 20080]]

the DPS because much of the nesting occurs at low-lying islands and 
atolls.

Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Indian DPS

    Several regional initiatives have promoted conservation, 
management, research and education throughout the range of the DPS. 
Other multinational programs and national laws protect sea turtles. For 
example, Mortimer and Day (1999) state that green turtles and nesting 
habitat in the Chagos Archipelago are well protected by the BIOT 
administration (Mortimer and Day, 1999) and a large marine protected 
area (Hays et al., 2014); however, monitoring and conservation efforts 
are not sufficient to adequately reduce all threats.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Southwest Indian DPS

    The high nesting abundance, increasing nesting trends, and spatial 
and genetic diversity of the DPS provide some resilience to threats, 
which include: Habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation of eggs 
and turtles, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, and 
climate change. Despite many beneficial conservation efforts, poaching 
and bycatch remain major threats. We conclude that the DPS is not 
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Listing is warranted because of the high levels 
of harvest and bycatch, in the context of increasing impacts from 
climate change, are likely to overwhelm the resilience of the DPS. We 
conclude that the DPS is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.

Listing Determination for the Southwest Indian DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Southwest Indian DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA.

North Indian DPS

    We did not receive comments on the North Indian DPS, and there are 
no changes to our proposed listing determination. Therefore, we 
incorporate herein all information on the North Indian DPS provided in 
the Status Review Report and proposed rule, with the exception of the 
application of the critical risk threshold from the Status Review 
Report, which does not directly correlate with the ESA definitions of 
``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained in the proposed rule. 
The following represents a brief summary of that information.
    The range of the North Indian DPS begins at the border of Somalia 
and Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and east 
to the Gulf of Mannar off the southern tip of India and includes a 
major portion of India's southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. The 
southern and eastern boundaries are the equator (0[deg]) and 84[deg] 
E., respectively, which intersect in the southeast corner of the range 
of the DPS. It is bordered by the following countries (following the 
water bodies from west to east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, 
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, 
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, 
India, and Sri Lanka.

Demographic Parameters for the North Indian DPS

    The DPS exhibits high abundance, with an estimated total nester 
abundance of 55,243 females at 38 nesting sites. Two sites host greater 
than 10,000 nesting females: Ras Sharma, Yemen, and Ras Al Hadd, Oman. 
Nesting trends are increasing at Ras Al Hadd but possibly declining at 
other sites. Nesting is moderately dispersed, though concentrated in 
the northern and western region of the range.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the North Indian DPS

    Nesting beaches are degraded by light pollution and uncontrolled 
particulate emissions that prevent the emergence of hatchlings from 
their nests at some beaches. Marine habitat is degraded as a result of 
trawling, dredging, siltation, land reclamation, and pollution. The 
legal and illegal harvest of turtles and eggs persists at several 
nesting beaches. Predation of eggs and hatchlings is a major threat at 
some nesting beaches. Though numerous international and national 
regulatory mechanisms apply to the DPS, many are inadequate due to 
limited implementation and enforcement. Sea turtle bycatch in gill 
nets, trawls, and longline fisheries is a significant cause of 
mortality. Vessel strikes are a large and increasing threat. Beach 
driving causes hatchling turtles to be caught in ruts, struck, or run 
over. Marine debris entangles and is ingested by turtles. Sea level 
rise and the increased frequency and intensity of storm events, as a 
result of climate change, are likely to cause severe erosion to nesting 
beaches.

Conservation Efforts for the North Indian DPS

    There are several multinational and national programs underway to 
protect and conserve the DPS. Most focus on protecting the nesting 
beaches.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the North Indian DPS

    The high abundance and broadly distributed nesting beaches of the 
DPS provide some resilience to threats; however, nesting is relatively 
concentrated and declining at some beaches. The DPS is threatened by 
the following factors: habitat loss and degradation, harvest of turtles 
and eggs, predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, fisheries 
bycatch, marine debris, beach driving, boat strikes, and climate 
change. While conservation efforts for the North Indian DPS are 
extensive and expanding, they remain inadequate to ensure the long-term 
viability of the population. We conclude that the DPS is not presently 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Listing is warranted because resilience is limited and several 
of the existing threats are likely to increase. Therefore, the DPS is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the North Indian DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the North Indian DPS as a threatened 
species under the ESA.

East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    The comments that we received on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS 
did not change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. 
Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the East Indian-
West Pacific DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed 
rule, with the exception of the application of the critical risk 
threshold from the Status Review Report, which does not directly 
correlate with the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and 
``threatened,'' as explained in the proposed rule. The following 
represents a brief summary of that information.
    The western boundary for the range of the East Indian-West Pacific 
DPS is 84[deg] E. longitude from 40[deg] S. to where it coincides with 
India near Odisha, northeast along the shoreline and into the West 
Pacific Ocean to include Taiwan extending east at 41[deg] N. to 
146[deg] E. longitude, south and west to 4.5[deg] N., 129[deg] E., then 
south and east to West Papua in Indonesia and the Torres Straits in 
Australia. The southern boundary is 40[deg] S. latitude, encompassing 
the Gulf of Carpentaria.

[[Page 20081]]

Demographic Parameters for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits high abundance, with an estimated total nester 
abundance of 77,009 females at 50 nesting sites. The largest nesting 
site (Wellesley Group in northern Australia) supports approximately 
25,000 nesting females. Declines occur at several nesting sites, though 
others appear to be stable or increasing. There is complex and 
significant spatial substructure, but some mixing of turtles occurs at 
foraging areas. Nesting and foraging areas are widespread throughout 
the range of the DPS, providing some resilience through habitat 
diversity.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    The majority of nesting beaches are degraded due to tourism, 
coastal development, artificial lighting, sand mining, oil and gas 
production, and marine debris. Foraging habitat is degraded due to 
siltation, sewage, pollution (e.g., oil spills, agricultural runoff, 
and organic chemicals), commercial harvest of seagrass, trawling, 
dynamite and potassium cyanide fishing, and vessel anchoring. The 
harvest of turtles and eggs has led to declines throughout the range of 
the DPS. At-sea poaching is a common problem. There is rising incidence 
of FP. Nest and hatchling predation is prevalent. Though numerous 
regulatory mechanisms apply to the DPS, many are inadequately 
implemented and enforced. Incidental capture in artisanal and 
commercial fisheries (e.g., those using drift and set gill nets, bottom 
and mid-water trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, and haul 
and purse seines) is a significant and increasing threat. Turtles 
ingest and become entangled in marine debris, including discarded 
fishing gear (e.g., Wilcox et al., 2015). Climate change poses an 
increasing threat to the DPS through the loss of nesting habitat (due 
to sea level rise and increasing storm events) and the alteration of 
thermal sand characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures).

