[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16668-16704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06657]



[[Page 16667]]

Vol. 82

Wednesday,

No. 64

April 5, 2017

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the 
West Indian Manatee From Endangered to Threatened; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 64 / Wednesday, April 5, 2017 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 16668]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178; FXES11130900000-178-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-AY84


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the West Indian Manatee From Endangered to Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify 
the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) from endangered to 
threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). The endangered designation no longer correctly 
reflects the current status of the West Indian manatee. This action is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
which indicates that the West Indian manatee no longer meets the 
definition of endangered under the Act. When this rule becomes 
effective, the West Indian manatee, including its two subspecies, will 
remain protected as a threatened species under the Act and the existing 
critical habitat designation in Florida will remain in effect.

DATES: This rule is effective May 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, as well as comments and materials received 
in response to the proposed rule, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178. Comments 
and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation used in 
preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov and by appointment, during normal business hours 
at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services 
Office, or Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, 
North Florida Ecological Services Office, by telephone at 904-731-3191, 
or by facsimile at 904-731-3045; or at the following address: 7915 
Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256; Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, 
Field Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, by 
telephone at 787-851-7297, or by facsimile at 787-851-7441; or at the 
following address: Road 301, Km. 5.1, P.O. Box 491, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 
00622. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

Why We Need To Publish a Rule

     In April 2007, we completed a 5-year status review, which 
included a recommendation to reclassify the West Indian manatee from 
endangered to threatened.
     In December 2012, we received a petition submitted by the 
Pacific Legal Foundation, on behalf of Save Crystal River, Inc., 
requesting that the West Indian manatee and subspecies thereof be 
reclassified from its current status as endangered to threatened, based 
primarily on the analysis and recommendation contained in our April 
2007 5-year review.
     On July 2, 2014, we published a 90-day finding that the 
petition presented substantial information indicating that 
reclassifying the West Indian manatee may be warranted (79 FR 37706). 
On January 8, 2016, we published a proposed rule to reclassify the West 
Indian manatee as threatened, which also constituted our 12-month 
petition finding that the action requested is warranted (81 FR 1000).

The Basis for Our Action

     Based on our status review, threats analysis, and 
evaluation of conservation measures, we conclude that the West Indian 
manatee no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered and should 
be reclassified to threatened, that is, a species that is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
     Our review of the best scientific and commercial 
information available indicates that some threats to the manatee still 
remain while others have been reduced or no longer occur. Examples of 
remaining threats that will make this species likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future include habitat loss, degradation, 
and fragmentation; watercraft collisions; loss of winter warm-water 
habitat; and poaching.
     Recovery efforts to control these threats in range 
countries are under way in many areas but have not yet begun in others. 
Further implementation of recovery actions is needed to bring the West 
Indian manatee to full recovery by reducing or removing threats to the 
point where this species is no longer likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), a subspecies 
of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), was listed as 
endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species 
Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-669; 80 Stat. 926). After adoption 
of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135; 83 
Stat. 275), the listing was amended in 1970 to expand the Florida 
manatee listing to include the West Indian manatee throughout its 
range, including in the Caribbean Sea and northern South America. This 
amendment added the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) to 
the listing (35 FR 18319, December 2, 1970). Species listed under the 
Endangered Species Conservation Act, including the West Indian manatee, 
were subsequently grandfathered into the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), and the West Indian manatee remains listed as an 
endangered species under the Act. We originally issued a recovery plan 
for the West Indian manatee in 1980, which included both Florida and 
Antillean manatees. We completed a recovery plan for the Florida 
subspecies in 1989, revised it in 1996, and completed another in 2001 
(USFWS 2001). In 1986, we completed a recovery plan for the Puerto Rico 
population of the Antillean manatee (USFWS 1986).
    On January 8, 2016, we published in the Federal Register a combined 
12-month finding on the petition to downlist the West Indian manatee 
and a proposed rule to reclassify the West Indian manatee as threatened 
(81 FR 1000). Please refer to the proposed rule for a detailed 
description of prior Federal actions concerning this species. On 
January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1597), we made a minor correction to this 
proposed regulation; the date closing the comment period was corrected 
to read April 7, 2016. The Service also contacted appropriate range 
countries, Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and 
organizations, tribes, and other interested parties and invited them to 
comment on the proposal. Between January 28, 2016, and February 9, 
2016, we published legal notices in major newspapers in the West Indian 
manatee range including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Puerto Rico and 
legal notices in 10 major newspapers in

[[Page 16669]]

Florida. We also held a public hearing on February 20, 2016, at the 
Buena Vista Palace Conference Center in Orlando, Florida.

Background

    Please refer to the combined 12-month finding and proposed rule to 
reclassify the West Indian manatee (81 FR 1000, January 8, 2016) for 
more information on the species' distribution, taxonomy, description, 
lifespan, mating, and reproduction. We made no changes to these 
sections and do not include them in our final rule.

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus, is one of three living 
species of the genus Trichechus (Rice 1998, p. 129). The West Indian 
manatee includes two recognized subspecies, the Antillean manatee, 
Trichechus manatus manatus, and the Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus 
latirostris (Rice 1998, p. 129). Each subspecies has distinctive 
morphological features and occurs in discrete areas with rare overlap 
between ranges (Hatt 1934, p. 538; Domning and Hayek 1986, p. 136; and 
Alvarez-Alem[aacute]n et al. 2010, p. 148). Recent genetic studies 
substantiate the uniqueness of the Florida subspecies, as its genetic 
characteristics have been compared with other populations from the 
Antillean subspecies found in Puerto Rico and Belize (Hunter et al. 
2010, p. 599; Hunter et al. 2012, p. 1631).

Population Size

    Within the southeastern United States, Martin et al. (2015 entire) 
provide an abundance estimate for the Florida subspecies of 6,350 
manatees (with a 95 percent CI (confidence interval) between 5,310 and 
7,390). Outside the southeastern United States, available non-
statistical population estimates are based on data of highly variable 
quality and should be considered only as crude approximations (Table 
1). These estimates suggest that there may be as many as 6,782 
Antillean manatees in the Greater Antilles, Mexico, Central America, 
and South America (Table 1). This information reflects the broad 
distribution of the species and suggests a relatively medium to large 
range-wide population estimate. A sum of all the available estimates 
totals 13,142 manatees for the species throughout its range; the sum of 
estimated minimum population sizes is 8,396 manatees (See Table 1; UNEP 
2010, p. 11; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 385; Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al. 2012, p. 132; Self-Sullivan and Mignucci 2012, p. 40; Martin et al. 
2015, entire). Total estimates for manatees outside the southeastern 
United States and Puerto Rico alone range between approximately 3,000 
and 6,700 individuals, including adults, subadults, and calves, of 
which fewer than 2,500 are estimated to be reproductively mature 
animals (Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 40). 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012, p. 132) adapted the UNEP 
(2010, p. 11) numbers and used an estimated initial size of 6,700 
individuals in their population viability analysis (PVA) model for the 
Antillean subspecies.

  Table 1--Range Countries Where West Indian Manatees Are Found: Trends, Non-Statistical Population Estimates,
                              Minimum Population Size, and National Listing Status
      [Abbreviations: U--Unknown; D--Declining; S--Stable; I--Increasing (adapted from UNEP 2010, p. 11 and
     Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, p. 132, Martin et al. 2015, p. 44, unless otherwise cited).]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Non-
                                                    statistical                                National listing
             Country                 Trend \1\      population     Minimum population size        status \3\
                                                   estimate \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Greater Antilles (1,382)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A.\4\ U.S. (Puerto Rico)........  S              \5\ 532 (mean)  342......................  Endangered (PRDNER
                                                                                              2004).
2. Cuba..........................  U/D                       500  Unknown..................  Endangered
                                                                                              ([Aacute]lvarez-
                                                                                              Alem[aacute]n
                                                                                              2012).
3. Haiti.........................  U                         100  8........................  No Information
4. Dominican Republic............  D                         200  30.......................  Critically
                                                                                              Endangered
                                                                                              (MMARNRD 2011).
5. Jamaica.......................  U/D                        50  <50......................  No Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Mexico, Central America (3,600)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Mexico........................  U                       1,500  1,000....................  Endangered.
7. Belize........................  U/D                     1,000  700......................  Endangered.
8. Guatemala.....................  U                         150  53   Critically
                                                                   44.                        Endangered (CONAP
                                                                                              2009).
9. Honduras......................  S/D                       100  11.......................  No Information.
10. Costa Rica...................  D                         200  31.......................  Endangered.
11. Panama.......................  U                         150  10.......................  No Information.
12. Nicaragua....................  D                         500  71.......................  No Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              South America (1,800)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Colombia.....................  U/D                       500  100......................  Critically
                                                                                              Endangered
                                                                                              (Rodr[iacute]guez-
                                                                                              Mahecha et al.
                                                                                              2006).
14. Venezuela....................  D                         200  200......................  Critically
                                                                                              Endangered (Ojasti
                                                                                              and Lacabana
                                                                                              2008).
15. Suriname.....................  D                         100  100......................  No Information.
16. French Guiana................  S/D                       100  100......................  No Information.
17. Guyana.......................  D                         100  100......................  No Information.
18. Trinidad and Tobago..........  D                         100  25.......................  Endangered (MCT
                                                                                              2002).
19. Brazil.......................  S/D                       700  155......................  Critically
                                                                                              Endangered
                                                                                              (Barbosa et al.
                                                                                              2008).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              North America (6,360)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The Bahamas..................  I                          10  Unknown..................  No Information.
21B.\4\ U.S. (Southeast).........  S/I                     6,350  5,310....................  Endangered (FAC 68A-
                                                                                              27.0031).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16670]]

 
                   Total Estimated Populatio8,396-13,142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trends and estimates described in Table 1 for manatee populations outside the United States are, in large
  part, based on the personal opinions of local experts and are not based on quantified analyses of trends in
  country population counts or demographics. Such data from these countries are limited or absent, making most
  of these assessments conjectural (UNEP 2010, p. xiv).
\2\ Except as noted.
\3\ Range country status definitions vary by country.
\4\ Note that Locations 1A and 21B refer to manatee populations in the United States (in Puerto Rico and the
  southeastern United States, respectively).
\5\ Based on adjusted aerial survey counts (Pollock et al. 2013, p. 8).

    The Martin et al. (2015) study referenced above is the first 
quantified estimate of abundance for the Florida manatee in the 
southeastern United States. This estimate relied upon innovative survey 
techniques and multiple sources of information to estimate a Florida 
manatee population of 6,350 animals (Martin et al. 2015, p. 44). In 
Puerto Rico, the Service also updated aerial survey methods to account 
for detection probability, which provides an improved population 
estimate (Pollock et al. 2013, entire). From 2010 to 2014, a total of 
six island-wide aerial surveys have been completed with this new method 
(Atkins 2010-2014). These have resulted in the most robust counts 
available for the population, with an average direct minimum population 
count of 149 individuals (standard deviation (SD) 31). Calf numbers 
have also been documented with an average minimum direct calf count of 
14 (SD 5) or approximately 10 percent of the direct minimum population 
count. A record high of 23 calves was counted in the December 2013 
survey. The October 2010 survey count analysis resulted in an adjusted 
mean estimated population size of 532 individuals, with a 95 percent 
equal area confidence interval (CI) of 342-802 manatees (Pollock et al. 
2013, p. 8).
    In Florida, to count numbers of manatees, FWC conducts a series of 
statewide aerial and ground surveys of warm-water sites known to be 
visited by manatees during cold-weather extremes. These surveys are 
conducted from one to three times each winter, depending on weather 
conditions (FWC FWRI Manatee aerial surveys, 2016, unpubl. data). While 
the number of manatees detected during these surveys has increased over 
the years, in and of themselves these surveys are not considered to be 
reliable indicators of population trends, given concerns about 
detection probabilities. However, it is likely that a significant 
amount of the increase does reflect an actual increase in population 
size when this count is considered in the context of other positive 
demographic indicators, including the recently updated growth and 
survival rates (Runge et al. 2015, p. 19).
    In February 2015, researchers counted 6,063 manatees during a 
statewide survey, and researchers in February 2016 counted 6,250 
manatees (FWC FWRI Manatee aerial surveys 2016, unpubl. data).

Population Trends

    In 2008, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN) identified the West Indian manatee as a ``Vulnerable'' species 
throughout its range based on an estimate of less than 10,000 mature 
individuals (Deutsch et al. 2008, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22103/0). The population was expected to decline at a rate of 10 
percent over the course of three generations (i.e., 60 years; 1 
generation = circa 20 years) due to habitat loss and other 
anthropogenic factors (Deutsch et al. 2008, online). However, each of 
the subspecies (Antillean and Florida) by themselves was considered to 
be endangered and declining due to a variety of threats identified in 
the IUCN classification criteria (Deutsch et al. 2008, online). As we 
have noted above, our estimate of the total West Indian manatee 
population currently ranges between 8,396 and 13,142 (Table 1).
    To the extent that they can be measured with the best available 
data, the West Indian manatee population trend and status vary 
regionally (Table 1). In the southeastern United States, the manatee 
population has grown, based on updated adult survival rate estimates 
and estimated growth rates (Runge et al. 2015, p. 19). The Antillean 
manatee population in Puerto Rico is believed to be stable since our 
2007 status review (USFWS 2007). Historical and anecdotal accounts 
outside the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico suggest that 
manatees were once more common, leading scientists to hypothesize that 
significant declines have occurred (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 425; UNEP 
2010, p. 11; Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 37). In areas 
where populations may be declining, the magnitude of decline is 
difficult to assess, given the qualitative nature of these accounts 
(see footnote Table 1). It is not known if these observations represent 
an actual decline or merely reflect differences in expert opinion over 
time.
    In the Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012, pp. 129-143) PVA 
model for the metapopulation of the Antillean manatee the authors 
divided the metapopulation into six subpopulations identified by 
geographic features, local genetic structure, ranging behavior, and 
habitat use (Greater Antilles, Gulf of Mexico, Mesoamerica, Colombia, 
Venezuela, Brazil; refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 in Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012). Using an initial metapopulation size of 
6,700 Antillean manatees, with low human pressure and a relatively low 
frequency of stochastic events, their baseline PVA model describes a 
metapopulation with positive growth. The authors explain that the model 
is limited due to a lack of certainty with regard to the estimated size 
of the population; it does not take into account trends in local 
populations, and it assumes that all threats have an equal effect on 
the different subpopulations.
    As stated in Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012, p. 138), 
``human impacts and habitat fragmentation were the main factors that 
drastically caused changes in the simulated extinction process of the 
population.'' For example, some of the combined human-related mortality 
and habitat fragmentation model runs

[[Page 16671]]

reached extinction within 100 years (Fig. 5 and Table 7 in 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, pp. 139-140). The four worst 
predictions presented a mean time to extinction between 41.5 and 104 
years, by assuming a human-related mortality of 5 percent or higher and 
in combination with values of transient survival probabilities of 
between 10 percent, 30 percent, and 50 percent (habitat fragmentation). 
Besides these four worst predictions, the other predictions' mean time 
to extinction are all above 200 years (from 208.9 to >500), thus higher 
than what is considered the foreseeable future (50 years; see Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species section) for the West Indian manatee.
    These four worst model predictions are currently considered 
unlikely for the Antillean manatee metapopulations. For example, 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012, p. 135) discuss their 
assumption of using a 1 percent human-related mortality for their base 
model by citing available information on anthropogenic causes of 
mortality for the Antillean manatee (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al. 2012, p. 135). These anthropogenic causes include hunting, 
entanglement, and collisions with boats, and in general are considered 
relatively uncommon according to the few reports available considering 
the broad range of the Antillean manatee metapopulation (Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, p. 135). Thus a 5 percent or higher human-
related mortality in these four worst predictions is currently 
considered unlikely. They also note (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al. 2012, p. 141) that the resulting baseline model growth rate is 
reasonable because mortality is currently considered to be low when 
compared to the Florida subspecies, which can withstand massive 
mortalities associated with cold stress and red tide episodes.
    In addition, low survival probabilities of transient manatees 
(habitat fragmentation) of 50 percent or lower are also considered 
unlikely since migration rates were assumed low, and given that 
manatees have a resilient immune system and seem resistant to diseases 
and traumatic injuries as explained by Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al. (2012, pp. 132-133). We recognize that additional information is 
needed to better assess how human-related and habitat threats affect 
actual and model growth rates.
    In the southeastern United States, new population growth rates for 
Florida's Atlantic Coast, Upper St. Johns River, Northwest, and 
Southwest Regions describe growth in each region through winter seasons 
2011-2012, 2010-2011, 2009-2010, and 2008-2009, respectively (Langtimm 
presentation, 2016). Regional adult survival rate estimates (see Table 
2) were also updated through the same periods and are higher and more 
precise for all regions since the last estimates were provided 
(Langtimm presentation, 2016; Runge et al. 2015, p. 7; USFWS 2007, p. 
65). The updates capture some but not all of the recent die-off events 
(severe cold events of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, and the 2012-present 
Indian River Lagoon (IRL) die-off event). These rates include data 
collected through 2014-2015. However, rates for periods beyond those 
identified in Table 2 cannot be calculated because of an end of time 
series bias inherent in the analyses.

                              Table 2--Updated Florida Manatee Adult Survival Rates
                                         [Langtimm, presentation, 2016.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Region                                    Mean       Standard error    Time period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest.......................................................           0.978            .003       1982-2009
Southwest.......................................................           0.978            .004       1997-2012
Atlantic Coast..................................................           0.972            .004       1987-2010
Upper St. Johns River...........................................           0.979            .004       1987-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A USGS-led status and threats analysis for the Florida manatee was 
updated in 2016 (Runge presentation, 2016). This effort considers the 
demographic effects of the major threats to Florida manatees and 
evaluates how those demographic effects influence the risk of 
extinction using the manatee Core Biological Model. Although the adult 
survival rate is less than one in all regions, growth rates have been 
demonstrably greater than one (positive growth) over the recent past 
(1983-2007) (Langtimm presentation, 2016).
    The analysis forecasts the status of the manatee population under 
different threat scenarios using the Manatee Core Biological Model. 
Data from the Manatee Carcass Salvage Program (FWC FWRI Manatee Carcass 
Salvage Program 2016, unpubl. data) were used to estimate fractions of 
mortality due to each of six known threats: Watercraft, water control 
structures, marine debris, cold, red tide, and others (Runge 
presentation, 2016).
    The model expressed the contribution of each threat as it affects 
manatee persistence, by removing them, one at a time, and comparing the 
results to the ``status quo'' scenario. The ``status quo'' represents 
the population status in the continued presence of all of the threats, 
including the threat of the potential loss of warm water in the future 
due to power plant closures and the loss of springs and/or reduction in 
spring flows.
    Under the status quo scenario, the statewide manatee population is 
expected to increase slowly, nearly doubling over 50 years, and then 
stabilize as the population reaches statewide carrying capacity. Under 
this scenario, the model predicts that it is unlikely (< 2.5 percent 
chance) that the statewide population will fall below 4,000 total 
individuals over the next 100 years, assuming current threats remain 
constant indefinitely (Runge et al. 2015, p. 13).

Recovery

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of listed species, 
unless we find that such a plan will not promote conservation of the 
species. Although the West Indian manatee is listed throughout its 
range, Service recovery planning efforts for the West Indian manatee 
focused mostly on those portions of the species' range within U.S. 
jurisdiction. We published an initial recovery plan for the West Indian 
manatee in 1980 (USFWS 1980) and subsequently published recovery plans 
at the subspecies level for manatees found within the United States. At 
present, approved plans include the Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rican 
Population of the Antillean Manatee (USFWS 1986); the Florida Manatee 
Recovery Plan, Third Revision (USFWS 2001); and the South Florida 
Multi-Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999).

[[Page 16672]]

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs that, to the maximum extent 
practicable, we incorporate into each recovery plan: (1) Site-specific 
management actions that may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals 
for conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable 
criteria, which when met would result in a determination, in accordance 
with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be 
removed from the list; and (3) estimates of the time required and cost 
to carry out the plan.
    Revisions to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants (List) (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must 
reflect determinations made in accordance with section 4(a)(1) and 
4(b). Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a 
species is threatened or endangered (or not) because of one or more of 
five threat factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must indicate when a 
species is no longer threatened or endangered because of any of these 
five factors. In other words, objective, measurable criteria contained 
in recovery plans (recovery criteria) must indicate when an analysis of 
the five factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination 
that a species is no longer an endangered or threatened species. 
Section 4(b) requires that the determination made under section 4(a)(1) 
be based on the best available science.
    Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the 
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to 
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when 
recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to remove from or 
reclassify a species on the List made under section 4(a)(1) must be 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 
of the determination, regardless of whether that information differs 
from the recovery plan.
    In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, 
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be 
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of 
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being 
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded 
while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service 
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, 
and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from 
endangered to threatened or perhaps even delist the species. In other 
cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities 
may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
    Likewise, information on the species may be available that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic 
process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing, and 
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not, 
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The following discussion provides a review of recovery planning and 
implementation for the West Indian manatee, as well as an analysis of 
the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status 
of the species.

Recovery Actions

    Recovery and conservation actions for the West Indian manatee are 
described in the ``UNEP Caribbean Environment[al] Program's Regional 
Management Plan for the West Indian Manatee'' (UNEP 2010, entire) and 
in national conservation plans for countries outside the United States. 
Within the United States, the Service's Recovery Plan for the Puerto 
Rico Population of the West Indian (Antillean) Manatee (USFWS 1986, 
entire), the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, 
entire), and the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, entire) 
identify recovery and conservation actions for the species. Actions 
common to all plans include minimizing manatee mortality and injury, 
protecting manatee habitats, and monitoring manatee populations and 
habitat.

UNEP Caribbean Environment[al] Program's Regional Management Plan for 
the West Indian Manatee, National Conservation Plans (Outside the 
United States)

    The UNEP plan, published in 2010, identifies short- and long-term 
conservation and research measures that should be implemented to 
conserve the West Indian manatee. This plan also includes an overview 
of West Indian manatees within their range countries, including 
descriptions of regional and national conservation measures and 
research programs that have been implemented. Given the general lack of 
information about manatees in most range countries, the plan recommends 
that needed research and the development of common methodologies be 
prioritized in concert with coordinated manatee and manatee habitat 
protection efforts (UNEP 2010, entire).
    Within the species' range, foundations for coordinated conservation 
and research activities are developing, and a number of governments 
have designated manatee protection areas and have developed or are 
developing conservation plans (UNEP 2010, p. xiv). National legislation 
exists for manatees in all range countries, and many countries have 
ratified their participation in international conventions and protocols 
that protect manatees and their habitat (UNEP 2010, p. xv). At 
www.regulations.gov, see Supplemental Documents 1 and 3 in Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178. Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, 
the United States, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad have developed country-
specific manatee recovery plans (UNEP 2010, p. 92).
    Efforts to conserve manatees outside the United States vary 
significantly from country to country. Some countries, including but 
not limited to Mexico, Belize, Brazil, and Cuba, are engaged in efforts 
to assess current status and distribution of manatees. Many countries, 
including Belize and Brazil, provide protections for manatees and their 
habitat. For example, the manatee in Belize is listed as endangered 
under Belize's Wildlife Protection Act of 1981. Belize protects 
manatees from overexploitation, and its recovery plan implements 
recovery actions similar to those identified in the Service's Florida 
and Puerto Rico recovery plans. Efforts to protect manatees include 
education and outreach efforts, and countries are promoting cooperation 
and information exchanges through venues such as the recent Cartagena 
Convention meetings (UNEP 2014, entire). A successful cooperative 
initiative identified at the meetings includes the implementation of 
manatee bycatch surveys in the Dominican Republic, Belize, Colombia, 
and Mexico (Kiszka 2014, entire). We are encouraged by the progress 
that is being made in several portions of the Antillean manatee's range 
in protecting this mammal and the growing enthusiasm behind 
implementing recovery to better protect this important species. In the 
future, we would like to reach out and coordinate with these countries 
with their efforts to further conserve manatees.