Conservation Efforts for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    There are several conservation programs throughout the range of the 
DPS. Sanctuaries and parks protect some nesting beaches, and some 
marine protected areas have been established. There are bycatch 
reduction efforts in some areas. Several programs conduct monitoring, 
education, outreach, and enforcement.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    The high nesting abundance and spatial diversity of nesting and 
foraging locations provide the DPS with some resilience against current 
threats; however, nesting trends at several sites are declining. The 
DPS is threatened by all section 4(a)(1) factors: Habitat loss and 
degradation, overexploitation, disease and predation, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, and climate 
change. Though beneficial, the conservation efforts do not adequately 
reduce threats. We conclude that the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is 
not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Listing is warranted because current and 
increasing threats are likely to exacerbate population declines, 
especially in the context of climate change. For these reasons, the DPS 
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the East Indian-West Pacific DPS as 
a threatened species under the ESA.

Central West Pacific DPS

    The comments that we received on the Central West Pacific DPS did 
not change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. 
Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the Central West 
Pacific DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, 
with the exception of the application of the critical risk threshold 
from the Status Review Report, which does not directly correlate with 
the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained 
in the proposed rule. The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the Central West Pacific DPS has a northern boundary 
of 41[deg] N. latitude and is bounded by 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the 
northeast corner, going southeast to 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W., then 
southwest to 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E., west and slightly north to the 
eastern tip of Papua New Guinea, along the northern shore of the Island 
of New Guinea to West Papua in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5[deg] N., 
129[deg] E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then north to 41[deg] N., 
146[deg] E. It encompasses the Republic of Palau, Federated States of 
Micronesia, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, CNMI, 
and the Ogasawara Islands of Japan.

Demographic Parameters for the Central West Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits low nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 6,518 females at 50 nesting sites. Nesting data 
indicate increasing trends at one site but decreasing trends at others. 
There is significant genetic substructure and limited connectivity 
among four independent stocks. Nesting is relatively widespread but 
occurs only on islands and atolls (i.e., little nesting site 
diversity).

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Central West Pacific DPS

    Nesting habitat is degraded by coastal development and 
construction, placement of barriers to nesting, beachfront lighting, 
tourism, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach 
erosion, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and the 
presence of non-native vegetation. Destruction and modification of 
marine habitat occurs as a result of coastal construction, tourism, 
sedimentation, pollution, sewage, runoff, military activities, 
dredging, destructive fishing methods, and boat anchoring. The harvest 
of turtles and eggs is a large and persistent threat throughout the 
range of the DPS. Predation is a significant threat in some areas. 
Though there are some existing regulatory mechanisms to reduce the 
harvest of turtles and eggs and to prevent or reduce bycatch, 
implementation and enforcement are inadequate. Turtles are incidentally 
caught in longline, pole and line, and purse seine fisheries. Marine 
debris results in the mortality of sea turtles through ingestion and 
entanglement. Temperature increases, as a result of climate change, are 
the greatest long-term threat to atoll morphology in nations throughout 
the range of the DPS. Sea level rise is likely to reduce available 
nesting habitat. The increased frequency and intensity of storm events 
are likely to cause beach erosion and nest inundation, as demonstrated 
in a recent study by Summers et al. (in progress). However, Ford and 
Kench (2015, 2016) recently described shoreline accretion in the 
Marshall Islands, despite typhoon-driven erosion and local sea level 
rise.

Conservation Efforts Evaluation for the Central West Pacific DPS

    Conservation efforts include programs to protect turtles, establish 
protected areas, and reduce beach pollution. A recent study 
demonstrates that turtle densities have increased by an order of

[[Page 20082]]

magnitude in a marine protected area in Guam (Martin et al., 2016).

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Central West Pacific DPS

    The low nesting abundance, limited connectivity, and low nesting 
diversity provide the DPS with little resilience against current 
threats. Though nesting trends are increasing in some areas, they are 
decreasing in others. The DPS is vulnerable to the following section 
4(a)(1) factors: Habitat modification and destruction, 
overexploitation, predation, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, and 
climate change. Conservation efforts do not adequately reduce such 
threats; ESA and additional protections are essential to the continued 
existence of the DPS. We conclude that the DPS is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the Central West Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Central West Pacific DPS as an 
endangered species under the ESA.

Southwest Pacific DPS

    We did not receive comments on the Southwest Pacific DPS and made 
no changes to our proposed listing determination. Therefore, we 
incorporate herein all information on the Southwest Pacific DPS 
provided in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, with the 
exception of the application of the critical risk threshold from the 
Status Review Report, which does not directly correlate with the ESA 
definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained in the 
proposed rule. The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the Southwest Pacific DPS extends from the western 
boundary of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of Papua New Guinea and 
out to the offshore coordinate of 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E.; the eastern 
boundary runs from this point southeast to 40[deg] S., 176[deg] E.; the 
southern boundary runs along 40[deg] S. from 142[deg] E. to 176[deg] 
E.; and the western boundary runs from 40[deg] S., 142[deg] E. north to 
the Australian coast then follows the coast northward to the Torres 
Strait.

Demographic Parameters for the Southwest Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits high nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 83,058 females at 12 aggregated nesting sites. 
Three sites (all in Australia) host more than 10,000 nesting females: 
Raine Island, Moulter Cay, and the Capricorn and Bunker Group. Nesting 
data indicate slightly increasing trends. There are four regional 
genetic stocks, though mixing occurs at foraging areas. Nesting and 
foraging areas are widely dispersed.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Southwest Pacific DPS

    Nesting habitat has been degraded by beach erosion, artificial 
lighting, pollution, removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-
native vegetation. Threats to foraging habitat include destructive 
fishing practices, channel dredging, and marine pollution. Harvest of 
turtles and eggs is substantial and occurs in many areas. Several 
species prey on eggs and hatchlings. Existing regulatory mechanisms 
inadequately address the incidental take of turtles, and many are not 
enforced at the local level. Incidental capture in artisanal and 
commercial fisheries (e.g., trawl, longline, drift net, and set net 
fisheries) is a significant threat. Vessel strikes injure or kill 
turtles in coastal waters. Port dredging and marine debris pose minor 
threats to the DPS. Climate change impacts are likely to result in 
increased hatchling mortality, skewed sex ratios, range shifts, diet 
shifts, and loss of nesting habitat.

Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS

    Conservation efforts for the DPS have resulted in take 
prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices, improvement 
of shark control devices, and safer dredging practices. Most nesting 
occurs on protected beaches, and the habitat off the largest nesting 
site falls within a marine protected area.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Southwest Pacific DPS

    The high nesting abundance, slightly increasing trends, and spatial 
diversity provide the DPS with some resilience against current threats, 
which include: Habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, disease 
and predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, 
boat strikes, marine debris, port dredging, and climate change. Though 
beneficial, the conservation efforts are not sufficient to reduce all 
threats. We conclude that the DPS is not presently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing is warranted because of several continuing and increasing 
threats, as summarized above. As a result of such threats, we conclude 
that the DPS is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the Southwest Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Southwest Pacific DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA.

Central South Pacific DPS

    The comments that we received on the Central South Pacific DPS did 
not change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. 
Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the Central South 
Pacific DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, 
with the exception of the application of the critical risk threshold 
from the Status Review Report, which does not directly correlate with 
the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained 
in the proposed rule. The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the DPS extends north and east of New Zealand to 
include a longitudinal expanse of 7,500 km, from Easter Island, Chile 
in the east to Fiji in the west, and encompasses American Samoa, French 
Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Tokelau, Tonga, and Tuvalu. 
Its open ocean polygonal boundary endpoints are (clockwise from the 
northwest-most extent): 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W. to 9[deg] N., 125[deg] 
W. to 40[deg] S., 96[deg] W. to 40[deg] S., 176[deg] E., to 13[deg] S., 
171[deg] E., and back to 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W.

Demographic Parameters for the Central South Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits low nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 2,677 to 3,600 nesting females at 59 nesting sites. 
There is a negative nesting trend at the most abundant nesting site but 
increasing trends at less abundant nesting beaches. There are at least 
two genetic stocks within the DPS. Nesting is geographically broad, but 
there is little diversity of nesting sites, with most nesting occurring 
on low-lying coral atolls or oceanic islands.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Central South Pacific DPS

    Some nesting beaches are degraded by coastal erosion, development, 
construction, sand extraction, artificial lighting, proximity to road 
traffic, and natural disasters, such as tsunamis. Marine habitat is 
degraded by runoff, sedimentation, dredging, ship groundings, natural 
disasters, and pollution (e.g., oil spills, toxic and industrial 
wastes, and heavy metals). Commercial and traditional exploitation of 
turtles and eggs has resulted in declines at the most abundant nesting 
site and other locations. Illegal harvest of turtles and eggs is also a 
major threat.

[[Page 20083]]

Predation by introduced species is a significant threat in some areas. 
Regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to curb the continued loss and 
degradation of habitat and the harvest of turtles and eggs. Incidental 
capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries (e.g., line, trap, and 
net fisheries) is a significant threat to the DPS. The primary gear 
types involved in these interactions include longlines, traps, and 
nets. Injury and mortality result from the entanglement in and 
ingestion of plastics, monofilament fishing line, and other marine 
debris (e.g., Wedemeyer-Strombel et al., 2015). Islands within the 
South Pacific are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, which 
together with increasing storm events, is likely to reduce available 
nesting habitat.

Conservation Efforts for the Central South Pacific DPS

    Conservation efforts throughout the region, such as establishment 
of protected areas and national legislation to protect turtles, provide 
some benefits to the DPS. The remoteness of some areas appears to 
provide the most conservation protection against certain threats, such 
as poaching.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Central South Pacific DPS

    The low nesting abundance, decreasing nesting trends at the largest 
nesting site, and low nesting diversity provide the DPS with little 
resilience against current threats. Though nesting trends are 
increasing at some less abundant nesting beaches, such trends provide 
little additional resilience to the DPS. Therefore, the DPS is 
vulnerable to the following section 4(a)(1) factors: Habitat loss and 
degradation, overexploitation, predation, inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, and climate change. 
Conservation efforts do not adequately reduce such threats; ESA and 
additional protections are essential to the continued existence of the 
DPS. We conclude that the DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the Central South Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Central South Pacific DPS as an 
endangered species under the ESA.

Central North Pacific DPS

    The comments that we received on the Central North Pacific DPS did 
not change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. 
Therefore, we incorporate herein all information on the Central North 
Pacific DPS provided in the Status Review Report and proposed rule, 
with the exception of the application of the critical risk threshold 
from the Status Review Report, which does not directly correlate with 
the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened,'' as explained 
in the proposed rule. The following represents a brief summary of that 
information.
    The range of the Central North Pacific DPS includes the Hawaiian 
Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a four-sided polygon 
with open ocean extents reaching to 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the 
northwest corner, 41[deg] N., 143[deg] W. in the northeast, 9[deg] N., 
125[deg] W. in southeast, and 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W. in the southwest.