[[Page 16673]]

Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West Indian 
(Antillean) Manatee

    We approved the Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico population of the 
West Indian (Antillean) manatee on December 24, 1986 (USFWS 1986, 
entire). Although this plan is considered out of date (USFWS 2007, p. 
26), we present the progress we have made under the identified tasks. 
The 1986 plan included three major objectives: (1) To identify, assess, 
and reduce human-related mortalities, especially those related to gill-
net entanglement; (2) to identify and minimize alteration, degradation, 
and destruction of important manatee habitats; and (3) to develop 
criteria and biological information necessary to determine whether and 
when to reclassify from endangered to threatened the Puerto Rico 
population (USFWS 1986, p. 12). The Recovery Plan also includes a step-
down outline that identifies two primary recovery actions for: (1) 
Population management and (2) habitat protection. Since the release of 
the 1986 Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico population of the West 
Indian (Antillean) manatee, initiated recovery actions have provided 
substantial new knowledge about the species' ecology and threats. Some 
of these efforts apply to multiple tasks and are helping to update 
conservation information and tools that are applied towards adaptive 
management and education. Here we report on the current status of these 
actions.
    Recovery Task (1): Population management. Recovery actions under 
this task include: Reduce human-caused mortality; determine manatee 
movement patterns and trends in abundance and distribution; assess 
contaminant concentrations in manatees; determine quantitative recovery 
criteria; and develop manatee protection plans for areas of specific 
importance.
    Recovery Task (2): Habitat protection. Recovery actions under this 
task include: Radio-tag manatees to determine habitat utilization; 
determine and map distribution of seagrass beds and sources of fresh 
water; and monitor important habitat components and ensure protection.
    A carcass salvage program was first implemented in the late 1970s 
and continues today. Mignucci-Giannoni et al. (2000, p. 189) provided 
an analysis of stranding data and identified sources of human-caused 
mortality. This summarization of data points indicates a shift in the 
nature of threats since the release of the 1986 Recovery Plan, which 
listed poaching, direct capture, and entanglement as the most 
significant threats to manatees. Watercraft collision is now considered 
the greatest threat to manatees in Puerto Rican waters (Mignucci et al. 
2000, p. 189; Drew et al. 2012, p. 26). Currently, carcass salvage 
efforts are led by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 
Environmental Resources (PRDNER) with support from the Puerto Rico 
Manatee Conservation Center (PRMCC) (the former Caribbean Stranding 
Network or CSN) and the Puerto Rico Zoo. There has not been a record of 
poaching since 1995 as a result of increased public awareness of the 
protected status of the manatee. The successful rehabilitation and 
release of the captive manatee ``Moises'' in 1994, a manatee calf 
stranded after the mother had been killed by poachers, served to incite 
a change of cultural values and increase awareness about threats to 
manatees (Marsh and Lefebvre 1994, p. 157).
    Documented entanglement in fishing nets rarely occurs. However, in 
2014, three adult manatees were entangled in large fishing nets; one of 
them was an adult female that died (PRDNER 2015, unpubl. data). 
Significant exposure was given to this case through the local and 
social media. Current PRDNER fishing regulations still allow the use of 
beach seine nets with certain prohibitions that need to be carefully 
monitored. Fisheries-related entanglements and debris ingestion are 
rarely documented but may occur and cause take of manatees (take 
includes harassment, hunting, capturing, killing, or attempting to 
harass, hunt, capture, or kill). In August 2014 and September 2016, an 
adult female was confirmed to have both flippers severely entangled in 
monofilament line. Attempts to capture the female manatee from the 
shore were unsuccessful. Agencies, community groups, and 
nongovernmental organizations in Puerto Rico consistently educate the 
public about improper waste disposal that can affect manatees.
    In 2012, the Service completed a cooperative agreement with 
researchers from North Carolina State University (NCSU) to identify 
potential Manatee Protection Areas (MPAs) and address some of the core 
recommendations made by the most recent West Indian manatee 5-year 
review, such as the establishment of MPAs (USFWS 2007, p. 37). This 
collaboration led to the identification of several potential MPAs and 
serves to update the body of knowledge pertaining to key ecological 
resources used by manatees (i.e., seagrass, shelter, freshwater) and 
the current status of threats to the Antillean manatee (Drew et al. 
2012, pp. 1, 33-34). MPAs serve to prevent the take of one or more 
manatees (USFWS 1979). The MPA selection criteria considered key 
manatee resources (i.e., seagrass, shelter, freshwater), manatee aerial 
surveys, and areas where take can be minimized. After expert 
elicitation and a thorough literature review, available data were 
spatially analyzed and described to reflect manatee use and habitat 
preference.
    Federal MPAs have not been designated in Puerto Rico, and the 
PRDNER does not have a specific manatee area regulation like the State 
of Florida's Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 (FMSA), which allows for 
management and enforcement of boat speed restrictions and operations in 
areas where manatees are concentrated (F.A.C. 2016). Still, the PRDNER 
has the authority to establish boat speed regulatory areas marked with 
buoys wherever deemed necessary. For example, in 2014, the USFWS, 
PRDNER, and Reefscaping, Inc. finalized the installation of 100 manatee 
speed regulatory buoys throughout known important manatee use areas, 
and the PRDNER has a plan to install more buoys. In addition, the 
Navigation and Aquatic Safety Law for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
(Law 430) was implemented in 2000 (PRDNER 2000). This law restricts 
boat speeds to 5 miles per hour within 150 feet (45 meters) from the 
coastline unless otherwise posted. However, the effectiveness of this 
law and State manatee speed regulatory buoys have not been 
appropriately assessed, and enforcement is limited (see Factor D).
    In Puerto Rico, island-wide manatee aerial surveys have been 
conducted since the late 1970s. These aerial surveys provide the basis 
for island-wide distribution patterns and help to determine minimum 
population direct counts in some areas or throughout the island. Not 
all surveys were equal in terms of the area covered and time of year in 
which they were done. These direct counts identify a number of animals 
observed at the time of the survey and suggest that there are at least 
a specified number of manatees in the population. The Service 
recognizes that these counts do not accurately represent the total 
number of manatees in the population. Weather, other environmental 
factors (e.g., water clarity), observer bias, and aerial survey space 
restrictions influence count conditions and affect detection 
probability and final count, thus likely the true number of individuals 
is underestimated. Furthermore, as in the Florida manatee aerial 
surveys, survey methods preclude any analysis of

[[Page 16674]]

precision and variability in the counts, and do not allow for the 
estimation of the apparent detection probability. In spite of the high 
variability between and within surveys, the data can be used to specify 
a minimum population direct count within a time period (one island-wide 
survey).
    The most consistent surveys were conducted between 1984 and 2002 
(USFWS CESFO Manatee Aerial Surveys 2015, unpubl. data). However, 
methods used provided only a direct count and did not allow for a more 
reliable estimate of population size with detection probabilities 
(Pollock et al., 2013, p. 2). Hence, estimates of population size are 
likely biased low, and inferences from trend analyses are unreliable. 
The Service again partnered with researchers from NCSU to conduct a 
review of aerial survey protocols and implement a sampling protocol 
that allows the estimation of a detection probability (Pollock et al., 
2013, pp. 2-4). In 2010, the Service partnered with Atkins (private 
consultant) to implement the new sampling protocol in order to provide 
more reliable population estimates. As explained in the Population Size 
section, a total of six island-wide aerial surveys were flown between 
2010 and 2014 using the new methods (Atkins 2010-2014). We now have the 
most robust counts for Puerto Rico's Antillean manatee population. 
(Please refer to the Population Size section for additional 
information.)
    Recovery actions are also implemented during technical assistance 
and project reviews. Any action or project with a Federal nexus (e.g., 
Federal funds, permits, or actions) requires a consultation with the 
Service under section 7 of the Act. During the consultation process, 
the Service identifies conservation measures to avoid and minimize 
possible effects of proposed actions or projects. We review numerous 
projects each year pertaining to the manatee, such as dredging, dock 
and marina construction, coastal development, marine events (i.e., 
high-speed boat races), and underwater and beach unexploded ordnance, 
among others. The Service has developed Antillean manatee conservation 
measures guidelines specific to Puerto Rico. For example, we have 
worked with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop and implement standard 
permit conditions for boat races, such as observer protocols.

South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee

    The South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee 
element, was adopted on August 18, 1999, by the Service (USFWS 1999, 
entire). This ecosystem-based recovery plan is intended to recover 
listed species and to restore and maintain the biodiversity of native 
plants and animals in South Florida. The plan is not intended to 
replace existing recovery plans but rather to enhance recovery efforts 
(USFWS 1999, p. 3). Inasmuch as manatees are a component of South 
Florida ecosystems, this plan included species information and recovery 
tasks from the then-current Florida manatee recovery plan, which was 
the Service's 1996 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996, entire). 
Because the 1996 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan was revised in 2001, the 
South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee element 
became obsolete. However, the 2001 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan 
includes tasks that address manatee conservation throughout this 
subspecies' range, including in South Florida.
    Manatee recovery activities addressed in the south Florida region 
include a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Task Force 
that addresses CERP tasks related to manatee conservation, an 
Interagency Task Force for Water Control Structures that minimizes 
manatee deaths associated with water control structures, and efforts to 
protect the manatees' south Florida winter habitat (FWC 2007, pp. 63, 
196).
    The CERP Task Force developed guidelines for manatee protection 
during CERP-related construction activities. The guidelines address 
culvert and water control structure installation, potential thermal 
effects of Aquifer Storage and Recovery wells, potential manatee 
entrapment in canal networks, and in-water construction effects. The 
Task Force evaluated proposed changes to existing canal systems and the 
construction of new structures planned for CERP implementation and 
recommended measures to minimize effects on manatees. The measures have 
been implemented and are in effect (FWC 2007, p. 196).
    Water control structures are mostly found in south Florida and are 
a predominant means for controlling flooding in the region. Water 
control structures primarily include flood gates and navigation locks 
that allow vessel passage through dams and impoundments, such as those 
associated with Lake Okeechobee. Manatees travel through these 
structures and are occasionally killed in gate crushings and 
impingements. Manatee protection devices have been installed on most 
structures known to have killed manatees, and the number of deaths has 
been reduced (FWC 2007, p. 63). For the period 1998-2008, the average 
annual number of structure-related deaths was 6.5 deaths. This number 
was reduced to 4.2 deaths per year from 2009-2014 (FWC 2007, pp. 194-
195; FWC FWRI Manatee Carcass Salvage Database 2016, unpubl. data).
    Important warm-water wintering sites for manatees in south Florida 
include power plant discharges, springs, and passive warm-water sites 
(sites characterized by warm-water inversions and other features). 
State and Federal rules have been adopted for all power plant 
discharges in south Florida that limit public access during the winter 
(FWC 2007, pp. 235-238; USFWS 2007, pp. 71-79). Coincidentally, a 
majority of the significant power plants used by wintering manatees 
have been repowered and have projected lifespans of about 40 years 
(Laist et al., 2013, p. 10). The loss of a passive warm-water site due 
to restoration activities, the Port of the Islands warm-water basin, is 
being addressed through the construction of an alternate warm-water 
site downstream of the original site (Dryden 2015, pers. comm.).

Florida Manatee Recovery Plan

    We published the current Florida Manatee Recovery Plan on October 
30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). This recovery plan includes four principal 
objectives: (1) Minimize causes of manatee disturbance, harassment, 
injury, and mortality; (2) determine and monitor the status of manatee 
populations; (3) protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor manatee 
habitats; and (4) facilitate manatee recovery through public awareness 
and education. To help achieve these objectives, the plan identifies 
118 recovery implementation tasks. Important tasks include those that 
address the reduction of watercraft collisions and the loss of warm-
water habitat.
    Recovery Objective 1. Minimize causes of manatee disturbance, 
harassment, injury, and mortality. Tasks identified under this 
objective include: (1) Conducting reviews of permitted activities; (2) 
minimizing collisions between manatees and watercraft; (3) enforcing 
manatee protection regulations; (4) assessing and minimizing mortality 
caused by large vessels; (5) eliminating water control structure 
deaths; (6) minimizing fisheries and marine debris entanglements; (7) 
rescuing and rehabilitating distressed manatees; and (8) implementing 
strategies to minimize manatee harassment.

[[Page 16675]]

    Task 1. Conduct reviews of permitted activities. The Service 
conducts reviews of coastal construction permit applications to 
minimize impacts to manatees and their habitat; reviews high-speed 
marine event permit applications to minimize the effect of 
concentrated, high-speed watercraft events on manatees; and reviews 
National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permits to ensure that existing, significant discharges do not 
adversely affect manatees and ensure that no new attractant discharges 
are created.
    The State of Florida requires counties to develop manatee 
protection plans (MPPs). These are county-wide plans for the 
development of boat facilities (docks, piers, dry-storage areas, 
marinas, and boat ramps) that specify preferred locations for boat 
facility development based on an evaluation of natural resources, 
manatee protection needs, and recreation and economic demands. MPPs are 
reviewed by FWC and the Service and, when deemed adequate, are used to 
evaluate boat access projects. When proposed projects are consistent 
with MPPs, permitting agencies authorize the construction of facilities 
in waters used by manatees. Currently, all of the original 13 counties 
required to have MPPs have plans, as well as Clay, Levy, and Flagler 
counties. Charlotte County is also preparing an MPP.
    The Service developed programmatic consultation procedures and 
permit conditions for new and expanding watercraft facilities (e.g., 
docks, boat ramps, and marinas) as well as for dredging and other in-
water activities through an effect determination key with the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and State of Florida (the ``Manatee Key'') (recently 
revised in 2013). The Manatee Key ensures that watercraft facility 
locations are consistent with MPP boat facility siting criteria and are 
built consistent with MPP construction conditions. The Service 
concluded that these procedures constitute appropriate and responsible 
steps to avoid and minimize adverse effects to the species and 
contribute to recovery of the species.
    The Service has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard and State agencies 
to develop and implement standard permit conditions for high-speed 
marine event permits. These conditions require that events take place 
at locations and times when few manatees can be found at event 
locations and require event observer programs. Observer programs place 
observers in locations in and around event sites; these observers watch 
for manatees and shut events down when manatees enter event sites.
    The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issues 
and renews NPDES permits for power plants, desalination plants, 
wastewater treatment plants, and other dischargers that affect 
manatees. The FWC, the Service, and others review these actions. These 
reviews ensure that discharges identified as beneficial to manatees 
continue to operate in a way that does not adversely affect manatees 
and seek to modify or eliminate those discharges that adversely affect 
manatees. In particular, these reviews prevent the creation of new 
sources of warm water and drinking water, known manatee attractants.
    Task 2. Minimize collisions between manatees and watercraft. See 
discussion of watercraft collisions under Factor E, below. Ongoing 
efforts to minimize collisions between manatees and watercraft include 
the adoption of manatee protection areas that require boat operators to 
slow down or avoid sensitive manatee use areas. By requiring boats to 
slow down, manatees are better able to evade oncoming boats and boat 
operators are better able to see manatees and prevent collisions. 
Protected areas minimize the take of manatees by harassment in manatee 
wintering areas, resting areas, feeding areas, travel corridors, and 
other important manatee use sites. Manatee protection areas have been 
adopted in 26 Florida counties by the State of Florida, local 
communities, and the Service. Manatee protection areas were first 
adopted in the late 1970s, and additional areas continue to be adopted, 
as needed. For example, FWC recently adopted new protection areas in 
western Pinellas County (68C-22.016).
    Task 3. Enforce manatee protection regulations. Service and State 
efforts to reduce the number of watercraft collisions with manatees 
rely on enforced, well-defined, and designated MPAs. Integral to these 
efforts are an adequate number of law enforcement officers to patrol 
and enforce these areas. Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
officers enforce these measures; Federal officers can enforce State 
regulations, and State officers can enforce Federal regulations. 
Officers can only enforce areas that are properly marked by well-
maintained signs and buoys. Maintenance of these markers requires 
significant, continuing funding to ensure the presence of enforceable 
protection areas.
    It is difficult to ascertain the adequacy of enforcement efforts. 
Data concerning dedicated officer hours on the water and numbers of 
citations written are confounding. For example, many dedicated officer 
hours on the water address diverse missions, and it is not possible to 
identify how many of these hours are devoted to manatee enforcement and 
how many hours are dedicated to other missions. Boater compliance 
assessments provide another measure to assess adequacy. Boater 
compliance varies by waterway, with some waterways experiencing 85 
percent compliance rates and others as little as 14 percent (Gorzelany 
2013, p. 63). Average boater compliance throughout Florida is 54 
percent (Shapiro 2001, p. iii). An enforcement presence generally 
ensures a higher compliance rate (Gorzelany 2013, p. 34).
    Task 4. Eliminate water control structure deaths. As discussed 
below, entrapment and crushing in water control structures was first 
recognized as a threat to manatees in the 1970s (Odell and Reynolds 
1979, entire), and measures were immediately implemented to address 
manatee mortality. While initial measures were mostly ineffective, 
recent advances in protection/detection technology have nearly 
eliminated this threat to Florida manatees. In 2014, the 5-year average 
for manatee deaths at structures and locks was 4.2 manatee deaths per 
year as compared to 6.5 manatee deaths per year during the preceding 20 
years (FWC FWRI Manatee Carcass Salvage Database, 2016, unpubl. data).
    Task 5. Minimize fisheries and marine debris entanglements. Fishing 
gear, including both gear in use and discarded gear (i.e., crab traps 
and monofilament fishing line), are a continuing problem for manatees. 
To reduce this threat, a manatee rescue program disentangles manatees, 
derelict-crab-trap removal programs and monofilament recycling programs 
remove gear from the water, and extensive education and outreach 
efforts increase awareness and promote sound gear disposal activities. 
See Factor E for additional information. Because of continued and 
ongoing fishing into the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that this 
threat will be eliminated.
    Task 6. Rescue and rehabilitate distressed manatees. Distressed 
manatees are rescued throughout the southeastern United States. 
Rescuers include the State of Florida, other range States, and numerous 
private organizations. Each year these rescuers assist dozens of 
manatees that present with a variety of stresses. Significant causes of 
distress include watercraft collisions, fishing gear entanglements, 
calf abandonment, and exposure to cold and red tide brevetoxins. Many 
animals are treated and released in the field, and

[[Page 16676]]

others with significant needs are taken to one of three critical care 
facilities for medical treatment. A majority of manatees rescued 
through this program are successfully released back into the wild 
(USFWS Captive Manatee Database, 2016, unpubl. data).
    Task 7. Implement strategies to minimize manatee harassment. See 
discussion of harassment under Factor B, below. Federal and State 
regulations prohibiting harm and harassment (including provisioning) 
are in effect and enforced (see Supplemental Document 2 in Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178). Extensive outreach efforts encourage proper 
viewing practices and include the efforts of the Service, tour guides, 
and others and include various outreach materials. In areas with large 
aggregations of manatees, the Service and FWC have designated manatee 
sanctuaries and no-entry areas where waterborne activities known to 
take manatees are prohibited. When commercial manatee viewing 
activities occur on National Wildlife Refuges, businesses are required 
to obtain permits that restrict their activities to prevent harassment 
from occurring.
    Recovery Objective 2. Determine and monitor the status of manatee 
populations. Tasks identified under this objective include: (1) 
Conducting status reviews; (2) determining life-history parameters, 
population structure, distribution patterns, and population trends; (3) 
evaluating and monitoring causes of mortality and injury; and (4) 
defining factors that affect health, well-being, physiology, and 
ecology. Research projects that support this objective include aerial 
surveys, a carcass salvage program, a photo-identification program, 
telemetry studies and others.
    Recovery Objective 3. Protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor 
manatee habitats. Tasks identified under this objective include: (1) 
Protecting, identifying, evaluating, and monitoring existing natural 
and industrial warm-water refuges and investigate alternatives; (2) 
establishing, acquiring, managing, and monitoring regional protected-
area networks and manatee habitat; (3) ensuring that minimum flows and 
levels are established for surface waters to protect resources of 
importance to manatees; and (4) assessing the need to revise critical 
habitat. Important habitats for the Florida manatee include winter 
sources of warm water, forage, drinking water, travel (or migratory) 
corridors, and sheltered areas for resting and calving. The most 
significant of these include winter warm-water and winter foraging 
areas. Florida manatees are at the northern limit of the species' range 
and require stable, long-term sources of warm water during cold weather 
and adjacent forage to persist through winter periods. Historically, 
manatees relied on the warm, temperate waters of south Florida and on 
natural warm-water springs scattered throughout their range as buffers 
to the lethal effects of cold winter temperatures. Absent warm water, 
prolonged exposure to cold water temperatures results in debilitation 
and/or death due to ``cold stress syndrome'' (Bossart et al., 2004, p. 
435; Rommel et al., 2002, p. 4). Several areas in this recovery effort 
summary (such as in Objective 1 above) show efforts that we are taking 
to protect these sites and continue to implement recovery for the West 
Indian manatee.
    Recovery Objective 4. Facilitate manatee recovery through public 
awareness and education. Tasks include: (1) Developing, evaluating, and 
updating public education and outreach programs and materials; (2) 
coordinating the development of manatee awareness programs and 
materials to support recovery; and (3) developing consistent manatee 
viewing and approach guidelines, utilizing the rescue, rehabilitation, 
and release program to educate the public.
    Manatee conservation relies on significant education and outreach 
efforts. While the Service and State of Florida engage in these 
efforts, many diverse stakeholders also participate in these 
activities. Counties, municipalities, boating organizations, manatee 
advocacy groups, environmental organizations, and others produce and 
distribute outreach materials through a variety of media. An active 
manatee rescue and rehabilitation program displays manatees that are 
being rehabilitated and promotes conservation through display and 
educational programs.
    Significant education and outreach efforts include Crystal River 
National Wildlife Refuge's (NWR) manatee kiosks, located at all water 
access facilities in Kings Bay, Florida, and adjoining waters. The 
kiosk panels provide the public with information about manatees and 
guidance addressing manatee viewing activities. The kiosks are 
supported by Refuge-linked web media that provide additional 
information about manatee harassment and user activities (Vicente 2015, 
pers. comm.). SeaWorld Orlando, through its permitted display of 
rehabilitating manatees, reaches out to unprecedented numbers of 
visitors. The display addresses the park's rescue and rehabilitation 
program and informs the public about threats to manatees and what the 
public can do to reduce the number of manatees affected by human 
activities (SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, 2016; see: http://seaworld.org/en/animal-info/animal-infobooks/manatee).

Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rican Population of the West Indian 
(Antillean Manatee)

    The 1986 Recovery Plan does not establish quantitative recovery 
criteria to describe a sustainable population of manatees in Puerto 
Rico. It does, however, direct the Service to determine and satisfy the 
recovery criteria that are based on mortality and abundance trends and 
a minimum population size and ensure that adequate habitat protection 
and anti-poaching measures are implemented (USFWS 1986, Executive 
Summary). The Recovery Plan also specifies that delisting should occur 
when the population is large enough to maintain sufficient genetic 
variation to enable it to evolve and respond to natural changes and 
stochastic or catastrophic events. As previously explained, the Service 
has made substantial progress implementing a number of recovery 
actions, and some other actions are in progress.
    In the absence of historical data (previous to the late 1970s) that 
identifies a clear goal for population size, and population parameters 
such as adult survival rates, which have the highest potential effect 
on growth rate (Marsh et al. 2011, p. 255), it is not possible to 
stipulate with precision the population size and vital rates that 
should characterize a recovered, self-sustaining population of manatees 
in Puerto Rico. Hunter et al. (2012, p. 1631) describes low genetic 
diversity for the Puerto Rico population of Antillean manatees, and 
cites other authors that suggest at least 50 genetically effective 
breeders (~500 individuals) are needed to prevent inbreeding depression 
for short-term population survival, while other researchers suggest 
population levels in the upper hundreds to thousands in order to 
maintain evolutionary potential. The average estimate of 532 for the 
manatee population in Puerto Rico, ranging from a minimum of 342 to a 
maximum of 802 individuals (Pollock et al. 2013, p. 8), is just within 
the numbers of a viable population mentioned by Hunter et al. (2012, p. 
1631). The Service considers the Puerto Rico Antillean manatee 
population as stable, as it did in the previous status assessment 
(USFWS 2007, p. 33). Past and current aerial surveys also serve to 
demonstrate that the island-wide size and distribution of

[[Page 16677]]

the Puerto Rico manatee population does not seem to have changed. In 
the 45 years that have passed since the species was listed, it can be 
said that, according to the population numbers and maintenance of the 
population's island-wide distribution, the Puerto Rico manatee 
population has shown resilient attributes for long-term persistence in 
spite of past and present natural and anthropogenic threats.
    Major tasks for recovery include reduction of human-caused 
mortality, habitat protection, identification and control of any 
contaminant problems, and research into manatee behavior and 
requirements to direct future management (USFWS 1986, Executive 
Summary). The Service has already identified important manatee habitat 
and will continue to use and pursue new strategies towards manatee 
habitat protection together with the PRDNER. Planned research in the 
near future will focus on manatee health assessments to gain baseline 
information into potential contaminant problems and disease.