Demographic Parameters for the Central North Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits low nesting abundance, with an estimated total 
nester abundance of 3,846 nesting females at 13 nesting sites. The most 
recent published study on this DPS estimates the total nester abundance 
at roughly 4,000 nesting females (Balazs et al., 2015). The nesting 
trend is increasing. Nesting site diversity is extremely limited: 96 
percent of nesting occurs at one low-lying atoll (i.e., FFS).

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the Central North Pacific DPS

    In the MHI, nesting and basking habitats are degraded by coastal 
development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach 
pollution, tourism, and other human related activities. Foraging 
habitat is degraded by coastal development, marina construction, 
siltation, pollution, sewage, military activities, vessel traffic, and 
vessel groundings. As stated in a recent study, FP continues to cause 
the majority of green turtle strandings in Hawai[revaps]i (Work et al., 
2015) and may be linked to environmental factors (Keller et al., 2014; 
Van Houtan et al., 2014; Work et al., 2014; NMFS, in progress). 
Numerous native and non-native predators prey on hatchlings and eggs. 
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately address the threat of 
bycatch in international fisheries. In addition to incidental capture 
in foreign longline fisheries, interactions with nearshore recreational 
fisheries occur (Work et al., 2015). Marine debris is a significant 
threat (e.g., Wedemeyer-Strombel et al., 2015); entanglement in lost or 
discarded fishing gear is the second leading cause of strandings and 
mortality in the MHI (Work et al., 2015). Vessel strikes result in 
injury and mortality. Vessel traffic excludes turtles from their 
preferred foraging areas. The extremely limited nesting diversity 
(i.e., 96 percent of nesting at FFS) increases extinction risk by 
rendering the DPS vulnerable to random variation and environmental 
stochasticities. In addition, climate change impacts threaten the DPS. 
Sea level rise and the increasing frequency and intensity of storm 
events are likely to reduce available nesting habitat. A recent study 
indicated that increasing temperatures are likely to modify beach 
thermal regimes that are important to nesting and basking (Van Houtan 
et al., 2015). Temperature increases are also likely to result in 
increased hatchling mortality, skewed sex ratios, and changes in 
juvenile and adult distribution patterns.

Conservation Efforts for the Central North Pacific DPS

    Overall, State and Federal conservation efforts have been 
successful in countering some threats. Important State initiatives 
include the regulation of gill net fishing and the distribution of 
barbless circle hooks.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the Central North Pacific DPS

    Though the low nesting abundance and extremely limited nesting 
diversity render the DPS vulnerable to several threats, the increasing 
nesting trend at FFS provides some resilience. The DPS is threatened by 
the following section 4(a)(1) factors: Present and threatened habitat 
loss and degradation, disease and predation, inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, marine debris, vessel activities, 
limited spatial diversity, and climate change. Though beneficial, the 
conservation efforts are not sufficient to reduce all threats. We 
conclude that the DPS is not presently in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing is 
warranted because of numerous continuing and increasing threats, which 
would be further exacerbated if ESA protections were lost. We conclude 
that the DPS is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Listing Determination for the Central North Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the Central North Pacific DPS as a 
threatened species under the ESA.

East Pacific DPS

    The comments that we received on the East Pacific DPS did not 
change our conclusions regarding its listing determination. Therefore, 
we incorporate herein all information on the East Pacific DPS provided 
in the Status Review Report and proposed

[[Page 20084]]

rule, with the exception of the application of the critical risk 
threshold from the Status Review Report, which does not directly 
correlate with the ESA definitions of ``endangered'' and 
``threatened,'' as explained in the proposed rule. The following 
represents a brief summary of that information.
    The range of the DPS extends from 41[deg] N. southward along the 
Pacific coast of the Americas to central Chile (40[deg] S.) and 
westward to 142[deg] W. and 96[deg] W., respectively. The offshore 
boundary of this DPS is a straight line between these two coordinates. 
The East Pacific DPS includes the Mexican Pacific coast breeding 
population, which was originally listed as endangered (43 FR 32800, 
July 28, 1978).

Demographic Parameters for the East Pacific DPS

    The DPS exhibits an estimated total nester abundance of 20,112 
females at 39 nesting sites. The largest nesting aggregation (Colola, 
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico) hosts more than 10,000 nesting females. 
Nesting data indicate increasing trends in recent decades. Within the 
DPS, there is additional substructure, and four regional genetic stocks 
have been identified; however, stocks mix at foraging areas. Nesting 
occurs at both insular and continental sites, providing some spatial 
diversity.

Section 4(a)(1) Factors for the East Pacific DPS

    Some nesting beaches are degraded by coastal development, tourism, 
and pedestrian traffic. Some foraging areas exhibit high levels of 
contaminants and reduced seagrass communities. As described by Senko et 
al. (2014), the direct harvest of turtles is a significant source of 
mortality. The legal and illegal harvest of eggs is a significant 
threat due to high demand and lack of enforcement of existing 
protections. Predation by dogs results in egg and hatchling mortality 
(Ruiz-Izaguirre et al., 2015; Santidri[aacute]n Tomillo et al., 2015). 
Existing regulatory mechanisms inadequately regulate egg poaching, the 
destruction of nesting habitat, and fisheries bycatch. Incidental 
capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries (e.g., longline, drift 
gill net, set gill net, and trawl fisheries) is a significant threat. 
Other threats include marine debris ingestion, boat strikes, and red 
tide poisoning, which may result in a UME. Climate change is likely to 
impact nesting and hatchling success. In a recent study, Rhodes (2015) 
found that females laid fewer nests in areas characterized by erosion 
and tidal inundation (two likely impacts of sea level rise).

Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific DPS

    Conservation initiatives include broad regional efforts and 
national programs, such as the National Programme for the Conservation 
of Marine and Continental Turtles in Colombia, which provides 
education, conservation, and outreach plans. Marine reserves protect 
green turtles and their foraging habitat.