Florida Manatee Recovery Plan

    The Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001, entire) identifies 
criteria for downlisting the Florida subspecies from endangered to 
threatened and criteria for removing the subspecies from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Both downlisting and delisting 
criteria include Listing/Recovery Factor criteria and demographic 
criteria. Criteria can be found in Supplemental Document 1 in Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178.
    A 2004 review of the demographic criteria noted that these criteria 
are largely redundant and that (1) no manatee population can grow at a 
fixed rate indefinitely as limiting resources will eventually prevent 
the population from continuing to grow at that rate and the population 
will ultimately reach stability; (2) the reproductive criterion is 
difficult to estimate and the modeling results are difficult to 
interpret; and (3) demographic recovery criteria should be linked to 
statistically rigorous field data, as well as to the specific 
population models that are intended for their evaluation. See previous 
review of demographic data in Florida Manatee Recovery Plan Objective 
3. Absent demographic criteria for the Florida manatee, we rely on more 
recent demographic analyses and a threats analysis of the five listing 
factors to support our reclassification, instead of the existing 
recovery criteria.

Downlisting Criteria Listing/Recovery Criterion A

    1. Identify minimum flow levels for important springs used by 
wintering manatees.
    Minimum spring discharge rates that consider estimated flow rates 
necessary to protect water supply and support overwintering manatees 
have been identified for some springs used by manatees. Minimum flows 
were established at Blue Spring, Fanning Spring, Manatee Spring, the 
Weeki Wachee River system and Weeki Wachee Springs, Homosassa Springs, 
and Chassahowitzka Spring. Florida water management districts have 
scheduled, or are in the process of scheduling, minimum flow 
requirements for the remaining springs (see Table 3). These regulations 
will ensure that adequate flows are met to support manatees. To date, 
minimum flows have been adopted for six springs, and efforts are under 
way to develop flows for two additional springs, including the Crystal 
River springs complex. The status of efforts to establish minimum flows 
for eight remaining springs are unknown.

   Table 3--Projected Timeframes for Establishing Spring Minimum Flows
                    [From water management districts]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Adopted/year
             Spring                  proposed  for           Notes
                                       adoption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EAST COAST, FLORIDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper St. Johns River Region:
    Blue Spring (Volusia County)  ADOPTED...........
    Silver Glen Springs (Marion   UNKNOWN...........  To be initiated in
     County).                                          2017.
    DeLeon Springs (Volusia       UNKNOWN...........  Initiated in 2016.
     County).
    Salt Springs (Marion County)  UNKNOWN...........
    Silver Springs (Marion        UNKNOWN...........  To be initiated in
     County) *.                                        2017.
Atlantic Region:
    No springs present..........  N/A...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           WEST COAST, FLORIDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region:
    Crystal River System and      2017..............
     Kings Bay Springs (Citrus
     County).
    Homosassa River Springs       ADOPTED...........  Revision due 2019.
     (Citrus County).
    Weeki Wachee/Mud/Jenkins      ADOPTED...........
     Creek Springs (Hernando
     County).
    Manatee/Fanning Springs       ADOPTED...........
     (Dixie County).
    Wakulla/St. Mark's Complex    2021..............
     (Wakulla County).
    Ichetucknee Springs Group     UNKNOWN...........  Initiated in 2013.
     (Columbia County).
    Chassahowitzka River Springs  ADOPTED...........  Revision due 2019.
     (Citrus County).
    Rainbow Spring (Marion        UNKNOWN...........
     County) *.
Southwest Region:
    Warm Mineral Springs          UNKNOWN...........
     (Sarasota County).
    Spring Bayou/Tarpon Springs   UNKNOWN...........
     (Pasco County).
    Sulphur Springs               ADOPTED...........
     (Hillsborough County).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* At present, largely inaccessible to manatees.


[[Page 16678]]

    2. Protect a network of warm-water refuges as manatee sanctuaries, 
refuges, or safe havens.
    A network of warm-water sanctuaries/no-entry areas and refuges 
exists throughout much of the Florida manatee's range. Along the 
Atlantic Coast, all four of the primary power plant discharges have 
been designated as manatee protection areas and many lesser warm-water 
sites, such as the Coral Gables Waterway, are protected as well. In the 
St. Johns River region, Blue Springs is in public ownership, and the 
spring and run are protected. The four primary west Florida power 
plants are designated as sanctuaries/no-entry areas, and significant 
warm-water springs in Citrus County are designated as sanctuaries. 
Efforts are ongoing to improve conditions and management of southwest 
Florida's Warm Mineral Springs. See Supplemental Document 2 in Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178.
    3. Identify foraging sites associated with the network of warm-
water sites for protection (see Criteria 4 below).
    4. Identify for protection a network of migratory corridors, 
feeding areas, and calving and nursing areas.
    Extensive research, including aerial surveys and field studies of 
tagged manatees, has identified many of the foraging sites associated 
with the Florida manatee's warm-water network, as well as migratory 
corridors, resting areas, and calving and nursery areas. In many of 
these areas, manatee protection area measures are in place to protect 
manatees from watercraft collisions. State and Federal laws afford some 
protection against habitat loss in these areas (see Factor D discussion 
below). For example, the Clean Water Act ensures that discharges into 
waterways used by manatees are not detrimental to grass beds and other 
habitat features used by manatees.

Downlisting Criteria, Listing/Recovery Criterion B

    1. Address harassment at wintering and other sites to achieve 
compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the 
Endangered Species Act and as a conservation benefit to the species.
    To address harassment at wintering and other sites, the Service and 
State have designated manatee sanctuaries and no-entry areas to keep 
people out of sensitive wintering sites. Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officers enforce these restrictions and address any 
violations that occur outside of the protected areas.
    Kings Bay, located in Crystal River, Florida, is a world-renowned 
destination for manatee viewing activities. Commercial viewing 
activities began in the early 1970s, and today's activities generate 
millions of dollars in income to the region. Harassment associated with 
this activity has been addressed through the purchase of properties of 
sensitive manatee habitat, the designation of manatee sanctuaries and 
protected areas, the creation and operation of the Crystal River NWR in 
1983, extensive outreach activities, and enforcement of regulations 
prohibiting manatee harassment. The Service adopted the Kings Bay 
Manatee Refuge rule in 2012 (77 FR 15617; March 16, 2012) to expand 
existing sanctuary boundaries, better address manatee harassment 
occurring off refuge property, and minimize watercraft-related deaths 
in Kings Bay. The rule identifies specific prohibitions that can be 
enforced through the issuance of citations (USFWS 2012). Crystal River 
NWR recently adopted measures to help prevent any harassment in Three 
Sisters Springs and is considering further measures as the situation 
requires.

Downlisting Criteria, Listing/Recovery Criterion C

    At the time the recovery plan was developed, there was no data 
indicating that disease and predation was a limiting factor, thus no 
reclassification (downlisting) criteria for this threat was deemed 
necessary and, consequently, no delisting criteria were established.

Downlisting Criteria, Listing/Recovery Criterion D

    Specific actions are needed to ensure the adequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms as addressed below.
    1. Establish minimum flows consistent with Listing/Recovery 
Criterion A.
    See discussion under Listing/Recovery Criterion A, above.
    2. Protect important manatee habitats.
    Important manatee habitats have been identified and protected 
through a variety of means. Manatee habitat is protected through land 
acquisition and various Federal and State laws. Important acquisitions 
include Blue Spring in Volusia County and the Main Spring, Three 
Sisters Springs, and Homosassa Springs in Citrus County. Land managers 
for these sites manage habitat to benefit manatees. To ensure that 
these habitats and habitat in public waterways are protected, 
regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), State water management 
districts, and others review permit applications for activities that 
could adversely modify or destroy habitat and require permittees to 
avoid or minimize impacts. Discharges and runoff that could affect 
habitat are addressed through the Clean Water Act's NPDES permitting 
program, administered by FDEP with oversight from the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).
    3. Reduce or remove unauthorized take.
    To address harassment at wintering and other sites, the Service and 
State have designated manatee sanctuaries and no-entry areas where 
manatees rest and shelter from the cold free from human disturbance. 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers enforce these 
restrictions and address any violations that occur outside of the 
protected areas.

Downlisting Criteria, Listing/Recovery Criterion E

    1. Create and enforce manatee safe havens and/or Federal manatee 
refuges.
    To date, the Service and State have created more than 50 manatee 
protection areas, and protection area measures are enforced by the 
Service, U.S. Coast Guard, FWC, and local law enforcement officers. The 
Service's Office of Law Enforcement has dedicated manatee law 
enforcement officers in Florida to address manatee enforcement issues. 
Service National Wildlife Refuges have refuge law enforcement officers 
who enforce on and off refuge manatee regulations as time and resources 
allow.
    2. Retrofit one half of all water control structures with devices 
to prevent manatee mortality.
    Water control structures are flood gates that control water 
movement and navigation locks that allow vessel passages through dams 
and impoundments, such as those associated with Lake Okeechobee. 
Manatees travel through these structures and are occasionally killed 
when structures are closed or opened. Manatee protection devices 
installed on these structures prevent manatee deaths. See discussion in 
``South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, West Indian Manatee.''
    To date, all but one water control structure has been retrofitted 
with manatee protection devices. Efforts are ongoing to complete 
installation at the remaining site. This action has significantly 
reduced the impacts of control structure related manatee injury and 
death; such injuries or deaths are now relatively rare.
    3. Draft guidelines to reduce or remove threats of injury or 
mortality from fishery entanglements and entrapment in storm water 
pipes and structures.

[[Page 16679]]

    Some measures have been developed to reduce or remove threats of 
injury or mortality from fishery entanglements, and steps are being 
taken to minimize entrapments in storm water pipes and structures. 
Measures to address fishery entanglements include monofilament 
recycling programs and derelict crab trap removals; these two programs 
address primary sources of manatee entanglement. Storm water pipes and 
structures large enough for manatees to enter are designed to include 
features that prohibit manatee access. Existing structures are re-
fitted with bars or grates to keep manatees out. In the event of 
entanglements or entrapments, the manatee rescue program intervenes. 
There are very few serious injuries or deaths each year due to these 
causes. Guidelines to minimize gear-related entanglements associated 
with netting activities have been developed. Similarly, guidance has 
been developed to reduce entrapment in storm water pipes and 
structures. See Factor E for additional information.
    Remaining tasks to address the recovery of the Florida manatees 
include:

     Continue to address pending changes in the manatees' warm-
water network (develop and implement strategies).
     Support the adoption of minimum flow regulations for 
remaining important springs used by manatees.
     Protect and maintain important manatee habitat.
     Continue to maintain, adopt, and enforce manatee 
protection areas as appropriate (continue to fund law enforcement 
activities and manatee protection area marker maintenance).
     Continue to address instances of manatee harassment.
     Continue to review and address warm- and freshwater 
discharges and boat facility projects that affect manatees.
     Maintain and install manatee protection devices on 
existing and new water-control structures.
     Continue manatee rescue and rehabilitation efforts, 
including efforts to minimize the effect of manatee entanglements and 
entrapments.
     Continue to monitor manatee population status and trends.
     Continue manatee education and outreach efforts.

    The Florida manatee population, estimated at about 6,350 manatees, 
is characterized by good adult survival rate estimates and positive 
breeding rates. The recently updated threats analysis continues to 
identify losses due to watercraft and projected losses of winter warm-
water habitat as the greatest threats to this subspecies (Runge et al., 
2015). The designation, marking, and enforcement of manatee protection 
areas in areas where manatees are at risk of watercraft collision, in 
addition to outreach efforts focused on minimizing this threat, 
addresses this concern. Numerous efforts have been made and are ongoing 
to protect and enhance natural warm-water sites used by wintering 
manatees. Addressing the pending loss of warm-water habitat from power 
plant discharges remains a priority activity needed to achieve 
recovery.

Summary of Comments

    In the proposed rule published on January 8, 2016 (81 FR 1000), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by April 8, 2015. On January 13, 2016, the date closing the 
comment period was corrected to read April 7, 2016 (81 FR 1597). We 
also held a public hearing on February 20, 2016, at the Buena Vista 
Palace Conference Center in Orlando, Florida. The Service also 
contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts 
and organizations, tribes, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal.
    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent expert opinion from 10 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific and conservation expertise 
that included familiarity with the two subspecies of the West Indian 
manatee and their habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received 
responses from four of the peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the status of the West Indian manatee. None of 
the peer reviewers who responded agreed with the proposal to reclassify 
the manatee as threatened (see Peer Reviewer comment section below for 
more details).
    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the 
State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, 
and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act states, 
``the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written 
justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the 
agency's comments or petition.'' The Service submitted the proposed 
regulation to the two State and territorial agencies where most West 
Indian manatees in the United States occur: Florida and Puerto Rico. We 
also sent the proposed regulation to the States in the remainder of the 
manatee's range, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. We received 
written comments from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC). We did not receive official comments from the Puerto 
Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER). One of 
the peer reviewers is also a biologist in the PRDNER Marine Mammal 
Stranding Program. The other States did not respond to our request. The 
FWC agreed with our determination as it relates to the Florida 
subspecies. The PRDNER peer reviewer did not offer support for this 
determination as it relates to the Antillean subspecies and provided 
comments.
    We requested comments from tribes found within the range of the 
Florida manatee and received responses from the Miccosukee Tribe of 
Indians of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Seminole 
Tribe had no comments on the proposed rule. The Miccosukee Tribe stated 
that it disagreed with the proposed rule. Specifically, the Miccosukee 
Tribe stated that it was concerned about the long-term survival of the 
species due to its cultural significance and that threats to the 
manatees' habitat (including warm-water habitat and loss of sea grass) 
must be mitigated before the species can be responsibly downlisted.
    In an effort to encourage international comments, we advised 
species experts and governmental representatives in other countries 
within the species' range about the Service's status review and 
requested that they send information about Antillean manatees. The 
Service made this contact through emails sent to species experts 
identified in UNEP's Regional Management Plan for the West Indian 
manatee (2010, Appendix III). We also advised attendees at the December 
8-13, 2014 Cartagena Convention that the Service was evaluating the 
status of the West Indian manatee and was requesting additional 
information to assist in its review. In addition, during the Seventh 
International Sirenian Symposium in December 2015, the Service 
announced that the 12-month finding would be published in January 2016. 
The Symposium included a significant number of international manatee 
experts, researchers, and managers, including those with expertise in 
West Indian manatees. We received very few responses from these sources 
regarding manatees outside the United States.

[[Page 16680]]

    In all, we received 3,799 public comments, including petitions 
signed by 75,276 individuals. The petitions did not include substantive 
comments, but simply included statements to the effect that those 
signing them did not support the Service's proposed reclassification of 
the West Indian manatee. We identified 59 substantive comments, from 
all sources, to which we respond below.

State, Federal, Tribal, International, and Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: Both the FWC and Miccosukee Tribe shared their 
concerns that there is still work to be done to ensure that the 
conservation gains we have made to help make this determination are 
maintained. In particular, one important task is restoring and 
protecting a sustainable network of warm-water habitat for the Florida 
subspecies.
    Response: For the southeastern United States, we identified the 
lack of protection or security of warm-water habitat as one of the two 
remaining principal threats in the proposed rule (reference 81 FR 1000 
and 81 FR 1016) for the West Indian manatee. We look forward to the 
progress we can make with our conservation partners to ensure we 
preserve sustainable spring flows and good water quality for key warm-
water sites that manatees depend on in Florida. We support restoration 
efforts and planning that is under way to make more springs accessible 
to manatees and protect habitat for the long term.
    (2) Comment: FWC expressed support for the manatee protections that 
are currently in place and shared that they are important factors that 
have brought us to this point. They stated that maintaining these 
existing protection measures and other key recovery actions will be 
essential in sustaining manatees and moving them closer to recovery.
    Response: We agree. The Service is working diligently with long-
time partners including the FWC, local and city governments, and law 
enforcement at many levels to continue to reduce the few remaining 
threats to the Florida subspecies such as watercraft collisions or boat 
strikes. The substantial reduction in watercraft collisions and boat 
strikes will be critical to the recovery of the manatee. When this 
final rule becomes effective, all protective measures such as manatee 
protection areas, manatee sanctuaries, and no wake and speed limit 
zones will remain in place.
    (3) Comment: The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) commented that, 
because Florida and Antillean manatees constitute genetically and 
morphologically distinct subspecies, they merit independent 
consideration for purposes of listing decisions under the Act. They 
also noted that improvement in the status of the Florida subspecies and 
reduction in the threats it faces should have no bearing on a listing 
decision for the Antillean subspecies.
    Response: The 12-month finding and proposed rule addressed the 
petition we received requesting that the West Indian manatee be 
reclassified from endangered to threatened under the Act. The petition 
received was for the listed entity, which is the West Indian manatee. 
As such we conducted an assessment of the status of the species as a 
whole. Therefore, our proposed rule and the analysis of status and 
threats addressed the entire listed entity. The assessment found that 
the species as a whole warrants listing as threatened. The Service will 
continue to monitor the status of the species, including the status of 
both subspecies.
    (4) Comment: The MMC maintained that, in order to support the 
proposed action to reclassify the species from endangered to 
threatened, FWS needs to show that the taxon's status at the time of 
the original listing was in error given new information, that the 
taxon's abundance has increased to the point where it no longer is in 
danger of extinction, or that, even if the taxon's population size has 
not grown appreciably, the threats to its existence have been abated to 
the point where they no longer present a risk of extinction. The 
Service's analyses need to focus on why the status of the species, as a 
whole, has improved to the point, and/or that threats have been reduced 
to the point, where it no longer is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.
    Response: The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying 
species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. Based on the Service's analysis 
of the best available scientific and commercial data, the West Indian 
manatee has a relatively medium to large range-wide population with 
continuing threats that are being addressed to varying degrees. 
Although the species is not presently considered in danger of 
extinction (endangered), the population size, uncertainties and failure 
to address identified threats (including poaching, watercraft 
collisions, habitat loss and fragmentation, the loss of the Florida 
manatees' warm-water habitat, and others) make this species likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future (threatened), which we have 
determined is 50 years (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section). The best available scientific and commercial data support our 
finding.
    (5) Comment: The MMC reiterated its earlier recommendations that 
FWS (1) complete a review of the unprecedented manatee cold stress and 
red tide-related die-offs in recent years (i.e., 2009-2013), (2) 
estimate past trends in the frequency of such die-offs and project 
those estimates into the future, and (3) assess the effects of 
anticipated power plant closures on the long-term viability of Florida 
manatees and the likelihood that natural warm-water refuges will be 
sufficient to support existing levels of manatees as refuges currently 
provided by power plants are lost.
    Response: The Service relies on the Manatee Core Biological Model 
(CBM) (Runge et al. 2015) and other sources of information to evaluate 
the effect of the 2009-2013 die-off events, as well as to estimate the 
effect of similar occurrences in the future. The Service received a CBM 
update on September 28, 2016, wherein the modelers asserted that the 
Florida manatee population could withstand events similar to those of 
2009-2013. The modelers planned to further evaluate the effect of 
future multiple events of varying magnitude. During the update, the 
modelers described a post- power plant discharge future whereby Florida 
manatees would persist, assuming measures were in place to protect 
natural and non-human dependent sources of winter warm water.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (6) Comment: A peer reviewer expressed concern about Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al.'s (2012) model assumption that the Antillean 
manatee population is a metapopulation. The peer reviewer stated that 
this assumption was invalid.
    Response: The metapopulation assumption is supported by information 
that suggests that, while both genetic and geographical barriers exist 
within the West Indian manatee's range, there is genetic admixture and 
long-distance travel, even between the Florida and Antillean 
subspecies' range (Garc[iacute]a-Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 1998, Vianna 
et al. 2006, Hunter et al. 2010, Nourisson et al. 2011). Thus, it is 
logical to assume a certain degree of interaction between some of the 
six subpopulations as described by Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 
(2012, p. 131). The Service recognizes that some interactions seem 
unlikely, and this assumption is captured by the model; for example, 
interactions between the Greater Antilles subpopulation (1) and the 
Brazil subpopulation (6) are unlikely to occur, in which case 
Castelblanco-

[[Page 16681]]

Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012) assigned the lowest migration rate (1 
percent).
    In addition, Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012, p. 132) did 
not assume inbreeding depression based on the available information on 
the sporadic long-distance movements of manatees between some 
subpopulations. Furthermore, although there may be inbreeding 
accumulation in some populations, in Belize, there are no indications 
of decreased fitness (Hunter et al. 2010, p. 598); and, to our 
knowledge, in the rest of the range of the West Indian manatee, fitness 
is not decreased. Thus, whether or not the metapopulation assumption is 
invalid, our final rule decision would not be different. The 
metapopulation model is only one of several parameters we evaluated for 
the status review and this listing determination.
    (7) Comment: A peer reviewer pointed out Hanski and Gilpin's (1991) 
observation that some metapopulations characterized by historical, 
continuous, spatial distribution are no longer functioning as 
metapopulations because of habitat fragmentation that causes the 
limited dispersal of individuals such that localized populations become 
extinct. The peer reviewer stated that this is what has happened to the 
Antillean manatee. The peer reviewer stated that, in the past, the 
manatee was present in the Lesser Antilles (Lefebvre et al. 2001) where 
it was driven to extinction and that the manatee has not re-established 
itself there because individuals no longer disperse into this region.
    Response: The Service relied on Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al.'s (2012) model for the metapopulation of Antillean manatees as part 
of its best available information used to assess the status of the 
subspecies (see Comment 6). Although there are records that manatees 
did occur in the Lesser Antilles in historical times, manatees are 
generally considered to have been rare in that region and were 
potentially wanderers that moved among the islands of the Lesser 
Antilles (Lefebvre et al. (2001, p. 460).
    (8) Comment: A peer reviewer observed that a PVA has not been 
conducted for both of the subspecies, or for the species throughout its 
range. A preliminary PVA conducted for the Antillean manatee indicated 
that the population is far from stable (Arriaga et al., in G[oacute]mez 
et al., 2012, entire.).
    Response: The Service appreciates the G[oacute]mez et al. (2012) 
reference (unpublished report) and, after reviewing the new 
information, we maintain the model is consistent with our analysis that 
there is a small chance that the Antillean manatee could become extinct 
in the next 50 years (foreseeable future). For example, the 
G[oacute]mez et al. (2012, pp. 75-76) model results show that the 
extinction risk in 100 years was only equal or greater than 10 percent 
when the manatee population sizes were 50 individuals or less, with a 
combination of some of the highest adult mortality and habitat loss 
values. We clarify that in the proposed rule we did not describe the 
Antillean manatee population as stable, but rather as declining 
throughout most of its range, based on the available information. As 
human populations within the species' range continue to grow (Marsh et 
al. 2012, p. 321) so too will resultant increases in human-related 
threats to manatees and the West Indian manatee population. Remaining 
and increasing human-related threats that, if not addressed, will 
likely lead the species towards being endangered in the foreseeable 
future include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation; watercraft 
collisions; poaching; and others. We will continue to monitor the 
status of human-related threats and the Florida subspecies.
    (9) Comment: A peer reviewer stated that, based on recent studies 
in the Tabasco area of Mexico and in the rivers and lagoons of Chiapas 
and Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico, manatee counts are lower than 
previously thought. Accordingly, the Mexican manatee population could 
be lower than earlier estimates that relied on expert opinion and 
anecdotal information.
    Response: We appreciate the additional information. In our proposed 
rule, we cited population estimates from UNEP (2010, p. 11), 
Castelblanco-Martinez et al. (2012, p. 132) and Martin et al. (2015, p. 
44) and estimated the population for Mexico at 1,500 animals. The 
commenter stated that the population in Mexico was between 1,000 and 
2,000 animals. This estimate is consistent with the referenced material 
and is noted in Table 1.
    (10) Comment: A peer reviewer wrote that it is unfortunate that 
downlisting is being considered now for the West Indian manatee in 
Puerto Rico. The peer reviewer stated that ``there are legal reasons 
for doing so, but ecologically and biogeographically, it does not make 
sense. The situations for the Antillean manatee and the Florida manatee 
are almost inverses of each other. Florida is the home base for T.m. 
latirostris, and there are sufficient data for population modeling to 
show that the population has grown. Puerto Rico is certainly not the 
home base for T.m. manatus, and the expert opinions and guesstimates 
from biologists in other countries indicate that in the entire range of 
T.m. manatus, there might be as many manatees as there are in Florida. 
The discussion about T.m. manatus mortality on 81 FR 1004 seems oddly 
biased, as it leaves out deliberate and incidental take in nets, a 
major source of mortality in many countries outside of the U.S. and PR, 
as well as other sources of mortality. Perhaps this is a text 
organization problem, as there is more discussion about mortality on 81 
FR 1007. There is great uncertainty about the status of T.m. manatus 
throughout its range.''
    Response: The Service was petitioned to evaluate the status of the 
West Indian manatee across its entire range and not only the Antillean 
subspecies or the Puerto Rico population. We did not intend to imply in 
our proposed rule that the Puerto Rico population is the home base for 
the Antillean manatee population. The Puerto Rico population is, 
however, one of the populations for which more current and reliable 
information is available and one of the few populations within the 
species' range that is thought to be at least stable and for which 
threats such as poaching no longer occur. In addition, fisheries-
related take of manatees in Puerto Rico is considered a minimal threat, 
given there are only four documented manatee fisheries-related deaths 
in 34 years (PRDNER unpubl data). In making our determination, the 
Service identified the different threats and challenges that affect 
each subspecies (Florida and Antillean). In addition, we also 
recognized that there is more uncertainty, with the Antillean manatee 
population numbers (Table 1) and threats, than with the Florida manatee 
population. Mortality is discussed in greater detail under the Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species section of the proposed and this final 
rule. We specifically discussed mortality caused by nets under the 
Fishing gear section of Factor E.
    (11) Comment: A peer reviewer stated that the basis for the 
proposed rule is the population estimate for the Florida manatee 
(6,350) and for the Antillean manatee in Puerto Rico (532). From those 
numbers, without a thorough PVA being conducted for the Antillean 
manatee in Puerto Rico, a conclusion is made that the numbers reflect a 
low percentage of this animal becoming extinct in the next 50 years. 
Again, the conclusion is being driven by the status and information of 
the Florida manatee. The information included for the Antillean manatee 
is only for those in Puerto Rico and lacks information for all other 
range countries. The estimate of 532 individuals for the manatee