Extinction Risk Analysis for the East Pacific DPS

    The increasing trends and spatial diversity provide the DPS with 
some resilience against current threats; the nesting abundance, though 
not high, may be large enough to avoid depensation and other risks 
associated with small population size. The DPS is threatened by the 
following section 4(a)(1) factors: Habitat loss and degradation, 
overexploitation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, fisheries bycatch, 
marine debris, boat strikes, red tide poisoning, and climate change. 
Though beneficial, conservation efforts are not sufficient to 
adequately reduce threats. We conclude that the DPS is not presently in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Listing is warranted because significant threats (e.g., egg 
poaching) continue and others (e.g., climate change) are increasing. 
The loss of ESA protections would further exacerbate several threats. 
We conclude that the DPS is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.

Listing Determination for the East Pacific DPS

    For the above reasons, we list the East Pacific DPS as a threatened 
species under the ESA.

Final Determination

    We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information, including the information in the Status Review Report, the 
comments of peer reviewers, public comments, and information that has 
become available since the publication of the proposed rule. We 
identified 11 green turtle DPSs: North Atlantic, Mediterranean, South 
Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, 
Central West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central South Pacific, Central 
North Pacific, and East Pacific. For each DPS, we reviewed the 
demographic parameters and section 4(a)(1) factors, performed an 
extinction risk analysis, and considered conservation efforts. We 
determined that the Mediterranean, Central West Pacific, and Central 
South Pacific DPSs are endangered species, and the following DPSs are 
threatened species: North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, 
North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central 
North Pacific, and East Pacific. We hereby replace the original 
listings for the species and breeding populations in Florida and the 
Pacific coast of Mexico with listings of the 11 threatened or 
endangered DPSs.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Under the ESA and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. See the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). Under that policy, 
we only need to consider whether listing may be appropriate on the 
basis of the ``significant portion of its range'' language if the 
rangewide analysis does not lead to a threatened or endangered listing 
determination. Because we have determined that each green turtle DPS is 
either threatened or endangered throughout all of its range, no portion 
of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.''

Effects of Listing

    Conservation benefits for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include: Recovery plans and actions (16 U.S.C. 
1533(f)); designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); the requirement that Federal agencies 
consult with the Services to ensure that their actions are not likely 
to jeopardize species or result in adverse modification or destruction 
of critical habitat, should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); 
and prohibitions against take and certain other activities (16 U.S.C. 
1538). In addition, recognition of the species' status through listing 
promotes conservation actions by Federal and State agencies, foreign 
entities, conservation organizations, and individuals.

Identifying Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult 
with the relevant Service(s) to insure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of listed species or result in

[[Page 20085]]

the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 
1536(a)(2)). The ESA requires consultation for any Federal action that 
may affect green turtles, which have been listed under the ESA since 
1978. This will not change with the listing of the DPSs (i.e., 
consultation is required for any Federal action that may affect any of 
the green turtle DPSs). Reinitiation of consultation is required for 
any action that may affect one or more newly listed DPS. Federal 
agencies must insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any green turtle 
DPS. Examples of Federally authorized, funded, or implemented actions 
that affect green turtles include, but are not limited to: Dredging and 
channelization, beach nourishment and nearshore construction, pile-
driving, water quality standards, oil and gas exploration and 
extraction, power plant operations, vessel activities, military 
activities, and fisheries management practices.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as: (1) The specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time 
it is listed in accordance [with the ESA], on which are found those 
physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (b) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed in accordance [with the 
ESA] upon a determination by the Services that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)). Section 
4(a)(3)(A) requires us to designate critical habitat to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable and concurrently with a listing 
determination (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)), unless as described in 
section 4(b)(6)(C), critical habitat is not then determinable, in which 
case we may take an additional year to publish the final critical 
habitat determination (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). The implementing 
regulations state that critical habitat shall not be designated within 
foreign countries or in other areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction (50 
CFR 424.12 (h)). The ranges of six DPSs occur within U.S. jurisdiction: 
North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, Central North Pacific, 
Central South Pacific, and Central West Pacific. We are currently 
evaluating the areas that contain physical and biological features that 
are essential to the DPSs and may require special management 
considerations or protection, but critical habitat is not determinable 
at this time. Therefore, we will propose critical habitat in a future 
rulemaking. As discussed in the proposed rule, designated critical 
habitat, in waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico, from the 
mean high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 63 FR 46693, 
September 2, 1998), remains in effect for the North Atlantic DPS.

Take Prohibitions

    All prohibitions in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1538(a)(1)) apply automatically under the statute to the three 
endangered DPSs: Mediterranean, Central West Pacific and Central South 
Pacific. These include prohibitions against importing, exporting, 
engaging in foreign or interstate commerce, or ``taking'' of the 
species. ``Take'' is defined under the ESA as ``to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt 
to engage in any such conduct'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). These 
prohibitions apply to any ``person'' (as defined by the ESA) subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States, including within the United 
States, its territorial seas, or on the high seas. Certain exceptions 
apply to employees of the Services, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies. In addition, longstanding 
requirements for fishing activities to protect endangered sea turtles 
apply to these DPSs (50 CFR 224.104) and are not affected by this rule.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA authorizes us to issue regulations that we 
deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
threatened species (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). As discussed in the proposed 
rule, the longstanding protective regulations (50 CFR 17.42(b), 
223.205, 223.206, and 223.207) remain in effect and continue to apply 
section 9 prohibitions to threatened species of sea turtles, which 
include the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North 
Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North 
Pacific, and East Pacific DPSs. The specific content of those 
provisions is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and is unaffected by 
this rulemaking.
    Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we may issue permits to carry 
out activities otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and 
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities (16 
U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)). For threatened species, we may also issue permits 
for education and zoological exhibition (50 CFR 17.32(a)(1); 50 CFR 
223.206(a)(1)).

Identification of Those Activities That Would Likely Constitute a 
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA

    On July 1, 1994, we published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires 
us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species 
is listed, those activities that would or would not likely constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to 
increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and 
ongoing activities within a species' range. Activities likely to 
violate section 9 include, but are not limited to: (1) Importation or 
exportation of any part of a green turtle or green turtle eggs; (2) 
directed take of green turtles, including fishing for, capturing, 
handling, or possessing green turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of 
green turtles, eggs, or parts in interstate commerce; (4) modification 
or degradation of green turtle habitat, including nesting beaches, 
beaches used for basking, and developmental, foraging habitat, and 
migratory habitat that actually kills or injures green turtles (i.e., 
harm, 50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take of green turtles in the 
course of otherwise lawful activities, such as fishing, dredging, beach 
nourishment, coastal construction, vessel traffic, and discharge of 
pollutants. Whether a particular activity violates section 9 depends 
upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. Because the green 
turtle has been listed under the ESA since 1978, we do not anticipate 
changes in the activities that would constitute a violation of section 
9. Possible exceptions include those actions affecting the 
Mediterranean, Central West Pacific, and Central South Pacific DPSs, 
which are now listed as endangered, and the breeding populations in 
Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were heretofore listed 
as endangered. For example, the Services may issue permits for the 
educational use and zoological exhibition of threatened, but not 
endangered, sea turtles (50 CFR 17.32(a)(1); 50 CFR 223.206(a)(1)).
    Activities not likely to violate section 9 of the ESA may include: 
Take authorized by and carried out in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit; and continued 
possession of parts that were in possession at the time of the original 
listing (i.e., 1978).

Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for

[[Page 20086]]

Peer Review, establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent 
process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and 
opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented 
under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to 
enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal government's 
scientific information and applies to influential or highly influential 
scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To 
satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained 
independent peer review of the Status Review Report by 15 independent 
scientists with expertise in green turtle biology and genetics, 
endangered species listing policy, and related fields. All peer 
reviewer comments were addressed prior to the publication of the Status 
Review Report and proposed rule.

References

    A complete list of the references is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. See NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-6. Similarly, USFWS has determined that 
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, 
need not be prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 
4(a) of the ESA (48 FR 49244, October 25, 1983).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we determined that this 
final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a 
Federalism assessment is not required.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    Dated: March 15, 2016.

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and 
224 are amended as follows:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), under REPTILES, remove both entries for ``Sea 
turtle, green'' and add in their place the eleven entries for ``Sea 
turtle, green'' set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------                      population where                      When       Critical
                                                       Historic range       endangered or        Status        listed      habitat       Special rules
          Common name              Scientific name                           threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Reptiles
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (Central       Chelonia mydas....  Central North       Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 North Pacific DPS).                                  Pacific Ocean.      originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the Central North
                                                                          Pacific Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following
                                                                          coordinates:
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          169[deg] E. in
                                                                          the northwest;
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          143[deg] W. in
                                                                          the northeast;
                                                                          9[deg] N.,
                                                                          125[deg] W. in
                                                                          the southeast;
                                                                          and 9[deg] N.,
                                                                          175[deg] W. in
                                                                          the southwest.

[[Page 20087]]

 
Sea turtle, green (Central       Chelonia mydas....  Central South       Green sea turtles   E                      863           NA  224.104.
 South Pacific DPS).                                  Pacific Ocean.      originating from
                                                                          the Central South
                                                                          Pacific Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following
                                                                          coordinates:
                                                                          9[deg] N.,
                                                                          175[deg] W. in
                                                                          the northwest;
                                                                          9[deg] N.,
                                                                          125[deg] W. in
                                                                          the northeast;
                                                                          40[deg] S.,
                                                                          96[deg] W. in the
                                                                          southeast;
                                                                          40[deg] S.,
                                                                          176[deg] E. in
                                                                          the southwest;
                                                                          and 13[deg] S.,
                                                                          171[deg] E. in
                                                                          the west.
Sea turtle, green (Central West  Chelonia mydas....  Central West        Green sea turtles   E                      863           NA  224.104.
 Pacific DPS).                                        Pacific Ocean.      originating from
                                                                          the Central West
                                                                          Pacific Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following
                                                                          coordinates:
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          146[deg] E. in
                                                                          the northwest;
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          169[deg] E. in
                                                                          the northeast;
                                                                          9[deg] N.,
                                                                          175[deg] W. in
                                                                          the east; 13[deg]
                                                                          S., 171[deg] E.
                                                                          in the southeast;
                                                                          along the
                                                                          northern coast of
                                                                          the island of New
                                                                          Guinea; and
                                                                          4.5[deg] N.,
                                                                          129[deg] E. in
                                                                          the west.
Sea turtle, green (East Indian-  Chelonia mydas....  Eastern Indian and  Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 West Pacific DPS).                                   Western Pacific     originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                      Oceans.             the Eastern
                                                                          Indian and
                                                                          Western Pacific
                                                                          Oceans, bounded
                                                                          by the following
                                                                          lines and
                                                                          coordinates:
                                                                          41[deg] N. Lat.
                                                                          in the north,
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          146[deg] E. in
                                                                          the northeast;
                                                                          4.5[deg] N.,
                                                                          129[deg] E. in
                                                                          the southeast;
                                                                          along the
                                                                          southern coast of
                                                                          the island of New
                                                                          Guinea; along the
                                                                          western coast of
                                                                          Australia (west
                                                                          of 142[deg] E.
                                                                          Long.); 40[deg]
                                                                          S. Lat. in the
                                                                          south; and
                                                                          84[deg] E. Long.
                                                                          in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific  Chelonia mydas....  East Pacific Ocean  Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 DPS).                                                                    originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the East Pacific
                                                                          Ocean, bounded by
                                                                          the following
                                                                          lines and
                                                                          coordinates:
                                                                          41[deg] N.,
                                                                          143[deg] W. in
                                                                          the northwest;
                                                                          41[deg] N. Lat.
                                                                          in the north;
                                                                          along the western
                                                                          coasts of the
                                                                          Americas; 40[deg]
                                                                          S. Lat. in the
                                                                          south; and
                                                                          40[deg] S.,
                                                                          96[deg] W. in the
                                                                          southwest.
Sea turtle, green                Chelonia mydas....  Mediterranean Sea.  Green sea turtles   E                      863           NA  224.104.
 (Mediterranean DPS).                                                     originating from
                                                                          the Mediterranean
                                                                          Sea, bounded by
                                                                          5.5[deg] W. Long.
                                                                          in the west.