[[Page 16682]]

population in Puerto Rico is an adjusted mean, which was recently 
calculated based on 2010 data. That number has a 95 percent equal area 
confidence interval (CI) of 342-802. Based on manatee sightings and the 
lack of knowledge by people living on our coasts regarding manatee 
presence, it is likely that the manatee population in Puerto Rico is on 
the low range of that CI. Having only 342 individuals, and considering 
threats, habitat degradation, illnesses, habitat displacement, and so 
on, this subspecies had a high percentage of going extinct in the next 
50 years or at least ceasing to be viable.
    Response: In making our determination, we evaluated and presented 
the best available information on the status and threats of the West 
Indian manatee across its entire range and not just the Florida and 
Puerto Rico populations. This information indicates that West Indian 
manatees are distributed across its entire range (see Table 1) and 
several of these populations are relatively large and have proven they 
can withstand stochastic events, such as extreme localized cold events. 
Based on two published population models (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. 2012; Runge et al. 2015) and a threats analysis, we concluded 
that there is a small chance that the West Indian manatee (not the 
Puerto Rico Antillean manatee population) could become extinct in the 
next 50 years and this species would retain its general distribution on 
the landscape. As such, the West Indian manatee (range wide) is not in 
danger of extinction (endangered), but rather, the species range-wide 
is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (50 years) 
(threatened). The peer reviewer also submitted an unpublished 
population model for the Antillean manatee (Arriaga et al., in 
G[oacute]mez et al., 2012, entire) that is consistent with our 
determination (see Comment 8). The commenter provides no additional 
information as to why the Puerto Rico population is likely to go 
extinct or cease to be viable within the next 50 years.
    (12) Comment: A peer reviewer commented that the discussion on 
Puerto Rico's habitat threat focuses on the sea grass areas as the main 
manatee habitat. Although the proposed rule acknowledges that the data 
collected by PRDNER indicate that sea grasses are being severely 
impacted by anthropogenic actions, which leads to a decrease in sea 
grass density and habitat fragmentation, the information leads to the 
conclusion that sea grass is not a limiting factor, even when it is 
unknown how much sea grass is needed to sustain a large manatee 
population. In addition, the discussion does not take into account that 
the scant research conducted until now regarding manatee feeding 
habitat in Puerto Rico suggests that the Antillean manatee might be a 
more specialized sea grass grazer than the Florida manatee (Lefebvre et 
al., 2000). This characteristic might be true for the Antillean manatee 
throughout its range.
    Response: The Service specified that, although the immediacy and 
magnitude of the degradation and loss of manatee habitat varies across 
the species' range, available manatee foraging habitat does not seem to 
be a limiting factor for the West Indian manatee, including Puerto Rico 
(Lefebvre et al. 2001, entire; Orth et al. 2006, p. 994; UNEP 2010, 
entire; Drew et al. 2012, p. 13). In addition, the commenter did not 
provide additional information that indicates that a seagrass or 
foraging area limitation or specialization is decreasing manatee 
fitness or causing manatee mortalities in Puerto Rico. The Service will 
continue to monitor research regarding manatee foraging behavior and 
potential effects of degraded foraging habitat on the manatee 
population.
    (13) Comment: A peer reviewer noted that poaching is a major threat 
throughout most of the countries within the range of the Antillean 
manatee. This is a threat that could bring the species to extinction 
and was actually responsible for causing the extinction of populations 
in some countries. Poaching is a clear and present threat for the 
Antillean manatee and should not be discounted just because the Service 
is confident that initiatives being pursued will have a positive 
outcome. Furthermore, while foreign governments have instituted 
regulations to address poaching, it is widely acknowledged that some 
countries have few resources to enforce regulations and that these 
countries are unlikely to minimize this threat anytime soon.
    Response: The Service has not discounted the threat of poaching and 
referenced Marsh et al. (2011, p. 265) to conclude that poaching is a 
major threat to the manatee population outside of the southeastern 
United States (which includes Puerto Rico). Some information suggests 
that manatees became extinct in a few islands in the Lesser Antilles, 
likely due to hunting. However, records documenting historical manatee 
presence suggest that they were rare in the region and were potentially 
wanderers that moved among the islands of the Lesser Antilles (Lefebvre 
et al., 2001, p. 460). Currently, we believe that even though poaching 
may still occur in some regions, it no longer occurs in a few regions, 
and has been reduced in others (UNEP 2010, entire; Marsh et al. 2011, 
p. 386). However, the Service recognizes that some of the small and 
declining populations of the Antillean manatee subspecies are most 
likely not able to sustain continued illegal poaching. The Service will 
continue to gather information on the poaching threat to West Indian 
manatees and will reach out to these countries to assist them with 
their efforts to address this and other threats as resources permit.
    (14) Comment: A peer reviewer said that the proposed rule stated 
that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a moderate 
threat to the West Indian manatee. The reviewer further stated that, 
``from that analysis, [if] we take out the considerations that apply 
only to the Florida manatee, where many measures are in place, we could 
conclude this is a significant threat. As mentioned throughout these 
comments, the lack of implementation, enforcement and oversight make 
many of the conservation strategies inefficient or fruitless. 
Downlisting the species may not have an impact in the Florida manatee, 
but it will in the Antillean manatee. Ruling and conservation measures, 
that are not currently strong enough because of lack of enforcement, 
will be more lenient.''
    Response: In evaluating this factor, the Service specified that, 
although numerous regulatory mechanisms are in effect, challenges in 
the enforcement of these regulatory mechanisms exist. Based on the 
overall comments received regarding this factor, regulations to protect 
manatees may not be as effective elsewhere as they are within the 
United States and Puerto Rico. Thus, the Service recognizes that the 
lack of or inability to enforce regulatory mechanisms can have negative 
consequences for the West Indian manatee. However, because the manatee 
is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), there are 
protections that will remain in place following downlisting under the 
Act. See Factor D, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. An 
Appendix I listing includes species threatened with extinction whose 
trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which 
generally precludes commercial trade. The import of specimens (both 
live and dead, as well as parts and products) of an Appendix I species 
generally requires the issuance of both an import and export permit 
under CITES. Import permits are issued only if findings are made that 
the import would be for

[[Page 16683]]

purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species in the 
wild and that the specimen was lawfully acquired (including under 
foreign domestic law). Protections under the Act will remain in effect.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that Deutsch et al.'s (2008) 
suggestion, that numbers of Antillean manatees were likely to decline 
by 10 percent over the next three generations (~60 years), more 
generally reflects expert opinion than do the results of the 
Castelblanco-Martinez et al. (2012) analysis.
    Response: The Service referenced Deutsch et al. (2008) in the first 
paragraph of the Population Trends section of the proposed rule and 
this final rule. We clarify that the expected 10 percent rate of 
decline was specified for the West Indian manatee, listed by IUCN as 
Vulnerable, and not the Antillean manatee, listed by IUCN as 
Endangered. In addition, no further information was provided by the 
commenter as to why Deutsch et al. (2008) more generally reflects 
expert opinion than do the results of Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et 
al.'s (2012) analysis. The Service recognizes that the available 
information suggests the Antillean manatee may be declining throughout 
most of it range. However, considering the best available information 
on the present status of the West Indian manatee and the factors that 
may threaten it, the Service maintains the species does not meet the 
definition of an endangered species. Please refer to the section 
entitled Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.

Public Comments

Comments on Topics That Apply to Population Models

    (16) Comment: We received several comments on our use of the 
Antillean manatee model presented in the Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. (2012) publication. Commenters included the author and co-
authors, who sent a letter to clarify in part that their article 
addressed a potential growing trend only in the Antillean manatee 
subspecies and not the Florida manatee subspecies. They also stated 
that the results of the model were misinterpreted in the proposed rule 
and highlighted information in their paper to support their claims. The 
authors identified model projections that would lead to the extinction 
of the Antillean manatee population under different levels of risk, 
including specific increases in human-related mortality and/or habitat 
fragmentation (Models 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9). They also mentioned that 
their model did not take into account the effects of climate change 
that could definitively have an important impact on population 
viability by increasing the frequency and intensity of stochastic 
events.
    Response: We clarify that we used the Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. (2012) model only in our evaluation of the Antillean manatee 
subspecies, and used the Runge et al. (2015) model to evaluate the 
Florida manatee subspecies. We used other best available information, 
in addition to the models, in the proposed and this final rule for the 
West Indian manatee. We acknowledge that Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
and co-authors presented several scenarios for the Antillean manatee 
population and note that these were accounted for in our assessment. 
The Service considered all scenarios and models as well as known 
threats when making our determination that this species is now 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion its range (rather 
than endangered). Please refer to the beginning of the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section, which describes the difference 
between endangered and threatened species. We also added further 
discussion of the model under the Population Trends section.
    Finally, the Service believes that the effects of climate change 
were considered in the model which used hurricane frequency data 
(catastrophic events) (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, p. 
136). The authors explain that the modeled ``variation in the intensity 
and frequency of hurricanes did not lead to any important changes in 
the population growth curves'' for the Antillean manatee population 
(Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, p. 138). For additional 
information on potential effects due to climate change on the West 
Indian manatee, please refer to the discussion in Factor E section.
    (17) Comment: The FWS proposed rule contradicts the Castelblanco et 
al. (2012) PVA conclusion that the Antillean manatee population is 
experiencing positive growth, as the FWS cites a number of sources of 
expert and local opinions to state that in most of the countries 
Antillean manatee populations are declining.
    Response: In our rule, we discuss all available information that 
indicates either positive growth rates or population declines. Both the 
Service and Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012) cite sources 
that state that the Antillean manatee population appears to be 
declining throughout most of its range. We included these sources in 
our review of the species' population biology and also relied on 
models, including Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012), to 
evaluate the effect of known threats on this population. Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012) used this information in their model runs 
and discussion of various population scenarios and concluded that the 
Antillean manatee population is experiencing positive growth, using 
their model parameters, which the Service considered in this rule. 
(Refer to the Population Trends section for greater detail on this 
model). For example, it assumes that all threats have an equal effect 
on the different subpopulations. Our threats assessment considered the 
best available scientific and commercial information, including 
published models, scientific papers, reports, and other reliable 
information. Please refer to Comments 8 and 11 and the Population 
Trends section for further discussion on Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. (2012).
    (18) Comment: The analysis by Runge et al. (2015) provides results 
that are credible only if one makes certain questionable assumptions 
(e.g., threats will not increase, etc.). The commenter believes that 
the proposed extinction probabilities may be inappropriately optimistic 
and that the model results should be considered with caution and 
recognized only as the best-case scenario.
    Response: The Manatee CBM integrates an understanding of current 
and foreseeable threats in a common risk analysis framework. It 
projects a risk of extinction under the status quo (current scenario) 
and can address questions such as, ``If a threat is reduced by 50 
percent, how much would the extinction risk be expected to decline?'' 
The model provides a tool for assessing growing and changing threats 
(Runge et al., 2015, p. 2). The Service believes that model results are 
a fair depiction of the current state of knowledge that appropriately 
incorporates and articulates uncertainty. The Service considered CBM-
derived probabilities of extinction for the Florida manatee in the 
context of many additional sources of information in its evaluation of 
the status of this subspecies and the species at large.
    (19) Comment: The proposed rule and CBM did not take into account 
the cold weather, Indian River Lagoon, and red tide die-off events that 
occurred between 2010 and 2013.
    Response: The proposed rule took into account the die-off events in 
its review of population trends. See proposed rule of January 8, 2016, 
at 81 FR 1005. However, the CBM, which

[[Page 16684]]

evaluates the effect of various threats on the Florida manatee 
population, did not evaluate these events because 2010-2013 adult 
survival rate estimates needed for the model runs were not available 
when this rule was written. Please see discussion in the proposed rule, 
Population Trends.
    (20) Comment: The Service relied on Runge et al.'s (2015) CBM to 
evaluate extinction probabilities. The validity of model results 
depends on the completeness and quality of data for critical 
parameters, as well as up-to-date information. The commenter stated 
that he does not believe that the data used by Runge et al. (2015) are 
always the best available and is concerned that the model did not 
consider sublethal effects. In particular, the commenter noted the CBM 
did not use adult survival rate estimate data for the 2010-2013 die-off 
years. Because of this, the commenter expressed a belief that certain 
projected outcomes may be unrealistic and inappropriately optimistic.
    Response: Data used by Runge et al. (2015) were the best, most 
complete data available through December 2012. Data used for this 
analysis included data collected more recently (manatee photo-
identification data used to calculate adult survival rate estimates). 
However, adult survival rates for periods beyond this date could not be 
calculated because of an end of time series bias inherent in the 
analyses. The authors described strengths and weaknesses associated 
with the data; adult survival rates used in the model runs were current 
through winter 2008-2009 and more recent rates were not available due 
to inherent backlogs associated with processing data. The CBM does 
include a number of sublethal effects. For example, sublethal effects 
are captured in the mark-recapture estimates of survival and some 
sublethal effects on reproduction, such as that which occurs during 
red-tide years, are also captured.
    (21) Comment: CBM assumptions about the carrying capacity of warm-
water refugia should be re-assessed using a more applied process than 
expert opinion.
    Response: Model assumptions regarding the carrying-capacity of 
warm-water sites considered expert valuations of numbers of manatees 
that could survive variably severe winters. Considerations included the 
spatial extent of thermal refuges, the availability of food resources 
in proximity to those refuges, and the behavior of manatees, including 
their tolerance for human disturbance. The Service believes that, 
absent a quantitative valuation of warm-water habitat, the use of 
expert opinion provides a reasonable assessment of carrying-capacity 
for this review. With this said, there is still considerable 
uncertainty about warm-water capacity, including its magnitude and the 
mechanism by which it affects manatee population dynamics. We will 
continue to monitor the status of the manatee and its habitat.
    (22) Comment: One commenter expressed the opinion that Runge et 
al.'s (2015) model does not consider an extensive seagrass die-off in 
Brevard County, which is arguably the most important habitat for 
manatees in the world. The Miccosukee Tribe expressed a similar concern 
about the effect of the loss of seagrass on manatees.
    Response: While Runge et al. (2015, p. 1) does not factor in this 
loss of seagrass directly, it noted this occurrence and considered it 
and the coincidental loss of manatees in Brevard County. The model 
forecasts the Florida manatee population under different threat 
scenarios and addresses environmental, demographic, and catastrophic 
stochasticity. In short, catastrophic losses such as the loss of 
seagrass in Brevard County are broadly considered in model projections 
which suggest that the population can withstand such events.

Comments on Topics That Apply to Antillean Manatees

    (23) Comment: Uncertainty of [population] estimates for the 
Antillean manatee, acknowledged by the Service to be conjectural, are 
highly unreliable and do not comport with the statutory requirement for 
listing decisions to be based on the best available scientific 
information. The FWS also does not explain why it did not select a 
lower, more conservative population estimate or at least cite a range 
of possible population estimates for the Antillean manatee.
    Response: The Service identified the range of possible population 
sizes in the Population Size section of the proposed and the final 
rule. In this final rule, we have also edited Table 1 to include the 
minimum population estimates for the West Indian manatee across its 
entire range based on the best available information and recognizing 
the uncertainties in the data. Our estimate of the total West Indian 
manatee population currently ranges between 8,396 and 13,142 (Table 1). 
Population size, while an important component regarding a species' 
status, is not the only factor that should be assessed when evaluating 
a species' survival. Factors such as mortality, resilience to withstand 
stochastic events, genetic diversity throughout the range, potential 
reduced fitness and extensive distribution of populations across its 
range (refer to Table 1), among others, must also be considered. 
Another approach is to utilize existing data to conduct stochastic 
population modeling and extinction risk assessment, such as those 
conducted by Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012) and Runge et 
al. (2015). For example, for the Antillean manatee population, the 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2012) model did not show any 
significant response to variations in the assumed initial population 
sizes, using 1,675 as the lowest initial population size value and 
6,700 as a reasonable value for their baseline model (Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012, p. 137). The Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. (2012) approach represents the best science and provides sound 
estimates of the Antillean manatee numbers.
    (24) Comment: Some commenters, including the Miccosukee Tribe said 
that it is unclear why the FWS feels justified to downlist the 
Antillean manatee since the agency's own 12-month finding cites that 
``population trends are declining or unknown in 84 percent of the 
countries where manatees are found.''
    Response: A species can be declining and not necessarily be 
endangered. In making our determination, the Service concluded that the 
West Indian manatee is not currently endangered but is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future (threatened). On the basis of our 
analysis, we find that many threats (habitat loss and fragmentation, 
watercraft collisions, loss of the Florida manatees' winter warm water 
habitat, and others) have been reduced but continue to exist; these 
threats are expected to persist and may escalate in the future. New and 
ongoing conservation efforts will be needed to prevent the species from 
becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. Since most of the 
Antillean manatee population is thought to have a declining or unknown 
trend, existing or new potential threats, if not addressed, may lead 
the species towards being endangered in the foreseeable future. This is 
consistent with the Act's definition of a threatened species. Please 
refer to the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, which describes 
the difference between endangered and threatened species.
    (25) Comment: The FWS fails to evaluate the status of the 
population in the rest of the Caribbean (outside of Puerto Rico) and 
fails to adequately evaluate the five statutory criteria with respect 
to the entire range of the species,

[[Page 16685]]

as threats to these populations are increasing and enforcement for the 
Antillean manatee is lacking.
    Response: The Service evaluated the status of the West Indian 
manatee across its entire range based on the best available 
information. The Service recognized that the immediacy and the 
magnitude of threats vary across the West Indian manatees' range. The 
commenter did not provide additional information as to how the threats 
of the species are increasing and enforcement is lacking beyond that 
already considered in our analysis. Please refer to the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section for the analysis that examines 
all five factors currently affecting or that are likely to affect the 
West Indian manatee.
    (26) Comment: The FWS repeatedly determines that individual threats 
or the sum of threats under each listing factor only pose a moderate 
threat to the Antillean subspecies outside the United States, but 
frequently and frankly acknowledges that it lacks credible data on 
which to base these judgments.
    Response: The Service is required to make decisions under the Act 
based solely on the best scientific and commercial information 
available. The Service must examine how and to what extent threats 
impact the species such that it meets the definition of threatened or 
endangered. In this case, the threats assessment was completed for the 
West Indian manatee across its range. Our assessment included a five-
factor analysis and review of demographic parameters. In some cases, 
data were less than conclusive and we made rational and explicit 
inferences based on our best professional judgment that reflected the 
extent of our uncertainty and consequences of being incorrect.
    (27) Comment: At the lower population estimate of 700 individuals 
in Belize, the 2015 mortality represents a 5.7 percent mortality of 
that population, which is already higher than the 5 percent that 
population modelling indicates to be sustainable (Castelblanco-Martinez 
et al. 2012). With the opening of another cruise ship port in November 
2016, with all its land-based tours scheduled to be accessed by boat 
through another high-density manatee area, conservation planning based 
on best available data indicates the potential for significant 
increased additional mortality (Walker et al. 2015).
    Response: The Service appreciates the new information received from 
Belize, which is addressed in this final rule. Increases in boating 
traffic in high density manatee areas may increase watercraft-related 
mortality as noted in Florida (Laist and Shaw 2006, p. 473) The Service 
recognizes that Belize represents one of the largest Antillean manatee 
populations, and we are concerned about the increased manatee mortality 
here. However, the Service was petitioned to evaluate the status of the 
West Indian manatee across its entire range. We will continue to 
evaluate how the Service can coordinate manatee conservation occurring 
in Belize and in the rest of the West Indian manatee's range.
    (28) Comment: The proposed downlisting is contrary to the appraisal 
of Belize's National Manatee Working Group (NMWG), which has determined 
that, although the current population is rated as FAIR (Belize National 
Manatee Recovery Plan, Ortega-Argueta, in prep.), the current level of 
mortality is unsustainable, and that the population will crash with a 
continuation of this mortality rate. The NMWG is working with the 
Government of Belize to identify and implement actions to reduce the 
mortality rate. The proposed downlisting could significantly hinder 
these actions, impacting the funding and leverage available to Forest 
Department and its partners to address threats to Belize's manatee 
population and implement direct conservation actions, and thereby 
increase the risk to Belize's population of Antillean manatees, and 
thereby the global population.
    Response: The FAIR rating of the current Belize Antillean manatee 
population is consistent with the Service's definition and 
interpretation of a threatened species, a species that is likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future and is not currently 
endangered, even with the documented increasing threats. The Service 
would also like to coordinate with the National Manatee Working Group 
and the Government of Belize towards developing conservation strategies 
to reduce the current mortality rate. However, as stated in Comment 27 
above, this rulemaking evaluates the status of the West Indian manatee 
throughout its entire range.
    (29) Comment: The downlisting of the West Indian manatee is based 
on the successful population growth and stability seen in Florida, but 
largely ignores the remaining threats in Central and South America, for 
which the Service admits that it lacks quantitative information.
    Response: In making our determination, the Service evaluated the 
best available information for the West Indian manatee, including 
population estimates and threats across the species' range. The Service 
recognizes that the immediacy and the magnitude of threats vary across 
the West Indian manatee's range. The commenter did not provide 
additional information on threats for the species beyond that already 
considered in our analysis. Please refer to the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species section for the analysis that examines all 
factors currently affecting or that are likely to affect the West 
Indian manatee in the future.
    (30) Comment: Internationally, there is a lack of data outlining 
the type and level of threats in most range countries of the Antillean 
manatee. Making assumptions that threats have been managed in the 
Antillean subspecies' range is reckless.
    Response: In our rule, we provided several references that indicate 
that a number of threats still remain throughout the species' range and 
others are being managed. However, we acknowledge that work still needs 
to be done and that ongoing efforts to recover the species could be 
improved. Please refer to the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section for the analysis that examines all factors currently affecting 
or that are likely to affect the West Indian manatee.
    (31) Comment: Several commenters believe that conservation efforts 
outside the United States are failing to promote the protection and 
growth of the Antillean manatee population. Furthermore, commenters 
believe that a downlisting by the Service could have a significant 
impact on the ability of countries outside the U.S. to implement 
recovery, implement protection measures, affect funding opportunities, 
and affect progress currently being made to maintain and strengthen the 
West Indian manatee population. One commenter noted that these 
countries rely on the full weight of the Act to justify expenditures, 
raise funds, and compel governments to protect and conserve this 
species.
    Response: The change in status under the Act from endangered to 
threatened should not have an appreciable effect on manatee protections 
in foreign countries. This rule formally recognizes that this species 
is no longer presently in danger of extinction. The manatee would still 
be fully protected under the Act. The regulatory protections provided 
pursuant to section 9 and section 7 of the Act remain in place. 
Furthermore, this regulation does not affect the protections that the 
West Indian manatee is afforded under the MMPA and CITES. We applaud 
foreign governments like Belize, which has protected the manatee for 
over 30 years and is increasing conservation programs for this animal. 
We encourage all efforts