[[Page 20088]]

 
Sea turtle, green (North         Chelonia mydas....  North Atlantic      Green sea turtles   T                      863      226.208  17.42(b), 223.205,
 Atlantic DPS).                                       Ocean.              originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the North
                                                                          Atlantic Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following lines
                                                                          and coordinates:
                                                                          48[deg] N. Lat.
                                                                          in the north,
                                                                          along the western
                                                                          coasts of Europe
                                                                          and Africa (west
                                                                          of 5.5[deg] W.
                                                                          Long.); north of
                                                                          19[deg] N. Lat.
                                                                          in the east;
                                                                          bounded by
                                                                          19[deg] N.,
                                                                          65.1[deg] W. to
                                                                          14[deg] N.,
                                                                          65.1[deg] W. then
                                                                          14[deg] N.,
                                                                          77[deg] W. in the
                                                                          south and west;
                                                                          and along the
                                                                          eastern coasts of
                                                                          the Americas
                                                                          (north of
                                                                          7.5[deg] N.,
                                                                          77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North Indian  Chelonia mydas....  North Indian Ocean  Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 DPS).                                                                    originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the North Indian
                                                                          Ocean, bounded
                                                                          by: Africa and
                                                                          Asia in the west
                                                                          and north;
                                                                          84[deg] E. Long.
                                                                          in the east; and
                                                                          the equator in
                                                                          the south.
Sea turtle, green (South         Chelonia mydas....  South Atlantic      Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 Atlantic DPS).                                       Ocean.              originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the South
                                                                          Atlantic Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following lines
                                                                          and coordinates:
                                                                          along the
                                                                          northern and
                                                                          eastern coasts of
                                                                          South America
                                                                          (east of 7.5[deg]
                                                                          N., 77[deg] W.);
                                                                          14[deg] N.,
                                                                          77[deg] W. to
                                                                          14[deg] N.,
                                                                          65.1[deg] W. to
                                                                          19[deg] N.,
                                                                          65.1[deg] W. in
                                                                          the north and
                                                                          west; 19[deg] N.
                                                                          Lat. in the
                                                                          northeast;
                                                                          40[deg] S.,
                                                                          19[deg] E. in the
                                                                          southeast; and
                                                                          40[deg] S. Lat.
                                                                          in the south.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest     Chelonia mydas....  Southwest Indian    Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 Indian DPS).                                         Ocean.              originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the Southwest
                                                                          Indian Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following lines:
                                                                          the equator to
                                                                          the north;
                                                                          84[deg] E. Long.
                                                                          to the east;
                                                                          40[deg] S. Lat.
                                                                          to the south; and
                                                                          19[deg] E. Long
                                                                          (and along the
                                                                          eastern coast of
                                                                          Africa) in the
                                                                          west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest     Chelonia mydas....  Southwest Pacific   Green sea turtles   T                      863           NA  17.42(b), 223.205,
 Pacific DPS).                                        Ocean.              originating from                                             223.206, 223.207.
                                                                          the Southwest
                                                                          Pacific Ocean,
                                                                          bounded by the
                                                                          following lines
                                                                          and coordinates:
                                                                          along the
                                                                          southern coast of
                                                                          the island of New
                                                                          Guinea and the
                                                                          Torres Strait
                                                                          (east of 142[deg]
                                                                          E Long.); 13[deg]
                                                                          S., 171[deg] E.
                                                                          in the northeast;
                                                                          40[deg] S.,
                                                                          176[deg] E. in
                                                                          the southeast;
                                                                          and 40[deg] S.,
                                                                          142[deg] E. in
                                                                          the southwest.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20089]]

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
3. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).