[[Page 16686]]

by any government agency to remove or reduce threats to the West Indian 
manatee, and the Service is amenable to working together towards 
achieving these goals (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The 
Service will continue to monitor the status of the species, and 
continue to work in partnership with other range countries when and 
where possible. Additionally, we note that the Service's Division of 
International Conservation works with partners worldwide to conserve 
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats (including the manatee and 
its habitat), and maintain the integrity of ecological processes beyond 
our borders, for present and future generations.
    (32) Comment: It does not appear the Service undertook a 
comprehensive review of the data nor made contact with conservationists 
and governments in all of the range Antillean manatee states and it is 
not clear if the Service conducted a literature search for non-English 
documents and conservation plans and reviewed such documents.
    Response: In connection with the proposed rule, in addition to 
contacting appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes and tribal 
organizations, scientific organizations, and peer reviewers to request 
comments on the proposed rule, the Service also contacted governments 
of the West Indian manatee range countries. Furthermore, in opening the 
rule to public comment, the Service requested that all interested 
parties submit factual reports, information, and comments that might 
contribute to development of a final determination for the West Indian 
manatee. Out of all the documents received by the Service, only a 
handful was in Spanish. These were evaluated at the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office in Puerto Rico, where all of the 
employees are bilingual (i.e. proficient in both English and Spanish). 
The Service obtained information regarding the status of manatees in 
other ways. One source of information was the directory of people 
working with manatees within the UNEP (2010, Appendix III) document. We 
used the email addresses on that list to notify individuals about the 
petition and status review of the West Indian manatee and to request 
information on the status and threats of the species. We also reached 
out to attendees at the December 8-13, 2014, Cartagena Convention in 
which participants were advised that the Service was evaluating the 
status of the West Indian manatee and was requesting additional 
information to assist in its review. In addition, in December 2015, 
during the VII International Sirenian Symposium, the Service announced 
that the 12-month finding would be published in January 2016, and 
encouraged symposium participants to review and send comments 
accordingly. That Symposium gathered a significant number of manatee 
experts, researchers, and managers. The Service also sent a number of 
peer review requests on the proposed rule to manatee experts within the 
range of the Antillean manatee.
    (33) Comment: This decision will negatively affect the current 
status of manatee populations in the region. The Antillean subspecies 
was declared ``Endangered'' due to reduction in numbers and habitat 
loss along the range. This critical status persists, according to 
several researchers, because of the paucity of effective conservation 
actions throughout its range and the current and projected future 
anthropogenic threats. There is no evidence of any improvement in the 
status of these populations and in fact, the lack of enough scientific 
information is jeopardizing its conservation in many countries. Please 
notice that the vulnerability of this group was proved already with the 
extirpation of the manatee populations from the Lesser Antilles.
    Response: The Service was petitioned to evaluate the status of the 
West Indian manatee across its entire range. It, not only the Antillean 
subspecies, is the listed entity. In making our determination, we 
concluded that the West Indian manatee is not currently endangered, but 
rather likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. The level of protection afforded by 
the Act will remain the same. See also our response to Comment 11 for 
more information.
    (34) Comment: The genetic diversity of the Antillean subspecies 
compels a finding that it should not be reclassified. Low genetic 
diversity indicates that the population is vulnerable to irreversible 
impacts due to environmental stochastic events, which are going to be 
very frequent in the face of climate change.
    Response: The Service considered genetics and the effects of 
climate change in making our determination. Available information 
specifies that the genetic diversity of manatee populations in Belize 
and Mexico is slightly higher than in Florida and slightly lower in 
Puerto Rico (Hunter et al. 2012). Manatee populations in general, not 
only the Antillean, are characterized by low levels of genetic 
diversity (Hunter et al., 2012). Furthermore, there is no information 
that shows a decreased fitness in Belize (Hunter et al., 2010, p. 598) 
and, to our knowledge, in the rest of the range of the West Indian 
manatee population due to low genetic diversity. The commenter did not 
provide new information beyond what was considered in our proposed 
rule.
    (35) Comment: [The Antillean manatee] is globally endangered, based 
on a predicted decline of more than 20 percent over the next two 
generations.
    Response: This statement is from the species' IUCN listing 
information (Deutsch et al., 2008), which we referenced in both the 
proposed and final rules. The Service referenced Deutsch et al., (2008) 
in the Population Trends section of the proposed rule. The Service 
evaluated the status and threats for the West Indian manatee across its 
entire range. The IUCN classifies the West Indian manatee, the species 
addressed in this rule, as Vulnerable. Species classifications under 
the Endangered Species Act 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 
Endangered Species Act, 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, 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. Further, based on 
the petition, the Service evaluated the status and threats for the West 
Indian manatee across its entire range and not only for the Antillean 
manatee. The Act requires the Service to determine if a species is an 
endangered or threatened species because of any of the section 4(a)(1) 
factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), based on the best available scientific 
and commercial data, which may include a qualitative threats analysis.

Comments on Topics That Apply to Florida Manatees

    (36) Comment: Many commenters, including the Miccosukee Tribe, 
stated that the Service should not reclassify the Florida subspecies of 
the West Indian manatee without a proven, viable plan that addresses 
the loss of warm-water refuges at power plants.

[[Page 16687]]

    Response: The Service is reclassifying the West Indian manatee, 
including both subspecies, to threatened. This does not mean that all 
threats have been addressed. For more information on efforts to address 
the loss of warm-water refuges, please see Recovery Actions in the 
proposed rule (https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2016/2015-32645.pdf). 
For additional information, see Factor A and E sections in our threats 
analysis.
    (37) Comment: The Service did not evaluate the Florida manatee in 
the context of the recovery benchmark criteria identified in the 2001 
Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. The Service should not reclassify the 
Florida subspecies of the West Indian manatee without an updated 
recovery plan and recovery benchmark criteria unless and until 
measurable criteria are established and satisfied based on the five 
listing factors.
    Response: The Service makes a decision to reclassify (delist or 
downlist) a species after review of all of the five listing factors in 
section 4 of the Act. We conducted this analysis in the context of 
recovery criteria identified in the 2001 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. 
We did not, however, evaluate the manatee in the context of the 
Recovery Plan's population benchmark criteria for reasons set forth in 
the Recovery section of the preamble to this rule, namely that the 
benchmark criteria were found to be deficient and unusable. Note that 
the Service is not required to have current recovery plans and criteria 
when it evaluates the status of a species. Overall, recovery of species 
is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management, planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that 
may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    (38) Comment: The Service is relying on the State of Florida's 
synoptic survey counts to support its proposal to reclassify the West 
Indian manatee. These counts are biased, use bad counting procedures, 
and have very little scientific value. The Service must base its 
analysis on future threats and the actual health of the population and 
not these counts.
    Response: We acknowledge that there are methodological issues 
(detection probabilities) inherent in the State's counts. Martin et 
al., (2015, p. 44), in their estimate of abundance for the Florida 
manatee, address these issues by accounting for spatial variation in 
distribution and imperfect detection. We used the best available 
information to assess the counts, other demographic indicators, and the 
health of the population and considered threats in our analysis. 
Additionally, it is possible that the counts, when taken in the context 
of other demographic indicators (such as the estimated population 
growth rates), may reflect an actual increase in the population size 
(Runge et al., 2015, p. 19).
    (39) Comment: The Service has not adequately addressed expected 
coal plant closures that will leave manatees at risk of future 
significant population declines.
    Response: The majority of Florida manatees rely on natural gas 
fired plants for warmth during the winter. Two coal-fired plants with 
discharges used by wintering manatees exist. The impact that future 
regulatory actions may have on these two sites is unknown. Should the 
plants be affected, the Service will work with the power plant industry 
and regulatory agencies to alleviate any potential adverse effects that 
could occur.
    (40) Comment: The proposed rule states that all regulatory 
mechanisms will remain in place and will continue to provide legal 
protections to the species throughout its range should the manatees' 
status change from endangered to threatened. In Florida, elected 
government officials have taken steps to remove manatee protection 
zones. While they have not been successful, they will continue to try 
to remove them.
    Response: Our review considers the inadequacy of all regulatory 
mechanisms, including the State of Florida's regulatory measures. We 
based our review on best available information available to us at the 
time of the review. We are aware of efforts that were subsequently made 
to remove manatee protection zones. However, these efforts were not 
successful. Because watercraft collisions are one of two of the most 
significant threats to Florida manatees, we are committed to working 
with State and local officials to ensure that effective manatee 
protection zones and other regulatory mechanisms remain in place to 
provide adequate protection.
    The Service has an agreement with the State of Florida under 
section 6 of the Act, which provides that any State law or regulation 
regarding the taking of an endangered species or threatened species may 
be more restrictive than the exemptions or permits provided for in this 
Act or in any regulation that implements the Act but not less 
restrictive than the prohibitions so defined. We are confident that the 
State of Florida, with whom we have partnered for many years on the 
conservation of this and other species, will ensure that these 
regulations will remain in place.
    (41) Comment: Even though some habitat features important to 
Florida manatees may have improved over time (e.g., restoration of some 
warm-water springs), the Service's assumptions or conclusions that 
habitat needed for manatees is safe and assured is unrealistic and is 
not based on the best available scientific data.
    Response: We indicated in our proposed rule that efforts are being 
made to enhance and conserve important manatee habitat (including 
winter warm-water habitat, foraging areas, travel corridors, etc.) and 
noted that much work still needs to be done before the species can be 
removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Please see 
the Recovery Actions section of the preamble to this rule for more 
information.
    (42) Comment: The Service disbanded its Florida Manatee Recovery 
Implementation Team and Warm Water Task Force. How does the Service 
intend to address continuing conservation needs, including the need to 
address the catastrophic future loss of critical, warm-water habitat?
    Response: The Service plans to revise the Florida Manatee Recovery 
Plan and will convene a recovery team to facilitate that process. The 
Plan will identify conservation needs and the actions needed to address 
them. The loss of warm-water habitat will be addressed in the revised 
plan. The Service is working with FWC, the power industry, and others 
to address conservation needs, including the future loss of warm-water 
habitat.
    (43) Comment: State of Florida statutes require Water Management 
Districts to set minimum flows at rates that protect the most sensitive 
species. The Districts have set flows in the past to protect endangered 
manatees. If manatees are no longer endangered, what will happen to 
important manatee springs like Three Sisters Springs where minimum 
flows have not been set?
    Response: When this rule becomes effective, the West Indian manatee 
will remain protected under the Act as a threatened species. The Act's 
provisions will continue to be implemented to remove threats to this 
species. For example, the Service will continue to work with the FWC, 
the Water Management Districts, and others to ensure that minimum flows 
set for important manatee springs are adequate to protect wintering 
manatees. See Runge et al., (2015, pp. 6-7) and the Recovery Actions 
section of this document for further information.
    (44) Comment: One commenter noted that manatee enforcement in 
Florida is at an ``all-time low.'' Another

[[Page 16688]]

commenter observed that the number of manatees struck by watercraft and 
killed or rescued is at an ``all-time high.'' Commenters stated that 
the watercraft collision threat has not been controlled.
    Response: Threats, including the threat of watercraft collisions, 
are being addressed in Florida. While record numbers of watercraft-
related manatee deaths and rescues were reported in 2016, there is 
nothing to suggest that this is evidence of an increasing trend. Key 
demographic indicators characterize a growing manatee population even 
in the face of continuing mortality of this type. See Runge et al., 
(2015, pp. 9-11) and Recovery Actions for further information.
    (45) Comment: The Service signed an agreement in 2012 with the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers that provides the Service with the ability to 
allow illegal incidental take through consultation on the Corps 
permitting process. The take of manatees cannot be authorized and is 
detrimental to recovery efforts.
    Response: The 2012 agreement with the Corps does not authorize the 
take of Florida manatees. The agreement requires that the Corps include 
in its permits conditions that, when followed, ensure that manatees are 
not taken by project-related construction activities. This requirement 
expedites the permitting process and provides predictability for permit 
applicants. Should the incidental take of one or more manatees occur as 
a result of a permitting action where the Service has concurred with an 
effects determination, the specific activity shall cease until the 
Corps and the Service jointly and cooperatively investigate the 
circumstances and make every effort to remedy the issue through 
avoidance, minimization, and/or other compensatory measures.
    (46) Comment: If the Service is going to address the loss of power 
plant warm-water discharges, it must identify a funding source to cover 
the costs that will be incurred. This has not been done.
    Response: The Service continues to work with and reach out to its 
manatee recovery partners to address the pending loss of warm water at 
Florida's power plants. The Service recently recommended that the 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection revise NPDES permits to 
include a funding mechanism to address the transition of manatees from 
power plants to other suitable areas.
    (47) Comment: Manatee harassment by visitors to Crystal River 
continues to take place. More enforcement and criteria-based closure 
requirements are needed to protect manatees from harassment.
    Response: The Service continues to refine measures to prevent 
manatee harassment by visitors to Crystal River and elsewhere. Criteria 
have been developed for potential closures at Three Sisters Springs. 
Additionally, the Kings Bay Manatee Refuge Rule provides for the 
closure of springs used by wintering manatees, as well as the expansion 
of sanctuary boundaries to accommodate increasing numbers of manatees. 
For more information, see the Kings Bay Manatee Refuge Rule (77 FR 
15617, March 16, 2012) and the Draft Environmental Assessment, Three 
Sisters Springs Unit of Crystal River NWR (USFWS CRNWR 2015).
    (48) Comment: Manatee habitat restoration efforts are taking place 
in Florida and some of these efforts are harassing manatees and 
indirectly causing harm to the environment. Communities engaged in 
restoration efforts must be required to use best management practices 
and comply with State and Federal regulations.
    Response: The Service has not identified habitat restoration 
efforts as a threat to the long-term survival of the Florida manatee. 
We have, however, identified habitat loss and fragmentation as one of 
the most significant threats to manatees, and efforts to restore 
habitat are an important means to address this threat. In the United 
States, entities engaged in habitat restoration efforts must comply 
with all State and Federal permitting regulations, including permit 
conditions that prevent manatee harassment and protect water quality 
and the environment.
    (49) Comment: Natural spring areas essential for the manatee's 
survival are threatened by numerous factors including diminishing 
spring flows, deteriorating water quality, and increasing human 
activities in and around spring areas.
    Response: We acknowledge that these are concerns and have addressed 
them in our rule. See the Recovery Actions section of the preamble for 
further information.
    (50) Comment: The Service should conduct an environmental impact 
study before any decision is made.
    Response: We have determined that environmental assessments and 
environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
need not be prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register (48 FR 49244).

Comments on Topics That Apply to All Manatees

    (51) Comment: The Act provides that a species may be determined to 
be ``endangered'' due to ``other natural or manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence.'' In addition to loss of habitat, disease, 
algal blooms, and watercraft fatalities, the West Indian manatee is 
also affected by land development activities, including, without 
limitation, the construction of artificial canal systems, dredging and 
filling, elimination of aquatic vegetation, construction of structures 
that can trap or crush manatees, and the placement of bulkheads below 
the ordinary high waterline. Moreover, fishing gear and contaminants 
present ongoing, yet in some cases, ``poorly understood'' risks to the 
West Indian manatee population. Until a plan is developed to protect 
the West Indian manatee from effects of land development and other 
risks to the West Indian manatee are more fully understood, the 
Atlantic Scientific Review Group recommends maintaining the current 
endangered status of the species.
    Response: Plans have been developed and are in place to protect 
manatees from these activities. The Service has developed recovery 
plans for the Florida and Puerto Rico manatee populations and the 
United Nations Environment Programme has a conservation plan for the 
West Indian manatee. Both plans address these and other threats. In the 
United States, the Service evaluates land development projects that may 
impact the species under the consultation process set forth in Section 
7 of the Act. For further information on Section 7, please refer to 
Recovery Actions and Available Conservation Measures in the preamble to 
this final rule.
    (52) Comment: What happens to Potential Biological Removal (PBR) if 
the manatee is downlisted? How will a higher PBR affect your Section 7 
consultation process for coastal development?
    Response: PBR, as defined under the MMPA, means ``the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its optimum sustainable population.'' The PBR level is the 
product of the minimum population estimate of the stock, one-half the 
maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at 
a small population size, and a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0.

[[Page 16689]]

This rule does not change how PBR is defined under the MMPA. 
Nevertheless, as a result of this rule, in PBR calculations for both 
Florida and Antillean stocks we expect to use a recovery factor for 
threatened species instead of the recovery factor for endangered 
species. The Service's use of PBR is limited to addressing takes 
associated with commercial fishing activities. However, known 
mortalities and serious injuries associated with these activities are 
nominal and should not be affected by this change. Further, because PBR 
is not used to address coastal development activities, there will be no 
effect on the Service's consultation process for these activities.
    (53) Comment: A downlisting will lead to a reduction in the 
availability of funds and will make it more difficult to obtain funding 
needed to address the loss of warm-water habitat, enforcement, 
important research, and other conservation needs. FWS acknowledges that 
under the FMSA ``adequate funding could be problematic if downlisting 
occurs.'' In fact, an assumption of adequate funding underpins all of 
the assumptions in the model that relate to anthropogenic impacts. FWS 
states that ``as long as funding remains available, recovery actions 
would continue to be implemented, regulations enforced, and additional 
measures adopted as needs arise.'' Loss of funding would adversely 
affect development, implementation, and enforcement of management 
actions and plans.
    Response: We acknowledge that loss of funding could be a concern; 
which is, in part, why the species meets the definition of a threatened 
species under the Act.
    (54) Comment: One commenter noted that the Service has failed to 
propose critical habitat concurrently with its proposal to downlist the 
manatee across its range. When the FWS makes a listing determination 
(including downlisting), the Act requires the FWS to either designate 
critical habitat for the manatee or determine that such a designation 
is not prudent or determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). Another 
commenter stated that the Service should assess the incremental 
economic impact of existing and proposed designations on critical 
habitat. The Miccosukee Tribe expressed concern that manatees and their 
habitat are at risk from increasing development without protections to 
critical habitat provided by the Act.
    Response: Critical habitat has been designated for the West Indian 
manatee (41 FR 41914, September 24, 1976; corrected at 42 FR 47840, 
September 22, 1977; codified at 50 CFR 17.95(a)). The Act at 16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B) provides that the Service may, from time to time 
thereafter, revise the critical habitat designation, and that it must 
make findings on a petition to revise critical habitat submitted under 
the Administrative Procedure Act. See 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(D). The 
Service's January 12, 2010 (75 FR 1574), 12-month finding on a petition 
to revise critical habitat for the Florida manatee found that a 
revision to critical habitat is warranted but precluded because 
sufficient funds were not (and still are not) available due to higher 
priority actions such as court-ordered listing-related actions and 
judicially approved settlement agreements. Because of this, the 
existing critical habitat designation remains in effect.
    (55) Comment: The Service has not adequately addressed cumulative 
impacts from continued development, increased vessel use, and ongoing 
water quality problems that threaten the aquatic habitats on which 
manatees depend for survival.
    Response: Our five-factor analysis, under Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species, above, assessed all known threats to the West 
Indian manatee. In our assessment, we reviewed several manatee 
population models (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al., 2012; Arriaga 
et al., in G[oacute]mez et al., 2012, entire, Runge presentation, 2016) 
that assessed the effects of threats individually and cumulatively. 
Threats can individually impact a species or its habitat or can work in 
concert with one another to cumulatively create conditions that may 
impact a species or its habitat beyond the scope of individual threats. 
See Cumulative Effect of Threats below.
    (56) Comment: The Service has violated the Act by invoking its 
``significant portion of range'' policy and relying on its range-wide 
threatened determination to avoid any analysis of whether the West 
Indian manatee is endangered in any significant portion of its range, 
contrary to the plain language of Section 3(6) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1532(6). FWS-cited data strongly suggest that one or more portions of 
the West Indian manatees' range merits analysis for significance.
    Response: For our analysis, we followed the Service's final policy 
on ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 
2014). This policy provides our interpretation of the phrase 
``significant portion of the range'' in the Act's definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species''. The policy improves 
the implementation of the Act by providing a consistent and uniform 
standard interpretation of the phrase and its role in listing (and 
delisting and reclassification) determinations. The policy provides an 
interpretation and application of SPR that reflects a permissible 
reading of the law and minimizes undesirable policy outcomes, while 
fulfilling the conservation purposes of the Act. The final policy 
states ``that a portion of a species' range can be ``significant'' only 
if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all 
of its range'' (emphasis added); furthermore, if a species is listed 
throughout its entire range, there can be no separate listings for 
portions of the species (the final policy defines ``significant'' such 
that a portion of the range cannot be significant if the species 
already warrants listing throughout all of its range). As this policy 
is applied, there will be no circumstance in which a species is 
threatened throughout all of its range and [emphasis added] endangered 
throughout an SPR. Based on our evaluation of the biology and current 
and potential threats to the West Indian manatee, we determined that 
the entire listed entity meets the definition of threatened. 
Accordingly, the SPR analysis concludes that the species should be 
listed as threatened and no further analysis is warranted.
    This final policy reflects the Services' expert judgment as to the 
best way to interpret and apply ``significant portion of its range'' as 
that phrase appears in the Act. Because we conclude that the entire 
West Indian manatee should be listed as threatened, we do not analyze 
this species at a smaller geographic scale.
    (57) Comment: Commenters stated that when the Service downlists the 
manatee, the Act's take prohibition no longer applies and, accordingly, 
if the Service believes that it should continue to regulate the take of 
the manatee (despite local and State regulations that prohibit take), 
the Service must follow additional procedures laid out in the Act. The 
Service states in the proposed rule to reclassify the manatee that the 
take prohibition in Section 9 of the Act will automatically apply to 
the manatee when it is reclassified as threatened. But the Act 
expressly limits Section 9 to endangered species because Congress 
recognized that the take prohibition imposes stringent limits on 
individuals and businesses that are only justified by the dire 
situations endangered species face. Likewise, the Service should 
consider the impacts of the downlisting on the continuing need for 
Manatee Protection Areas, which prohibit certain waterborne activities 
``for the purpose of preventing the taking of manatees'' in coastal and 
inland waters in Florida.

[[Page 16690]]

Because the Act's take prohibition does not automatically apply to 
threatened species, the Service will need to determine anew whether 
Manatee Protection Areas are necessary and advisable.
    Response: Take prohibitions for manatee do not change with this 
final rule. The same prohibitions are in place for the manatee as a 
threatened species that were in place when it was an endangered species 
through the Act's implementing regulations. Under section 9(a)(1) of 
the Act, all take prohibitions outlined in section 50 CFR 17.21 (except 
Sec.  17.21(c)(5)) apply to threatened species through the regulations 
codified at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. Although the Service has discretion 
to issue a species-specific 4(d) rule that could remove or modify take 
prohibitions from or for specific activities, we have not chosen to do 
so at this time for manatee. The Service believes the prohibitions and 
exceptions set out in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 are most appropriate to 
address the particular conservation needs of the West Indian manatee at 
this time. Accordingly, protections in Florida's coastal and inland 
waters will not change with the reclassification of manatee to 
threatened status. Manatee Protection Areas (MPAs) have played a 
substantial role in manatee conservation and will be needed into the 
foreseeable future, and the designation of these areas will not be 
affected by the change in status. In addition, as mentioned in the 
response to Comment 40, the MMPA prohibits the ``take'' (i.e., to 
harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 
kill) of marine mammals. MPAs also play an important role in avoiding 
take under the MMPA.
    (58) Comment: The overall lack of any cumulative analysis with 
respect to any or all of the relevant listing factors demonstrates that 
the FWS has not articulated a rational explanation to justify 
downlisting.
    Response: In making our determination and in accordance with the 
definitions of an endangered vs. threatened species, the Service 
concluded that the West Indian manatee is not currently endangered but 
is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. In our review 
of the best available information, we did not find significant 
information that would lead us to believe that the cumulative effect of 
threats on the species warrants maintaining the West Indian manatee as 
an endangered species. Rather, the potential cumulative effects of 
threats on the West Indian manatee, in part, contribute to the species' 
threatened status (see Cumulative Effects section later in this rule).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We made the following changes from the proposed rule:

     We updated the Population Size and Population Trends 
sections to include a ``Minimum Population Size'' column to Table 1, 
changed the column heading ``Population Estimate'' to ``Non-statistical 
Population Estimate,'' and provided additional information on the 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al., (2012) publication.
     We revised the Recovery Actions section of the preamble to 
include information from a Manatee Core Biological Model (CBM) update 
and to include updates for the timeframes for establishing spring 
minimum flows.
     We expanded the introduction of the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species to further clarify the definitions of endangered 
and threatened.
     We included new information on threats and mortality under 
the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.
     We reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, information 
from Coulson et al. 2001; G[oacute]mez et al. 2012; Galves et al. 2015; 
and a presentation on Manatee Core Biological Model updates in this 
rule. These references were contributed by commenters and/or became 
available in September 2016.
     We added a ``Cumulative Effects'' section to our Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species section.
     We clarified in this rule why the West Indian manatee is 
no longer endangered but rather meets the definition of a threatened 
species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires us to determine by regulation 
whether ``any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because 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 Act 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 interpret an 
``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 when a species may be in danger of extinction, 
either presently (endangered) or within the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    In making our downlisting determination, the foreseeable future 
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,'' (DOI 2009). Pursuant to 
M-37021 (DOI 2009), we identify a foreseeable future of 50 years for 
the West Indian manatee, which we believe can be predicted with 
reliability. Please see section entitled Foreseeable Future.
    Thus, we used the best available scientific and commercial data for 
the West Indian manatee, including demographic parameters and section 
4(a)(1) factors. We note that, for the Antillean subspecies, the best 
available scientific and commercial information relies in many cases 
upon expert opinion and anecdotal observations. In responding to the 
petition to downlist the West Indian manatee species and, after 
considering conservation efforts by States and foreign nations to 
protect the West Indian manatee as required under section 4(b)(1)(A), 
we proposed downlisting (80 FR 1000, February 6, 2016) based on the 
statutory definitions of endangered and threatened species. To make our 
final listing determinations, we reviewed all information provided 
during the 90-day public comment period and additional scientific and 
commercial data that became available since the publication of the 
proposed rule. See Summary of

[[Page 16691]]

Changes From 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 determination 
(see the Comments and Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule 
sections above). With this rule, we finalize our proposed listing 
determination.
    The following analysis examines all factors currently affecting or 
that are likely to affect the West Indian manatee within the 
foreseeable future.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    At the time of listing, resource managers were concerned about the 
effect of the loss of seagrass on manatees. Subsequently, it became 
apparent that habitat loss and fragmentation were significant concerns 
outside the United States. Within the southeastern U.S., the loss of 
manatee winter habitat has become a significant concern. Degradation 
and loss of manatee habitat occurs throughout its range (UNEP 2010, p. 
12). Although the immediacy and the magnitude of this factor varies 
throughout the species' range, available manatee foraging habitat does 
not seem to be a limiting factor in most of the range countries, 
including Florida and Puerto Rico (Orth et al. 2006, p. 994; Drew et 
al. 2012, p. 13; Lefebvre et al. 2001, entire; UNEP 2010, entire). 
Still, manatee habitat degradation and loss remain a threat in most 
countries, and ongoing efforts to address these threats remains a 
recovery priority (Castelblanco et al. 2012, p. 142).
    Some countries have been able to document manatee habitat loss 
effects, while other countries do not have site-specific information 
available to quantify the severity and/or frequency of this threat on 
manatees. For example, in Mexico, loss of manatees from certain areas 
has been attributed to, among other factors, the construction of a dam 
along a river (Colmenero-Rol[oacute]n and Hoz-Zavala 1986, in UNEP 
2010, p. 59), while significant manatee habitat modification has 
affected the number of animals along the coast of Veracruz (Serrano et 
al. 2007, p. 109). Other important manatee habitat in Belize such as 
Turneffe atoll is also affected by unsustainable fishing, mangrove 
clearing, overdevelopment, and dredging (Edwards 2014, entire).
    In Honduras, manatee abundance declined, in part, because of 
habitat degradation (Cerrato 1993, in Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 440), 
while in Costa Rica, habitat modification activities such as logging 
and agriculture have increased sedimentation in rivers and lagoons, 
making it difficult for manatees to access suitable habitat in the 
Tortuguero River system (Smethurst and Nietschmann 1999, in Lefebvre et 
al. 2001, p. 442). In Panama, manatee distribution is apparently 
fragmented by discontinuous and likely depleted habitat (Lefebvre et 
al. 2001, p. 442).
    Although threats continue, there are recovery efforts being made to 
protect the manatee against threats posed by habitat loss or 
modification in many range countries and in the areas of U.S. 
jurisdiction. In Belize, three protected areas were created 
specifically to protect critical manatee habitat, and more than 43 
percent of the country's protected areas are within the coastal zone 
(UNEP 2010, p. 24). Mexico has designated significant special manatee 
protection areas (UNEP 2010, p. 60), and Trinidad protected the Nariva 
Swamp, the most important manatee habitat in that country (UNEP 2010, 
p. 77). Although most countries within the species' range outside of 
the United States continue to provide suitable manatee habitat, habitat 
degradation and loss remains a threat requiring ongoing recovery 
efforts.
    The Service's 2007 5-year review identified specific threats 
including loss of seagrass due to marine construction activities 
(extent unknown), propeller scarring and anchoring (magnitude unknown), 
and oil spills; loss of freshwater due to damming and competing uses; 
and increasing coastal commercial and recreational activities (USFWS 
2007, pp. 30-31). Human activities that result in the loss of seagrass 
include dredging, fishing, anchoring, eutrophication, siltation, and 
coastal development (Duarte 2002, p. 194; Orth et al. 2006, p. 991; 
PRDNER 2008, entire; PRDNER 2012, entire).
    Since the 2007 5-year review, habitat effects including threats to 
seagrass habitat have been quantitatively assessed in Puerto Rico. The 
PRDNER has been gathering new relevant information documented in its 
two reports entitled Evaluation of Recreational Boating Anchor Damage 
on Coral Reefs and Seagrass Beds (PRDNER 2008, entire; PRDNER 2012, 
entire). The report identified the east, south, and west coasts of the 
island as the areas with major impacts on seagrass beds caused by 
vessel propellers, indiscriminate anchorage, and poor navigation 
skills. According to the reports, the areas with major impacts of 
severe magnitude were those on the south-central coast, including high 
manatee use areas in the municipalities of Guayama, Salinas and 
Guayanilla, among others. The PRDNER (2008, 2012, p. 6) also describes 
that sea grasses are being severely impacted by both the scarring 
actions of motor boat propellers and the scouring action of jet ski 
traffic in shallow waters. In addition, small to mid-size boat owners 
prefer to visit near-shore areas, which have contributed to the 
decrease in seagrass density and an increment in the fragmentation of 
this habitat (PRDNER 2008, 2012, p. 7).
    Although anthropogenic activities that result in the loss of 
seagrass such as dredging, anchoring, effects from coastal development, 
propeller scarring, boat groundings, and inappropriate recreational 
activities occur in Puerto Rico, seagrass abundance is not considered a 
limiting factor for the current Antillean manatee population of the 
Island (Drew et al. 2012, p. 13). It would be expected that a 
significant decrease of this resource could cause stress to the manatee 
population. However, no data is available to support estimates of how 
much seagrass is needed to sustain a larger manatee population (Bonde 
et al. 2004, p. 258). Based on the present availability of seagrass 
habitat in Puerto Rico, the Service believes the severity of the threat 
of degraded and or decreased seagrass habitat is low and there is no 
indication that potential foraging limitations or specialization are 
decreasing manatee fitness or causing manatee mortalities in Puerto 
Rico.
    To offset these threats in Puerto Rico, a wide range of 
conservation efforts are ongoing (see Recovery and Recovery Actions). 
These include the collective efforts of the Service, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, the PRDNER, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Coast Guard, and others working to 
avoid, minimize, and mitigate project impacts on manatee habitat. The 
development and implementation of no-wake areas, marked navigation 
channels, boat exclusion areas, and standardized construction 
conditions for marinas and boat ramps are a few of the efforts making a 
positive impact on maintaining and protecting important manatee habitat 
(see Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation sections).
    Manatees require sources of fresh water for daily drinking and do 
not appear to exhibit a preference for natural over anthropogenic 
freshwater resources (Slone et al. 2006, p. 3). Sources of freshwater 
are currently not considered limiting in Puerto Rico and include the 
mouths of streams and

[[Page 16692]]

rivers, coastal groundwater springs, and even industrial wastewater 
outflows (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, hydroelectric power 
plants). At this time, the lack and/or degradation of fresh water is 
considered a low-level threat in Puerto Rico. There is no indication 
that manatees are being affected by a lack of freshwater sources, even 
during the 2015 severe drought and especially since it is possible for 
manatees to drink from several sources. However, the potential impact 
of poor water quality on the manatee population is unknown. The Service 
will continue to assess and work with others towards maintenance and 
potential enhancement of manatee freshwater drinking sources.
    Within the southeastern United States, the potential loss of warm 
water at power plants and natural, warm-water springs used by wintering 
manatees is identified as a significant threat (USFWS 2007, entire; 
Laist and Reynolds 2005 a, b, entire, and (USFWS 2001, entire). Natural 
springs are threatened by potential reductions in flow and water 
quality (due to unsustainable water withdrawals combined with severe 
droughts) and by factors such as siltation, disturbance caused by 
recreational activities, and others that affect manatee access and use 
of the springs (Florida Springs Task Force 2000, p. 13). Power plants, 
which provide winter refuges for a majority of the Florida manatee 
population, are not permanent reliable sources of warm water. In the 
past, some industrial sources of warm water have been eliminated due to 
plant obsolescence, environmental permitting requirements, economic 
pressures, and other factors (USFWS 2000, entire). Experience with 
disruptions at some sites has shown that some manatees can adapt to 
minor changes at these sites; during temporary power plant shutdowns, 
manatees have been observed to use less preferred nearby sites. In 
other cases, manatees have died when thermal discharges have been 
eliminated due to behavioral persistence or site fidelity (USFWS 2000, 
entire).
    The current network of power plant sites will likely endure for 
another 40 years or so (Laist et al. 2013, p. 9). We do not know for 
sure if the plants will be replaced or eliminated at the end of this 
time period, but the likelihood is that the power plants will close 
(Laist and Reynolds 2005b, p. 281). We also do not know how manatees 
would respond if some sites are lost, since past modifications or 
changes to power plant sites have resulted in variable responses from 
manatees. If power plant outflows are lost, manatees would rely on 
remaining springs in the upper St. Johns River and northwest Florida 
regions and on Warm Mineral Springs in southwest Florida, passive 
thermal basins, and warm ambient waters in southernmost Florida. The 
loss of certain warm-water sites potentially could cause a change in 
Atlantic coast abundance and distribution of manatees because there are 
no natural springs on the Atlantic coast north of the St. John's River 
(Laist and Reynolds 2005b, p. 287).
    Florida's springs have seen drastic declines in flows and water 
quality, and many springs have been altered (dammed, silted in, and 
otherwise obstructed) to the point that they are no longer accessible 
to manatees (Florida Springs Task Force 2001, p. 4; Laist and Reynolds 
2005b, p. 287; Taylor 2006, pp. 5-6). Flow declines are largely 
attributable to demands on aquifers (spring recharge areas) for potable 
water used for drinking, irrigation, and other uses (Marella 2014, pp. 
1-2). Declining flows provide less usable water for wintering manatees. 
Declines in water quality (e.g., increased nitrates) can promote the 
growth of undesirable alga, such as Lyngbya sp., which can cover and 
smother food plants used by wintering manatees (Florida Springs Task 
Force 2001, pp. 12, 26). Notable springs largely inaccessible to 
manatees due to damming include springs in the Ocklawaha and 
Withlacoochee river systems. Springs that have silted in include 
Manatee and Fanning springs, Warm Mineral Spring, Weeki Wachee Spring, 
and others (Taylor 2006, pp. 5, 8).
    In the case of Manatee, Fanning, and Weeki Wachee springs, 
restoration efforts have removed sand bars and other obstructions, 
making these sites once again accessible to manatees (The Nature 
Conservancy 2015). See: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/howwework/saving-manatees-through-springs-restoration.xml. Also, Marella (2014, p. 1) noted declining 
demands on central Florida aquifers due to increased rainfall, 
declining agricultural demands, use of re-use water, and other water 
conservation measures, suggesting that spring flows used by manatees 
can be maintained. Chapter 62-42, Florida Administrative Code, requires 
that minimum flow levels be set for Florida waterbodies. Set flow 
levels require that measures be taken should flows drop below 
statutorily adopted levels, thus insuring adequate flows. Minimum flows 
have been set for six springs that are important to wintering manatees. 
Flow levels must be identified for the Crystal River springs complex 
and other important springs.
    In the southeastern United States, a wide range of conservation 
efforts identified in the 2007 5-year Review are continuing (USFWS 
2007, pp. 17-18; see also Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation 
discussion above). Service efforts in cooperation and coordination with 
State and industry partners are ongoing to minimize any future manatee 
losses from industrial site reductions or closures by seeking short-
term alternatives and long-term sustainable options for supporting 
manatees without the reliance on industrial warm-water sources. Spring 
studies and on-the-ground restorations seek to restore flows and access 
to existing natural springs. Habitat degradation and loss from natural 
and human-related causes are being addressed through collective efforts 
to improve overall water quality, minimize construction-related 
impacts, and minimize loss of seagrass due to prop scarring. Efforts to 
replant areas devoid of seagrass are showing success in restoring lost 
manatee foraging habitat (van Katwijk et al. 2016, p. 572).
    Summary of Factor A: In Florida and Puerto Rico, the manatee has 
not experienced any curtailment of its range; however, a concern 
continues to be the loss of warm water habitat. Outside of the U.S. 
habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation continue to be a concern 
for manatees as well. There have been substantial improvements due to 
regulatory mechanisms in place towards addressing habitat threats since 
listing. However, these factors still threaten the West Indian manatee 
but not to the magnitude that currently places the species in danger of 
extinction, especially given the availability of suitable habitat 
throughout the species' range. In view of increasing human populations 
and associated development within the range of the species, it is 
reasonable to predict that these threats will continue within the 
foreseeable future of 50 years. Please see section entitled Foreseeable 
Future. We will continue to evaluate projects in areas of U.S. 
jurisdiction (Puerto Rico and areas of the continental United States) 
to benefit habitat for the West Indian manatee and make recommendations 
to avoid and minimize impacts to manatee habitat. For West Indian 
manatees in the continental United States, ensuring the continued 
availability of warm-water refugia sites is a critical need related to 
this factor.
    In the discussion above (and in supplemental documents), we 
describe progress with local, county, city, and State partners to 
maintain minimum

[[Page 16693]]

flows and restore habitat at sites where we believe it will help 
address this habitat need for the species. For areas outside U.S. 
jurisdiction, we have documented examples of habitat destruction, 
modification, and fragmentation that have impacted West Indian 
manatees, by damming rivers and destroying estuaries. There are also a 
number of positive examples of manatee protection areas that will 
continue to provide long-term suitable manatee habitat. The Service, 
led by our International Affairs Program, will continue to work 
together with other countries towards manatee habitat conservation.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Since the manatee was originally listed, information indicates that 
overutilization, particularly poaching, occurs to a lesser extent now 
but continues to affect manatees. Throughout the range of the species, 
manatees are used for a variety of purposes. Outside the United States, 
manatees have been hunted and poached to supply meat and other 
commodities. Recreationally, people seek out opportunities to view 
manatees through commercial ecotour operators or on their own. There 
are numerous scientific studies being conducted on captive and wild 
manatees, including studies of specimens salvaged from carcasses. The 
public is educated about manatees through a variety of media, such as 
videos and photographs, including rehabilitating manatees in captivity.
    Poaching is hypothesized no longer to occur in a few regions, has 
been reduced in others, and is still common in others (UNEP 2010, 
entire; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 386). A number of recent poaching events 
and reports are a concern (Alvarez-Alem[aacute]n, et al., No Date (ND), 
retrieved 2017 from: http://sea2shore.org/focal-species/manatees/antillean-manatee-conservation-in-cuba/; World Atlas, ND, Retrieved 
2017 from: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/threatened-mammals-of-guatemala.html; Grattan 2016, retrieved 2017 from http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/20-endangered-manatees-slaughtered-in-colombia/; Rodr[iacute]guez Mega 2016, retrieved 2017 from https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2016/articles/eyes-on-the-water-in-belize; Tejo and Maria 2016, retrieved 2017 from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/12872). Poaching has been 
responsible for past declining numbers throughout much of the Antillean 
subspecies' range (Thornback and Jenkins 1982, in Lefebvre et al. 2001, 
p. 426) (in 17 of 20 range countries). For example, in Guadeloupe 
(French Antilles), the local manatee population was hunted to 
extinction by the early 1900s (Marsh et al. 2011, p. 429). In Honduras, 
manatees are still actively poached on an opportunistic basis in La 
Mosquita (Gonz[aacute]lez-Socoloske et al. 2011, p. 129). Depending on 
certain social and economic factors, current poaching rates in northern 
Nicaragua vary from year to year (Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 
2012, p. 44). Other manatee products include oil, bones, and hide 
(Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 426; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 264; Self-Sullivan 
and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, pp. 42-45).
    Because of their low reproductive rates (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 
12), poaching continues to pose a serious threat to some manatee 
populations, especially in those areas where few manatees remain. As of 
2009, although manatee poaching in Colombia still occurred in specific 
areas and seasons (Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 2009, p. 239); it is 
less common than in the past (UNEP 2010, p. 30). Marsh (2011, p. 269) 
and other more current reports (Alvarez-Alem[aacute]n, et al., No Date 
(ND), retrieved 2017 from: http://sea2shore.org/focal-species/manatees/antillean-manatee-conservation-in-cuba/; World Atlas, ND, Retrieved 
2017 from: http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/threatened-mammals-of-guatemala.html; Grattan 2016, retrieved 2017 from http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/02/20-endangered-manatees-slaughtered-in-colombia/; Rodr[iacute]guez Mega 2016, retrieved 2017 from: https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/summer-2016/articles/eyes-on-the-water-in-belize; Tejo and Maria 2016, retrieved 2017 from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/12872) identifies poaching 
as a threat to manatees in Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, 
Dominican Republic, French Guiana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, 
Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Poaching is no longer a 
threat in the mainland United States and Puerto Rico (Marsh 2011, p. 
269). Foreign governments have instituted regulations to address this 
threat (see Factor D discussion). We continue to pursue initiatives 
with other countries that encourage a ban on poaching and hunting of 
manatees.
    In the southeastern United States and other areas where people view 
manatees, numerous measures are in place to prevent the take of 
manatees due to disturbance of viewing-related harassment. Well-
enforced sanctuaries keep people out of sensitive manatee habitats 
(i.e., warm-water sites), educated tour guides ensure that their 
customers do not harass manatees, and many educational programs 
prescribe appropriate measures to take when in the presence of 
manatees. For example, in 1992, manatees stopped visiting suitable 
manatee habitat (Swallow Caye, Belize) after swim-with-the-manatee 
programs were allowed without proper control (Auil 1998, p. 12). 
Community groups and a local conservation organization helped to 
declare the area a wildlife sanctuary in 2002. The area is currently 
co-managed between the Belize Forest Department and a local 
conservation organization (UNEP 2010, p. 23), and manatees have 
returned to the area.
    In Puerto Rico, harassment of manatees by kayak users and swimmers 
has been reported in several popular beach and coastal recreational 
areas. In addition, harassment related to speedboat races in manatee 
areas has increased. In 2014 alone, the Service reviewed 12 permit 
applications for speed boat races in Puerto Rico, several of them in 
areas with high concentrations of manatees. However, to date there have 
been no reported injuries or deaths of manatees caused by speedboat 
races. Consultation with the Service under Section 7 of the Act has 
served to implement specific conservation measures during marine events 
such as boat races (see Recovery and Recovery Implementation and 
Available Conservation Measures sections). The U.S. Coast Guard 
consistently consults with the Service on marine event applications and 
readily includes manatee conservation measures when applicable. In 
addition, government agencies and local nongovernmental organizations 
have implemented education and outreach strategies to ensure that 
manatee harassment is avoided and minimized.
    Education and research programs involving manatees are designed to 
ensure that manatees are neither adversely affected nor overutilized. 
Examples include outreach efforts used to minimize manatee harassment 
in Crystal River, Florida, and the Service's Act/MMPA marine mammal 
scientific research permitting program, which limits the potential 
negative effects that research activities have on manatees.
    Summary of Factor B: In summary, overutilization (particularly 
poaching and hunting) occurs to a lesser extent than when the species 
was originally listed but continues to occur with

[[Page 16694]]

varying frequency from absent to common throughout the species' range 
due to regulatory measures (see detailed discussion in Factor D 
section) that have been implemented to protect manatees. Efforts are in 
place to address remaining concerns and are proving effective in a good 
portion of the West Indian manatee's range. The manatee's situation has 
improved since it was originally listed; poaching is not a current 
threat in the southeastern United States (including Puerto Rico) and 
has been reduced in other countries. However, the threat of poaching in 
some range countries where poaching is poorly controlled will likely 
continue within the foreseeable future which we determined to be 50 
years (please see section entitled Foreseeable Future).