0
4. Amend the table in Sec.  223.102(e) by removing the entry for ``Sea 
turtle, green'' and adding in its place the eight entries for ``Sea 
turtle, green'' under Reptiles to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------   Citation(s) for    Critical
                                                     Description of         listing        habitat    ESA rules
          Common name            Scientific name     listed entity     determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                  Reptiles \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtle, green (Central      Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 North Pacific DPS).                                originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the Central        page where the                   223.207.
                                                    North Pacific      document begins],
                                                    Ocean, bounded     4/6/16.
                                                    by the following
                                                    coordinates:
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    169[deg] E. in
                                                    the northwest;
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    143[deg] W. in
                                                    the northeast;
                                                    9[deg] N.,
                                                    125[deg] W. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    and 9[deg] N.,
                                                    175[deg] W. in
                                                    the southwest.
Sea turtle, green (East Indian- Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 West Pacific DPS).                                 originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the Eastern        page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Indian and         document begins],
                                                    Western Pacific    4/6/16.
                                                    Oceans, bounded
                                                    by the following
                                                    lines and
                                                    coordinates:
                                                    41[deg] N. Lat.
                                                    in the north,
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    146[deg] E. in
                                                    the northeast;
                                                    4.5[deg] N.,
                                                    129[deg] E. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    along the
                                                    southern coast
                                                    of the island of
                                                    New Guinea;
                                                    along the
                                                    western coast of
                                                    Australia (west
                                                    of 142[deg] E.
                                                    Long.); 40[deg]
                                                    S. Lat. in the
                                                    south; and
                                                    84[deg] E. Long.
                                                    in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East         Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 Pacific DPS).                                      originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the East Pacific   page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Ocean, bounded     document begins],
                                                    by the following   4/6/16.
                                                    lines and
                                                    coordinates:
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    143[deg] W. in
                                                    the northwest;
                                                    41[deg] N. Lat.
                                                    in the north;
                                                    along the
                                                    western coasts
                                                    of the Americas;
                                                    40[deg] S. Lat.
                                                    in the south;
                                                    and 40[deg] S.,
                                                    96[deg] W. in
                                                    the southwest.
Sea turtle, green (North        Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert         226.208     223.205,
 Atlantic DPS).                                     originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the North          page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Atlantic Ocean,    document begins],
                                                    bounded by the     4/6/16.
                                                    following lines
                                                    and coordinates:
                                                    48[deg] N. Lat.
                                                    in the north,
                                                    along the
                                                    western coasts
                                                    of Europe and
                                                    Africa (west of
                                                    5.5[deg] W.
                                                    Long.); north of
                                                    19[deg] N. Lat.
                                                    in the east;
                                                    bounded by
                                                    19[deg] N.,
                                                    65.1[deg] W. to
                                                    14[deg] N.,
                                                    65.1[deg] W.
                                                    then 14[deg] N.,
                                                    77[deg] W. in
                                                    the south and
                                                    west; and along
                                                    the eastern
                                                    coasts of the
                                                    Americas (north
                                                    of 7.5[deg] N.,
                                                    77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North        Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 Indian DPS).                                       originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the North Indian   page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Ocean, bounded     document begins],
                                                    by: Africa and     4/6/16.
                                                    Asia in the west
                                                    and north;
                                                    84[deg] E. Long.
                                                    in the east; and
                                                    the equator in
                                                    the south.
Sea turtle, green (South        Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 Atlantic DPS).                                     originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the South          page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Atlantic Ocean,    document begins],
                                                    bounded by the     4/6/16.
                                                    following lines
                                                    and coordinates:
                                                    Along the
                                                    northern and
                                                    eastern coasts
                                                    of South America
                                                    (east of
                                                    7.5[deg] N.,
                                                    77[deg] W.);
                                                    14[deg] N.,
                                                    77[deg] W. to
                                                    14[deg] N.,
                                                    65.1[deg] W. to
                                                    19[deg] N.,
                                                    65.1[deg] W. in
                                                    the north and
                                                    west; 19[deg] N.
                                                    Lat. in the
                                                    northeast;
                                                    40[deg] S.,
                                                    19[deg] E. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    and 40[deg] S.
                                                    Lat. in the
                                                    south.

[[Page 20090]]

 
Sea turtle, green (Southwest    Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 Indian DPS).                                       originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the Southwest      page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Indian Ocean,      document begins],
                                                    bounded by the     4/6/16.
                                                    following lines:
                                                    The equator to
                                                    the north;
                                                    84[deg] E. Long.
                                                    to the east;
                                                    40[deg] S. Lat.
                                                    to the south;
                                                    and 19[deg] E.
                                                    Long (and along
                                                    the eastern
                                                    coast of Africa)
                                                    in the west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest    Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     223.205,
 Pacific DPS).                                      originating from   Federal Register                 223.206,
                                                    the Southwest      page where the                   223.207.
                                                    Pacific Ocean,     document begins],
                                                    bounded by the     4/6/16.
                                                    following lines
                                                    and coordinates:
                                                    Along the
                                                    southern coast
                                                    of the island of
                                                    New Guinea and
                                                    the Torres
                                                    Strait (east of
                                                    142[deg] E
                                                    Long.); 13[deg]
                                                    S., 171[deg] E.
                                                    in the
                                                    northeast;
                                                    40[deg] S.,
                                                    176[deg] E. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    and 40[deg] S.,
                                                    142[deg] E. in
                                                    the southwest.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
  National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
5. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.


0
6. Amend Sec.  224.101(h) by removing the entry for ``Sea turtle, 
green'' and adding in its place the three entries for ``Sea turtle, 
green'' under Reptiles to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------   Citation(s) for    Critical
                                                     Description of         listing        habitat    ESA rules
          Common name            Scientific name     listed entity     determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                  Reptiles \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtle, green (Central      Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     224.104.
 South Pacific DPS).                                originating from   Federal Register
                                                    the Central        page where the
                                                    South Pacific      document begins],
                                                    Ocean, bounded     4/6/16.
                                                    by the following
                                                    coordinates:
                                                    9[deg] N.,
                                                    175[deg] W. in
                                                    the northwest;
                                                    9[deg] N.,
                                                    125[deg] W. in
                                                    the northeast;
                                                    40[deg] S.,
                                                    96[deg] W. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    40[deg] S.,
                                                    176[deg] E. in
                                                    the southwest;
                                                    and 13[deg] S.,
                                                    171[deg] E. in
                                                    the west.
Sea turtle, green (Central      Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     224.104.
 West Pacific DPS).                                 originating from   Federal Register
                                                    the Central West   page where the
                                                    Pacific Ocean,     document begins],
                                                    bounded by the     4/6/16.
                                                    following
                                                    coordinates:
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    146[deg] E. in
                                                    the northwest;
                                                    41[deg] N.,
                                                    169[deg] E. in
                                                    the northeast;
                                                    9[deg] N.,
                                                    175[deg] W. in
                                                    the east;
                                                    13[deg] S.,
                                                    171[deg] E. in
                                                    the southeast;
                                                    along the
                                                    northern coast
                                                    of the island of
                                                    New Guinea; and
                                                    4.5[deg] N.,
                                                    129[deg] E. in
                                                    the west.
Sea turtle, green               Chelonia mydas...  Green sea turtles  81 FR [Insert              NA     224.104.
 (Mediterranean DPS).                               originating from   Federal Register
                                                    the                page where the
                                                    Mediterranean      document begins],
                                                    Sea, bounded by    4/6/16.
                                                    5.5[deg] W.
                                                    Long. in the
                                                    west.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
  National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

[FR Doc. 2016-07587 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P