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    At the time of listing, neither disease nor predation were 
identified as concerns for manatees. While numerous infectious disease 
agents and parasites have been reported in sirenians (manatees and 
dugongs), there have been no reports of major West Indian manatee 
mortality events caused by disease or parasites (Marsh et al. 2011, p. 
294).
    However, disease-related deaths are known to occur in West Indian 
manatees. Recent cases of toxoplasmosis are a concern in Puerto Rico 
(Bossart et al. 2012, p. 139). Marsh et al. (2011, p. 294) stated that 
the importance of disease as a threat to the manatee is unknown. In 
spite of concerns about the manatee's ability to rebound from a 
population crash should an epizootic event occur, the impact of disease 
on population viability remains unknown (Sulzner et al. 2012, p. 1). 
Marsh et al. 2011 (p. 294) speculated that the Florida subspecies 
appears to have a robust immune system that safeguards them from 
significant disease outbreaks. We suspect this to be also true for the 
Antillean subspecies because we have no documented disease outbreaks.
    Mou Sue et al. (1990) described rare attacks by sharks on manatees 
in Panama (p. 239). Reported instances of sharks and alligators feeding 
on manatees are extremely rare (Marsh et al. 2011, p. 239).
    Summary of Factor C: We do not have information to indicate that 
disease and predation is now or will be a significant factor in the 
foreseeable future. However, because of the long lifespan of this 
mammal, we will continue to monitor disease and predation of manatees 
with all of our conservation partners.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Since the manatee was originally listed in 1967, regulatory 
mechanisms have been established throughout the West Indian manatee's 
range with varying degrees of effectiveness. At the time of the 
manatee's original listing, there were very few regulatory mechanisms 
in place. Currently, regulatory mechanisms include, but are not limited 
to, specific laws and regulations that prohibit specific and general 
human activities that impact manatees and their habitat, and the 
establishment of long-term conservation protection measures at key 
locations throughout the manatee's range. These include those efforts 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect manatees. The extent and 
overall effectiveness of these regulatory mechanisms varies widely from 
country to country. Enforcement and compliance with these measures, as 
well as the need for additional efforts in some countries, continues to 
be a concern and will require additional cooperative efforts into the 
foreseeable future. In the United States, Florida county manatee 
protection plans (MPPs) have improved the status of manatees.
    Outside the United States, West Indian manatees are protected in 
most countries by a combination of national and international treaties 
and agreements as listed in Table 4 in UNEP (2010, p. 14), in Lefebvre 
et al. (2001, entire), and Table 4.2 in Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-
Giannoni (2012, p. 41). See Supplemental Document 3 in Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2015-0178. Countries within the range of the Antillean manatee 
protect the manatee by national legislation (UNEP 2010, Table 4). For 
example, in the Bahamas, manatees are protected under the Wild Animals 
Protection Act (Chapter 248, 21 of 1968 E.L.A.O. 1974), which prohibits 
the taking or capture of any wild animal (Government of the Bahamas 
2004). In 2005, the Bahamian Government also created the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (No. 12), which monitors and regulates human 
interactions with marine mammals. The Act prohibits taking, selling, or 
harassing any marine mammal (Government of the Bahamas 2006). As 
another example, the Manatee Protection Ordinance (1933-1936) provided 
the first protective legislation for the species in Belize. In 1981, 
manatees in Belize were included as an endangered species in the 
Wildlife Protection Act No. 4 of the Forest Department. The Act 
prohibits the killing, taking, or molesting of manatees, as well as 
possession and sale of any part of any manatee (Auil 1998, pp. 29-30).
    The West Indian manatee is listed in Appendix I of the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES). CITES (see www.cites.org) is an international agreement 
through which member countries work together to protect against over-
exploitation of animal and plant species found in international trade. 
Commercial trade in wild-caught specimens of these Appendix I species 
is illegal (permitted only in exceptional licensed circumstances). The 
Service reviewed the CITES trade database for the West Indian manatee, 
which currently has information from 1977 to 2013, and found that trade 
does not pose a threat to the West Indian manatee at this time. The 
manatee and its habitat are also protected by the Cartagena Convention 
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife for the 
protection and development of the marine environment of the Wider 
Caribbean Region (SPAW Protocol). The SPAW Protocol, approved in 1990, 
prohibits the possession, taking, killing, and commercial trade of any 
sirenian species (UNEP 2010, p. 14).
    Although manatees outside of the southeastern United States are 
legally protected by these and other mechanisms, full implementation of 
these international and local laws is lacking, especially given limited 
funding and understaffed law enforcement agencies (UNEP 2010, p. 89).
    Marsh et al. (2011, p. 387) indicated that enforcement remains a 
critical issue for West Indian manatees. Outside the United States, 
mechanisms are needed to allow existing West Indian manatee protection 
laws to work as intended. Despite all of the existing regulations for 
manatees, illegal poaching and destruction of habitat continue (Self-
Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 41). Enforcement of 
conservation policies varies in different coastal regions; in some 
regions, poaching is common and in areas with a government presence, 
enforcement efforts are thought to be significant (Self-Sullivan and 
Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 45).
    In the United States, in addition to being listed under the Act, 
the West Indian manatee is further considered a depleted stock under 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (see greater detail just below; MMPA, 
16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; Previous Federal Actions section, and 
Supplemental Document 2 in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178),

[[Page 16695]]

and is also taken into consideration when addressing actions under the 
Clean Water Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The MMPA 
has contributed to the improvement of the status of the manatee in part 
through its general moratorium on the taking and importation of marine 
mammals and their products, with some exemptions (e.g., Alaska Native 
subsistence purposes) and exceptions to the prohibitions (e.g., for 
scientific research, enhancement of the species, and unintentional 
incidental take coincident with conducting lawful activities).
    ``Take'' is defined under the MMPA as ``harass, hunt, capture, or 
kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill.'' The term 
``harassment'' means ``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 
has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 
the wild'' (Level A harassment), or ``has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption 
of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, 
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (Level B 
harassment).
    Under the MMPA, any marine mammal species or population stock that 
is listed as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act is 
considered by definition ``depleted'' and managed as such. Furthermore, 
a marine mammal stock that is listed under the Act is considered a 
``strategic stock'' for purposes of commercial fishery considerations. 
Neither of these categorizations change with the reclassification of 
the West Indian manatee from endangered to threatened. Both the Florida 
and Puerto Rico stocks will remain depleted and strategic under the 
MMPA.
    Title II of the MMPA established the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission), an independent agency of the U.S. Government, to review 
and make recommendations on the marine mammal policies, programs, and 
actions being carried out by Federal regulatory agencies related to 
implementation of the MMPA. The Service coordinates and works with the 
Commission in order to provide the best management practices for marine 
mammals.
    Within the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico, the West 
Indian manatee also receives protection by most State and Territorial 
agencies, and will continue to receive protection as a threatened 
species. In Florida, the manatee is protected by the Florida Manatee 
Sanctuary Act (FMSA), which established Florida as a sanctuary for 
manatees. This designation protects manatees from injury, disturbance, 
harassment, and harm in the waters of Florida, and provides for the 
designation and enforcement of manatee protection zones and has helped 
to improve the status of the species. However, Florida statutes state 
that, ``[w]hen the federal and state governments remove the manatee 
from status as an endangered or threatened species, the annual 
allocation may be reduced'' (Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (FMSA) Chap. 
379.2431(2)(u)(4)(c)), suggesting that adequate funding could be 
reduced after downlisting. Florida laws also provide a regulatory basis 
to protect habitat and spring flows (Florida Water Resources Act).
    In Georgia, West Indian manatees are listed as endangered under the 
Georgia Wildlife Act of 1973 (O.C.G.A. sections 22-3-130) which 
prohibits the capture, killing, or selling of protected species and 
protects the habitat of these species on public lands. In 1999, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved the Law No. 241, known as the New 
Wildlife Law of Puerto Rico (Nueva Ley de Vida Silvestre de Puerto 
Rico). The purpose of this law is to protect, conserve, and enhance 
both native and migratory wildlife species, declare to be the property 
of Puerto Rico all wildlife species within its jurisdiction, and 
regulate permits, hunting activities, and exotic species, among other 
actions. In 2004, the PRDNER approved Regulation 6766 to regulate the 
management of threatened and endangered species in Puerto Rico 
(Reglamento 6766--Reglamento para Regir el Manejo de las Especies 
Vulnerables y en Peligro de Extinci[oacute]n en el Estado Libre 
Asociado de Puerto Rico). In particular, the New Wildlife Law of Puerto 
Rico of 1999 and its regulations provide for severe fines for any 
activities that affect Puerto Rico's endangered species, including the 
Antillean manatee. These laws similarly prohibit the capture, killing, 
take, or selling of protected species.
    Also, the Navigation and Aquatic Safety Law for the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico (Law 430) was implemented in year 2000 and allows for the 
designation and enforcement of watercraft speed zones for the 
protection of wildlife and coastal resources (PRDNER 2000). However, in 
Puerto Rico and Florida, despite protections, watercraft collisions 
continue to negatively impact manatees (see Factor E). The PRDNER has 
indicated that current speed regulatory buoys are ineffective, in part 
because regulations do not identify the perimeter or area that each 
buoy regulates (Jim[eacute]nez-Marrero 2015, pers. comm.). Thus, 
emphasis has been given to public education and signage in coastal 
areas to further reduce manatee mortality.
    In addition, there are numerous other manatee protection laws and 
regulations in place in other States within the United States. These 
are detailed in a table entitled ``Existing International, Federal, and 
State Regulatory Mechanisms,'' see ``Supplemental Document 2'' in 
Docket No FWS-R4-ES-2015-0178 or http://www.fws.gov/northflorida and 
http://www.fws.gov/caribbean/es. This table shows an extensive list of 
existing regulatory mechanisms in place for the West Indian manatee; 
many have been instituted, revised, or improved to better protect the 
manatee.
    Based on population growth and stability described earlier in this 
rule, the above-described regulatory mechanisms in place have 
contributed towards growth in the West Indian manatee population in the 
United States and provided protection for their habitat as needed. 
These existing regulatory mechanisms will remain in effect when the 
species is reclassified to threatened. The West Indian manatee in the 
United States will remain protected as a threatened species under the 
Act, and as a depleted species under the MMPA. As long as funding 
remains available, recovery actions would continue to be implemented, 
regulations enforced, and additional measures adopted as needs arise. 
State and Federal agencies would continue to coordinate on the 
implementation of manatee conservation measures.
    Summary of Factor D: In summary, regulatory mechanisms implemented 
since the manatee's listing, such as state and foreign country 
protections, have ameliorated some of the factors affecting manatees. 
However, challenges in the enforcement of regulatory mechanisms remain 
and there are still outstanding threats to the species. When this rule 
becomes effective and the species is reclassified to threatened, 
regulatory mechanisms will remain in place under the Act and will 
continue to provide legal protections to the species. CITES and MMPA 
protections will also remain in place. We will continue to maintain our 
relationships with local, State, and foreign governments to encourage 
the use of regulatory mechanisms to support the recovery of manatees.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    At the time of listing in 1967, one of the primary factors that led 
to its federally-protected status was watercraft collisions with 
manatees. Since 1967, several regulatory measures have been

[[Page 16696]]

established to help address this concern which are discussed in detail 
below. In addition, since manatees have been protected, studies and 
monitoring have revealed that current factors that may affect West 
Indian manatees include: Human-related interactions, such as watercraft 
collisions, harassment, fishing gear entanglement, exposure to 
contaminants, and naturally occurring phenomena such as harmful algal 
blooms, exposure to the cold, loss of genetic diversity, effects of 
climate change, and tropical storms and hurricanes. In 2007, the 
Service considered watercraft collisions to be the most significant 
factor affecting manatees in the United States (USFWS 2007, pp. 32-33). 
We provide summaries of other natural and manmade factors below:
    Watercraft--Watercraft collisions that kill or injure manatees are 
a threat in some range countries outside the United States. However, 
current information on the effects of boat traffic on manatees does not 
exist for most range countries outside the United States. In some 
countries such as Belize, watercraft collisions are the predominant 
cause of death and are increasing (Auil and Valentine 2004, in UNEP 
2010, p. 22; Galves et al. 2015, entire). As the number of registered 
boats has increased significantly since the mid-1990s, manatees are 
most vulnerable to collisions in the waters near Belize City (Auil 
1998, in UNEP 2010, p. 22; Galves et al. 2015, entire). Motorboats are 
becoming more abundant and popular in Guatemala, and watercraft traffic 
and speed are not regulated even within protected areas (UNEP 2010, pp. 
45-46). An aquatic transportation system with high-powered engines has 
increased boat transit in one of the most important manatee habitat 
areas in Panama (UNEP 2010, p. 66). Increased boating activities in 
Brazil have resulted in both lethal collisions with manatees and 
disruption of manatee behavior (Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 
2012, p. 43).
    Within the United States, watercraft-related deaths have been 
identified as the most significant anthropogenic threat to manatees in 
both Florida and Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, 34 years of manatee 
mortality data from 1980 to 2014 indicate that a total of 37 manatees 
have died due to watercraft (Mignucci et al. 2000, p. 192; Mignucci-
Giannoni 2006, p. 2; PRDNER 2015, unpubl. data). This number represents 
approximately 15 percent of the total known mortality cases during that 
time (37 out of 242) or an average of 1.1 manatees per year. Although 
37 deaths may be considered a low number, it can be argued that the 
percentage of watercraft-related causes of death may be somewhat 
underestimated for three reasons. First, for the majority of the 
manatee mortality cases in Puerto Rico, the cause of death is deemed 
undetermined (38 percent, 92 out of 242), mostly because carcasses are 
too decomposed when found and a cause of death cannot be determined, so 
it may be that many of these deaths are also watercraft-related. 
Second, watercraft-related effects that may cause a mother and calf to 
separate will go undetected, as it would be challenging to find 
evidence of such an event. The number of dependent calf deaths in 
Puerto Rico for the past 34 years is 55 calves (22.6 percent, 55 out of 
242) or an average of 1.6 manatee calves per year. The majority of the 
manatees rescued for rehabilitation in Puerto Rico are calves. Lastly, 
it is assumed that not all carcasses are recovered, so there may be 
additional undocumented deaths caused by watercraft.
    However, carcass salvage numbers for Puerto Rico indicate that the 
number of watercraft-related deaths is low, and the population is 
believed to remain stable (see Population Size and Population Trends 
sections) in spite of these numbers. As boat use in Puerto Rico has 
increased in number and distribution (PRDNER 2012, p. 3), and with no 
State or Federal MPAs yet established, one may expect an increase in 
watercraft-related conflicts. Still, manatee carcass totals for Puerto 
Rico have exceeded 10 or more only six times over 34 years and average 
approximately 7 per year (Mignucci et al. 2000, p. 192; Mignucci-
Giannoni 2006, p. 2; PRDNER Manatee Stranding Reports 2015, unpubl. 
data). In addition, calf numbers documented in the most recent aerial 
surveys indicate the population is reproducing well, with a record high 
of 23 calves counted in December 2013 (see Population Size section). As 
the species continues to move towards recovery, the Service will 
continue to address and make improvements towards avoiding and further 
reducing watercraft-related deaths or impacts.
    In Florida, a manatee carcass salvage program, started in 1974, 
collected and examined manatee carcasses to determine cause of death. 
This program identified watercraft collisions with manatees as a 
primary cause of human-related manatee mortality. The recent status 
review and threats analysis shows that watercraft-related mortality 
remains the single largest threat in Florida to the West Indian manatee 
(O'Shea et al. 1985, entire; Ackerman et al. 1995, entire; Wright et 
al. 1995, entire; Deutsch et al. 2002, entire; Lightsey et al. 2006, 
entire; Rommel et al. 2007, entire, Runge et al. 2015, p. 16). Runge et 
al. (2015, p. 20) observed that watercraft-related mortality makes the 
largest contribution to the risk of extinction; full removal of this 
single threat would reduce the risk of extinction to near negligible 
levels. Mortality data from FWCs Manatee Carcass Salvage Program and 
other sources describe numbers of watercraft-related deaths, general 
areas where deaths occur, trauma, and other parameters (O'Shea et al. 
1985, entire; Ackerman et al. 1995, entire; Wright et al. 1995, entire; 
Deutsch et al. 2002, entire; Lightsey et al. 2006, entire; Rommel et 
al. 2007, entire).
    Over the past 5 years, more than 80 manatees have died from 
watercraft-related incidents each year. The highest year on record was 
2009, when 97 manatees were killed in collisions with boats. The 
Manatee Individual Photo-identification System (1978 to present) 
identifies more than 3,000 Florida manatees by scar patterns mostly 
caused by boats, and most catalogued manatees have more than one scar 
pattern, indicative of multiple boat strikes. A cursory review of boat 
strike frequency suggested that some manatees are struck and injured by 
boats twice a year or more (O'Shea et al. 2001, pp. 33-35).
    Federal, State, and local speed zones are established in 26 Florida 
counties. In Brevard and Lee Counties, where watercraft-related 
mortality is among the highest reported, speed zone regulations were 
substantially revised and areas posted to improve manatee protection in 
the early 2000s. Since 2004, the FWC has approved new manatee 
protection rules for three counties in Tampa Bay and reviewed and 
updated speed zones in Sarasota, Broward, Charlotte, Lee, and Duval 
Counties. In October 2005, the Hillsborough County Commission adopted 
mandatory manatee protection slow-speed zones in the Cockroach Bay 
Aquatic Preserve that previously had been voluntary. In 2012, speed 
zones were established in the Intracoastal Waterway in Flagler County. 
In addition, of the 13 counties identified in 1989 as in need of State-
approved MPPs, all have approved plans. Two additional counties, Clay 
and Levy, proactively developed their own MPPs. Implementation of these 
protective measures stabilizes and may even reduce the mortality rate 
from watercraft collisions. An anticipated increase (118 percent) in 
the number of boats using Florida waterways over the next 50 years will 
require continued efforts to minimize watercraft collisions with 
manatees.
    The primary conservation action in place to reduce the risk of 
manatee

[[Page 16697]]

injury and death from watercraft collisions is a limitation on 
watercraft speed. The rationale is that a slower speed allows both 
manatees and boaters additional response time to avoid a collision. 
Furthermore, if an impact occurs, the degree of trauma will generally 
be less if the colliding boat is operating at slower speed (Laist and 
Shaw 2006, p. 478; Calleson and Frohlich 2007, p. 295). Despite 
continued losses due to watercraft collisions, the southeastern U.S. 
manatee population is expected to increase slowly under current 
conditions (Runge et al. 2015, p. 11), which is due in part to 
regulatory measures that have been implemented since the manatee was 
listed.
    The Service developed programmatic consultation procedures and 
permit conditions for new and expanding watercraft facilities (e.g., 
docks, boat ramps, and marinas) as well as for dredging and other in-
water activities through an effect determination key with the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and State of Florida (the ``Manatee Key'') (revised 
in 2013). The Manatee Key ensures that watercraft facility locations 
are consistent with MPP boat facility siting criteria and are built 
consistent with MPP construction conditions. The Service concluded that 
these procedures constitute appropriate and responsible steps to avoid 
and minimize adverse effects to the species and contribute to recovery 
of the species.
    Fishing Gear--Fishing gear (nets, crab traps, etc.) is known to 
entangle and injure and kill manatees; ingestion of fishing gear and 
other debris (monofilament and associated tackle, plastic banana bags, 
etc.) also kills manatees. In countries outside the United States, the 
incidental capture of animals in fishing gear is still a threat, and 
the captured manatees are occasionally butchered and used for food and 
various products. In Cuba, researchers have recently documented a 
decrease in the number of manatee deaths within a marine protected 
area, hypothesized to be due to a ban on the use of trawl net fishing 
in that area (Sea to Shore Alliance 2014, entire). One of the principal 
causes of perceived increases in manatee decline along the northern and 
western coasts of the Yucatan peninsula includes increased use of 
fishing nets that entangle manatees (Morales-Vela et al. 2003, in UNEP 
2010, p. 59; Serrano et al. 2007, p. 111). In Honduras, the major cause 
of known manatee mortality in the period 1970-2007 was due to 
entanglement in fishnets (Gonz[aacute]lez-Socoloske et al. 2011, p. 
123), while Nicaragua reports between 41 and 49 manatees being killed 
by accidental entanglements in fishing nets from 1999 to 2000 
(Jim[eacute]nez 2002, in UNEP 2010, p. 63). Although gillnets are 
illegal in Costa Rica, gillnet entanglements still occur there. 
However, they are uncommon in certain protected manatee use areas 
(Jim[eacute]nez 2005, in UNEP 2010, p. 34). Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2009, in Marsh et al. 2011, p. 278) suggest 
that incidental drowning in fishing nets causes almost half of the 
mortality and wounding of manatees in the Orinoco River in Colombia. A 
variety of fishing gear was reported to cause manatee entanglements, 
and at least 43 calves were entangled in gear in northeast Brazil 
between 1981 and 2002 (UNEP 2010, p. 26). On the northeast coast of 
Brazil, the main cause of manatee deaths is due to the constant 
presence of gill and drag nets (Lima et al. 2011, p. 107). However, 
most range countries outside of the United States do not have current 
information on the effects of fishing gear and entanglements on 
manatees.
    In Puerto Rico, fisheries-related entanglements and debris 
ingestion may cause take and reduce fitness of manatees. In July 2009, 
there was a documented case of entanglement (beach seine net) and 
successful release of an adult manatee. In 2014, three adult manatees 
were entangled in large fishing nets, one of which was an adult female 
that died (PRDNER 2015, unpubl. data). A few manatees have also been 
found that were severely entangled in monofilament line. Stranding 
records indicate they rarely cause manatee deaths in Puerto Rico; a 
total of four in 34 years have been documented.
    Fishing gear, including both gear in use and discarded gear (i.e., 
crab traps and monofilament fishing line), is a continuing and 
increasing problem for manatees in the southeastern United States. It 
is unknown if the increasing number of rescues is a reflection of 
increasing awareness and reporting of entangled manatees, increases in 
fishing effort, increases in the number of manatees, or other factors. 
Between 2010 and 2014, researchers attributed 18.2 percent of all 
rescues to entanglement.
    Rescue activities that disentangle manatees have almost eliminated 
mortalities and injuries associated with fishing gear (USFWS Captive 
Manatee Database 2015, unpubl. data) which has likely contributed 
towards the improvement of the status of the species. Derelict crab 
trap removal and monofilament recycling programs aid in efforts to 
reduce the number of entanglements by removing gear from the water. 
Extensive education and outreach efforts increase awareness and promote 
sound gear disposal activities. As a result, deaths and serious 
injuries associated with fishing gear are now extremely rare. Runge et 
al. (2015, p. 16) determined that marine debris (including 
entanglements in and ingestion of fishing gear) presented a weak threat 
to the West Indian manatee in Florida. In the future, we would like to 
seek opportunities to share information with countries like Cuba, 
Belize, and Mexico and continue to reduce entanglements from discarded 
or current gear range wide.
    Water Control Structure--Advances in water control structure 
devices that prevent manatees from being crushed or impinged have been 
largely successful. In Florida, most structures have been fitted with 
devices. These devices include acoustic arrays, piezoelectric strips, 
grates, and bars that reverse closing structures and/or prevent 
manatees from accessing gates and recesses. Runge et al. (2015, p. 16) 
determined that water control structures presented a weak threat to the 
West Indian manatee in Florida and noted that death or injury due to 
water control structures had become a rare event (2015, p. 19).
    Contaminants--Direct and indirect exposure to contaminants and/or 
chemical pollutants in benthic habitats is another factor that may have 
adverse effects on manatees (Bonde et al. 2004, p. 258). Contaminants 
are known to have affected one manatee in Puerto Rico (diesel spill), 
and residues from sugar processing in Cuba are thought to have killed 
manatees there (Caribbean Stranding Network 1999, entire; UNEP 1995 in 
UNEP 2010, p. 37). Because of this, manatees may have abandoned Cuba's 
largest bay area because of contamination (UNEP 1995 in UNEP 2010, p. 
37). In Florida, manatees congregate at warm water outfalls in port 
areas where large volumes of petroleum products are transshipped. The 
proximity of large numbers of manatees to these areas where they and 
their habitat can be exposed to petroleum puts them at risk. The U.S. 
Coast Guard and the State of Florida practice oil spill drills in these 
areas and prepare for such contingencies. There are many activities 
that introduce contaminants and pollutants into the manatees' 
environment--gold mining, agriculture, oil and gas production, and 
others. Despite the presence of contaminants in manatee tissues, the 
effect that these have on manatees is poorly understood (Marsh et al. 
2011, pp. 302-305).

[[Page 16698]]

    Algal Blooms--These red tide blooms occur when large concentrations 
of the red tide organism Karenia brevis are present along Florida's 
Gulf coast. These concentrations produce brevetoxins which are inhaled 
or ingested by manatees with lethal effect. In southwest Florida, 
extensive red tide blooms killed 276 manatees in 2013. Runge et al. 
(2015, p. 20) noted that on Florida's Gulf coast, red tide effects are 
stronger than the effect of watercraft-related mortality due, in part, 
to ``the increased estimate of adult survival in the Southwest and the 
anticipated continued increase in the frequency of severe red-tide 
mortality.'' Runge et al.'s (2015, p. 1) analysis did not address the 
effect of the 2013 red tide event in its assessment.
    In 2011, algal blooms in Florida's Indian River Lagoon clouded the 
water column and killed over 50 percent of the seagrass beds in the 
region (St. Johns River Water Management District, 2015). The loss of 
seagrass beds likely caused a dietary change that may have played a 
role in the loss of more than 100 manatees in the area. While algal 
blooms occur in other parts of the species' range, there have not been 
any significant die-offs attributable to this cause in this portion of 
the species' range.
    Cold Weather--The Florida manatee subspecies is at the northern 
limit of the species' range. As a subtropical species, manatees have 
little tolerance for cold and must move to warm water during the winter 
as a refuge from the cold. See Recovery section for additional 
information. During extremely cold weather, hundreds of animals died in 
2010 and 2011 due to cold stress. Notably, animals that relied on 
Florida's natural warm-water springs fared the best, while animals in 
east-central and south Florida, where springs are absent, fared the 
worst (Barlas et al. 2011, p. 31). Manatees using seagrass beds along 
east-central Florida's Atlantic coast cannot easily access warm-water 
springs of the St. Johns River during periods of cold temperatures, and 
in the absence of access to warm water associated with power plants, 
these manatees are at risk. Since these events, the number of deaths 
due to cold has returned to an average of roughly 30 per year (FWC FWRI 
2015, unpubl. data). While cold stress remains a threat to Florida 
manatees, Antillean manatees, found outside of the southeastern United 
States, do not suffer from cold stress because they inhabit warm 
subtropical waters. Progress is being made in protecting warm-water 
sites; we continue to work with our partners to protect these sources 
to minimize cold-related manatee deaths.
    Genetics--Isolated locations, small population sizes, and low 
genetic diversity increase the susceptibility of West Indian manatee to 
rapid decline and local extinction (Hunter et al. 2012, p. 1631). Low 
genetic diversity has been identified as a threat to manatee 
populations in Puerto Rico and Belize (Hunter et al. 2010, entire; 
Hunter et al. 2012, entire). In addition, the manatee population in 
Puerto Rico is essentially closed to immigration from outside sources. 
Natural geographical features and manatee behavior limits gene flow 
from other neighboring manatee populations (i.e., Dominican Republic), 
and genetic mixing is not expected (Hunter et al. 2012, p. 1631). 
Manatee populations in other portions of the range may also be affected 
by isolation, small population size, and low genetic diversity. Low 
genetic diversity in the southeastern United States has been identified 
as a potential concern (Bonde et al. 2012, p. 15). However, there is 
limited detailed genetic information to confirm the significance of 
this to the West Indian manatee as a whole.
    Tropical Storms--Tropical storms and hurricanes may also pose a 
threat to manatees. Live manatee strandings and reduced adult manatee 
survival rates can be attributed, in part, to hurricanes and storms 
(Langtimm and Beck 2003, entire; Langtimm et al. 2006, entire). 
Langtimm and Beck (2003) suggest that both direct and indirect 
mortality (from strandings, debris-related injuries, animals being 
swept offshore, etc.) and/or emigration associated with hurricanes and 
storms may cause a decrease in adult survival rates. This result has 
been observed in Florida and in Mexico: Hurricanes and storms are 
thought to affect the presence/absence of manatees in storm-struck 
areas. In Puerto Rico, tropical storms and hurricanes intensify heavy 
surf, and at least one manatee calf death was attributed to Hurricane 
Hortense in 1996 (USFWS 2007, p. 33). Other factors can either 
exacerbate or ameliorate risk to the manatee population, such as 
density of manatees within the strike area, the number of storms within 
a season, protective features of the coastline such as barrier islands, 
or occurrence of other mortality factors (Langtimm et al. 2006, p. 
1026). However, there is limited information to confirm the 
significance of tropical storms on manatees.
    Climate Change/Sea-level Rise--The Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the climate system is 
unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). The more extreme impacts from recent 
climate change include heat waves, droughts, accelerated snow and ice 
melt including permafrost warming and thawing, floods, cyclones, 
wildfires, and widespread changes in precipitation amounts (IPCC 2014, 
pp. 4, 6). Due to the projected sea level rise (SLR) associated with 
climate change, coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly 
experience adverse impacts such as submergence, coastal flooding, and 
coastal erosion (IPCC 2014, p. 17). In response to ongoing climate 
change, many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted 
their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, and migration patterns 
(IPCC 2014, p. 4).
    Although SLR is due in part to natural variability in the climate 
system, scientists attribute the majority of the observed increase in 
recent decades to human activities that contribute to ocean thermal 
expansion related to ocean warming, and melting of ice (Marcos and 
Amores 2014, pp. 2504-2505).
    Trend data show increases in sea level have been occurring 
throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and, according to 
Mitchum (2011, p. 9), the overall magnitude in the region has been 
slightly higher than the global average. Measurements summarized for 
stations at various locations in Florida indicate SLR there has totaled 
approximately 200 millimeters (mm) (8 inches (in.)) over the past 100 
years, with an average of about 3.0 mm per year (0.12 in. per year) 
since the early 1990s (Ruppert 2014, p. 2). The relatively few tidal 
gauges in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and southern North 
Carolina also show increases, the largest increases being in South 
Carolina, Alabama, and parts of Florida (NOAA Web site http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml, accessed August 28, 
2015).
    Continued global SLR is considered virtually certain to occur 
throughout this century and beyond (Stocker, 2013, p. 100; Levermann et 
al. 2013, entire). Depending on the methods and assumptions used, 
however, the range of possible scenarios of global average SLR for the 
end of this century is relatively large, from a low of 0.2 meters (m) 
(approximately 8 in.) to a high of 2 m (approximately 78 in., i.e., 6.6 
feet (ft)) (Parris et al. 2012, pp. 2, 10-11). Although this relatively 
wide range reflects considerable uncertainty about the exact magnitude 
of change, it is notable that increases are expected in all cases, and 
at rates that will exceed the SLR observed since the 1970s (IPCC 2013, 
pp. 25-26). Given the large number and variety of climate change

[[Page 16699]]

and SLR models, forecasts of the rate and extent of SLR vary 
significantly. Because of the variation in projections and 
uncertainties associated with manatee response to SLR, it will be 
important to continue monitoring manatee habitat use throughout the 
species' range.
    Other possible effects of climate change include increases in the 
frequency of harmful algal blooms, increases in the frequency and 
intensity of storms, losses of warm-water refugia and possible 
decreases in the number of watercraft collisions. Warmer seas may 
increase the frequency, duration, and magnitude of harmful algal blooms 
and cause blooms to start earlier and last longer. Increases in 
salinity could create more favorable conditions for other species; 
conversely, increases in storm frequency and extreme rainfall could 
offset the effects of salinity on algal growth (Edwards et al. 2012, p. 
3).
    Climate change models predict that the intensity of hurricanes will 
increase with increasing global mean temperature (Edwards et al. 2012, 
p. 4). Langtimm et al. (2006, entire) found that mean adult survival 
dropped significantly in years after intense hurricanes and winter 
storms. These decreases were thought to be due to tidal stranding, 
animals being swept out to sea, loss of forage, or emigration of 
animals out of affected areas (Langtimm et al. 2006, p. 1026).
    For manatees in the southeastern United States, SLR could mean the 
loss of most of the major industrial warm-water sites and result in 
changes to natural warm-water sites. In the event of a projected SLR of 
1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) in 88 years (Rahmstorf 2010 and Parris 
et al. 2012 in Edwards et al. 2012, p. 5), SLR will inundate these 
sites and warm-water capacity could be lost. While power plants may not 
be in operation when SLR inundates their sites, the increased intensity 
and frequency of storms could interrupt plant operations and warm-water 
production. If storms result in the loss of a power plant, manatees 
that winter at that site could die in the event that they did not move 
to an alternate location (Edwards et al. 2012, p. 5). Increased 
intrusion of saltwater from SLR or storm surge coupled with reduced 
spring flows could reduce or eliminate the viability of natural springs 
used by wintering manatees (Edwards et al. 2012, p. 5).
    Climate-change-induced loss of fishing habitat and boating 
infrastructure (docks, etc.), increases in storm frequency, and 
pollutants and changes in economics and human demographics could 
decrease the per capita number of boats operating in manatee habitat. 
If these changes were to occur, decreases in the numbers of boats 
operating in manatee habitat could reduce numbers of manatee-watercraft 
collisions (Edwards et al. 2012, p. 7).
    Many complex factors with potentially negative consequences are 
likely to operate on the world's marine ecosystems as global climate 
change progresses. Conversely, climate change could potentially have a 
beneficial effect, as well (see discussion above). Therefore, there is 
uncertainty regarding how climate change and its effects may impact the 
manatee and its habitat in the future (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010 in 
Marsh et al. 2011, p. 313). See Cumulative Effects below.
    Summary of Factor E: At the time of listing, manatees were believed 
to be threatened by watercraft, the loss of seagrasses, contaminants, 
and harassment. Since the then, efforts to reduce boat collisions have 
been successful in some cases; however, watercraft collisions continue 
to be an ongoing concern for manatees. Watercraft strikes or 
collisions, fishing gear entanglement, entrapment or crushing in water 
control structures, contaminants; harmful algal blooms, cold weather, 
loss of genetic diversity, tropical storms, and the effects of climate 
change are factors that may continue to have an effect on West Indian 
manatees for the foreseeable future. The negative effects associated 
with increasing numbers of watercraft will require continued 
maintenance and enforcement of manatee protection areas, and the 
adoption of additional protected areas both inside and outside the 
United States will continue as needs become apparent. Increasing 
fishing efforts and the consequent increase of fishing gear in water 
will require continued efforts to maintain gear in a manatee-safe 
fashion, additional and continued gear clean-ups, and maintenance of 
the manatee rescue program to rescue entangled manatees. While most 
water control structures in the United States have been fitted to 
prevent impingements and crushings and have contributed to the 
improvement of the status of manatees, new structures in the United 
States must be fitted to minimize impacts to manatees. Existing and new 
structures outside the United States should be fitted, as well. For 
manatees in Florida, harmful algal blooms and cold weather will 
continue to affect this subspecies. Tropical storms and hurricanes will 
continue to have an effect on the West Indian manatee in most parts of 
its range. Effects of climate change and sea level rise impacts on West 
Indian manatees and their habitat are uncertain.
    While watercraft collisions and the pending loss of the Florida 
manatees' loss of warm water habitat are being addressed, they have not 
been eliminated. There is a high level of uncertainty regarding the 
overall effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.
    Cumulative Effects--Factors can individually impact a species and/
or its habitat and can work in concert with one another to cumulatively 
create conditions that may impact a species or its habitat beyond the 
scope of individual threats and, thereby, increase the risk of 
extinction. Factors negatively affecting manatees include habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation; watercraft collisions; the loss of 
winter warm-water habitat; poaching; and others.
    In our assessment, we reviewed manatee population models 
(Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012; Runge et al., 2007; and 
others) that assessed the effects of these threats both individually 
and cumulatively. Runge et al. (2007) conducted a simultaneous and 
integrated analysis of the threats facing Florida manatees and 
concluded that the role of threats faced by manatees is cumulative and 
increases the risk of extinction. Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 
(2012, p. 130) observed that ``[t]he cumulative actions of natural 
catastrophes, anthropogenic disturbances, and low recovery rates can 
cause a progressive decrease in the [Antillean manatee] population 
throughout the range.''
    Runge et al. (2007) considered the individual effect of each threat 
and the cumulative effect of multiple threats in pairs, multiples and 
all threats. By way of example, the authors observed that the addition 
of the watercraft threat to a baseline scenario with no threats raised 
the extinction probability and that the addition of the watercraft 
threat to a scenario that contained all of the remaining threats raised 
the extinction probability to an even greater extent (Runge et al., 
2007, p. 13). They noted that ``[a]ny single threat does not pose a 
particularly large risk, but in combination the risk is substantially 
greater'' (Runge et al., 2007, p. 13).
    We did not find significant information that would lead us to 
believe that the cumulative effect of factors acting on the species 
warrants maintaining the West Indian manatee as endangered. Rather, the 
potential cumulative effects of factors (both positive and negative) 
affecting the West Indian manatee, in part, contribute to the species' 
threatened status.

[[Page 16700]]

Foreseeable Future

    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' In a 
general sense, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which 
events can reasonably be anticipated; in the context of the definition 
of ``threatened species,'' the Service interprets the foreseeable 
future as the extent of time over which the Secretary can reasonably 
rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the 
future conservation status of the species. It is important to note that 
references to ``reliable predictions'' are not meant to refer to 
reliability in a statistical sense of confidence or significance; 
rather the words ``rely'' and ''reliable'' are intended to be used 
according to their common, non-technical meanings in ordinary usage. In 
other words, we consider a prediction to be reliable if it is 
reasonable to depend upon it in making decisions, and if that 
prediction does not extend past the support of scientific data or 
reason so as to venture into the realm of speculation.
    In considering threats to the species and whether they rise to the 
level such that listing the species as a threatened species or 
endangered species is warranted, we assess factors such as the 
imminence of the threat (i.e., is it currently affecting the species 
or, if not, when do we expect the effect from the threat to commence, 
and whether it is reasonable to expect the threat to continue into the 
future), the scope or extent of the threat, the severity of the threat, 
and the synergistic effects of all threats combined. If we determine 
that the species is not currently in danger of extinction, then we must 
determine whether, based upon the nature of the threats, it is 
reasonable to anticipate that the species is likely to become in danger 
of extinction within the foreseeable future. As noted in the 2009 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion on foreseeable future, 
``in some cases, quantifying the foreseeable future in terms of years 
may add rigor and transparency to the Secretary's analysis if such 
information is available. Such definitive quantification, however, is 
rarely possible and not required for a foreseeable future analysis'' 
(DOI 2009; p. 9), available at https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37021.pdf.
    One possible way to determine foreseeable future is as the lifespan 
of the species. As explained in our proposed rule (81 FR 1004; January 
8, 2016), the lifespan of the manatee is not known with certainty, but 
there is a record of a 67-year old captive Florida manatee and 
documented longevity records of over 55 years in the wild. We identify 
in our determination that the foreseeable future of this species is 50 
years (see below), is largely consistent with the lifespan of this 
species. We have also used two published population models 
(Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2012; Runge et al. 2015) and a 
threats analysis to state there is a small chance that the West Indian 
manatee will become extinct within this timeframe.
    As suggested in the Solicitor's opinion, for the purposes of the 
present analysis, we are relying on an evaluation of the foreseeability 
of threats and the foreseeability of the effect of the threats on the 
species, extending this time period out only so far as we can use the 
data to formulate reliable predictions about the status of the species, 
and not extending so far as to venture into the realm of speculation. 
Therefore, in the case of the West Indian manatee, we conclude that the 
foreseeable future is that period of time within which we can reliably 
predict whether or not the species is likely to become an endangered 
species as a result of the effects of the threats specified in this 
rule. We consider 100 years to be beyond the foreseeability of threats 
to the West Indian manatee across the 21 countries where the West 
Indian manatee currently occurs (Table 1), especially given the known 
uncertainties and data limitations throughout most of the Antillean 
subspecies range. We have identified a foreseeable future of 50 years 
because it is a period of time over which we are able to reliably 
predict the magnitude of threats and their effects on manatee. This 
time period is consistent with respect to our ability to make 
predictions on the magnitude and the effects of the principal factors 
impacting the species as described above. The 50-year period is also 
similar to the timeframe used for the decline predictions identified 
for this species by the IUCN (decline at a rate of at least 10 percent 
over the course of three generations or about 60 years, Deutsch et al. 
2008, online). This approach creates a more robust analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    As explained in more detail above, principal factors impacting the 
species include: Habitat destruction and modification, future 
availability of warm-water sites for the Florida manatee, the frequency 
of red tide and/or other unusual mortality events, watercraft strikes 
and injuries, and poaching in some areas of its range. In addition, 
although numerous regulatory mechanisms to protect manatees exist, 
challenges in the enforcement of these regulatory mechanisms have been 
identified, including in areas outside the United States. For example, 
full implementation of international and local laws is lacking, 
especially given limited funding and understaffed law enforcement 
agencies (UNEP 2010, p. 89). Most of the identified factors in this 
rule impacting the West Indian manatee are influenced by humans, and 
recovery actions are aimed at mitigating or reducing these human 
activities that are detrimental to the species.
    Within the foreseeable future of 50 years, human populations and 
concomitant factors affecting the species are expected to increase. For 
example, human population growth and the resulting pressure exerted on 
habitats are expected to result in more impacts to coastal and 
freshwater resources, as land is converted to uses that will meet the 
needs of the human population. In 2015, there were 634,000,000 people 
in Latin America and the Caribbean (UN 2015, p. 1); in 2010, there were 
18,801,310 people in Florida (Carr and Zwick et al. 2016, p. 4). Human 
populations in the Latin American and Caribbean region are projected to 
grow to 784,000,000 by 2050 (23.7 percent) and in Florida, to 
33,721,828 (68.7 percent) by 2070 (UN 2016; Carr and Zwick et al. 2016, 
p. 4). Given that human populations continue to grow (Marsh et al. 
2012, p. 321), it is expected that human-manatee conflicts will also 
increase and will result in additional stressors to the West Indian 
manatee population and greater challenges for conservation. In Florida, 
human population increases will increase water withdrawals from 
Florida's aquifers which, in turn, will diminish the amount of warm 
water available to manatees in Florida's springs (Edwards 2012, p. 6). 
This population increase will also increase the number of registered 
boats in Florida from 915,713 (Florida Department of Highway Safety and 
Motor Vehicles: Florida Vessel Owners, Statistics 2015; http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/dmv/TaxCollDocs/vesselstats2015.pdf) to an 
estimated 2,000,000 boats by 2060 (118.4 percent), likely increasing 
the risk of vessel collisions with manatees (FWC 2008, p. 24). 
Continuing and increasing efforts will be needed to ensure that this 
species does not become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Determination

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so because of any of the five factors: (A)

[[Page 16701]]

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 
human-made factors affecting its continued existence. As required by 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
West Indian manatee and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether 
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by this 
species.
    In considering what factors might constitute current threats, we 
must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to 
determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If 
there is current exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a 
positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we 
then attempt to determine how significant the threat is. If the threat 
is significant, it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction 
of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered 
species or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. 
This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a 
threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of 
how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere 
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not 
sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require 
evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the 
species to the point that the species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
    By definition, an endangered species is a ``species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species is a ``species which is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' In the southeastern United 
States, where the largest population of manatees exists, the manatee 
population has likely grown in size, based on updated adult survival 
rate estimates and estimated growth rates (Runge et al., 2015, p. 19). 
A summary of the factors affecting the species, including successes in 
the species' recovery, is discussed in more detail below.
    Human causes of mortality and injury are being addressed in part 
throughout the manatee's range. Predominant causes of mortality and 
injury include poaching (factor B), entanglement in fishing gear 
(factor E), and collisions with watercraft (factor E). Poaching has 
been eliminated in the southeastern United States and in Puerto Rico 
(factor B). Efforts to address poaching outside the United States vary 
in effectiveness, with some successful reductions in a few countries 
(factor D). Poaching attempts in areas where controls are not in place 
are a threat to the West Indian manatee that makes it likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future. Entanglement in fishing gear 
continues throughout the species' range (factor E). In the southeastern 
United States, entangled manatees are rescued and very few deaths and 
serious injuries occur. In Puerto Rico, there have been few 
entanglements since 1986, when entanglements were first reported as a 
severe threat. Entanglements outside the United States are known to 
occur; however, the magnitude and severity of this threat is unknown.
    Watercraft collisions are the predominant anthropogenic cause of 
death for manatees in the United States (factor E). The Service, other 
Federal agencies, and State and Commonwealth wildlife management 
agencies continue to be engaged in significant efforts to address and 
further reduce this threat. In Florida, a network of marked, enforced, 
manatee protection areas ensure that boat operators slow down to help 
avoid manatees. In Puerto Rico, manatee protection areas have not been 
designated, but a number of regulated manatee speed buoys are in place 
to better protect manatees (factors A and D). Watercraft collisions are 
known to kill manatees outside the United States; however, available 
information on the magnitude of this threat in other countries is 
limited, except for in Belize where this threat is known to be 
significant and increasing.
    Habitat fragmentation and loss are thought to be the greatest 
threats to manatees outside the United States (factor A). Development 
activities in coastal and riverine areas destroy aquatic vegetation and 
block access to upriver reaches and freshwater. This can disrupt 
dispersal and foraging patterns and exacerbate the effects of poaching 
especially on small populations. Within the United States, Federal, 
State, and Commonwealth agencies limit habitat losses and those 
activities that block access through regulatory processes. For example, 
the State of Florida and the Service rely on county MPPs to address 
impacts to manatee habitat from installation of, for example, a boat 
dock or marina. In Florida, the other potential significant threat 
facing manatees is the loss of winter warm-water habitat and algal 
blooms pose a localized threat to West Indian manatees. Federal and 
State agencies are working with the power industry and others to ensure 
a future warm-water network to sustain manatees into the future. While 
many strides have been made in this area, work continues to be done to 
fully address and reduce this threat, as described above in our review 
of the Florida manatee recovery plans. In addition, we must continue to 
address pending changes in the manatees' warm-water network (develop 
and implement strategies) and support the adoption of minimum flow 
regulations for remaining important springs used by manatees. If warm 
water refuges are lost, this threat could cause the loss or 
debilitation of manatees due to cold stress that will make the West 
Indian manatee likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
    Available population estimates suggest that there may be as many as 
13,142 manatees throughout the species' range (UNEP 2010, p. 11 and 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al., 2012, p. 132, Martin et al., 2015, 
p. 44). Estimates from countries outside the United States (6,250) are 
largely conjectural and are based on the opinions of local experts. 
Within the United States, Martin et al., (2015, p. 44) and Pollock et 
al., (2013, p. 8) describe population estimates of 6,350 manatees and 
532 manatees in the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico, 
respectively.
    Recent demographic analyses (through 2009) suggest a stable or 
increasing population of Florida manatees (Runge et al., 2015, entire) 
and demonstrate that Florida manatees are not endangered at the present 
time. Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al.'s (2012, pp. 129-143) PVA 
baseline model for the Antillean manatee describes a metapopulation 
with positive growth. Runge et al., (2015, p. 13) predict that it is 
unlikely (< 2.5 percent chance) that the Florida population of manatees 
will fall below 4,000 total individuals over the next 100 years, 
assuming current threats remain at their current levels indefinitely. 
The ability of the West Indian manatee to survive long-term across its 
range is related to its ability to withstand human-caused and natural 
threats of varying magnitude and duration and the efforts of 
stakeholders

[[Page 16702]]

to adequately address manatees' conservation needs.
    There are numerous ongoing efforts to protect, conserve, and better 
understand West Indian manatees and their habitat throughout their 
range, as described in this rule. The contribution of these recovery 
efforts to the current status of the species is important. Given our 
review of the best scientific and commercial information available and 
analyses of threats and demographics, we conclude that the West Indian 
manatee no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered. However, 
there are many important actions that must be taken to address the 
remaining threats to manatees before the manatee can be delisted. Some 
imminent threats remain and will likely continue into the foreseeable 
future and possibly escalate and need to be addressed as appropriate. 
Escalating threats may be concomitant with increasing human 
populations, and commensurate efforts will be needed to keep pace with 
these and any new threats that may evolve. These remaining or new 
potential threats, especially those acting upon declining and smaller 
populations make the species likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future (50 years).
    We did not find significant information that would lead us to 
believe that the cumulative effect of factors acting on the species 
warrants maintaining the West Indian manatee as endangered. Rather, we 
find that the potential cumulative effect of factors acting on the West 
Indian manatee, in part, contributes to the species' threatened status. 
Overall, regulatory mechanisms adopted since the manatee's listing have 
ameliorated some factors affecting manatees. However, in some 
instances, regulatory mechanisms are still inadequate such that the 
manatee continues to require the protections of the Act. We find that 
the West Indian manatee is no longer in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range due to (1) significant recovery efforts made 
throughout parts of its range to address threats and (2) a better 
understanding of manatee population demographics. Examples of remaining 
threats that make this species likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
and the loss of winter warm-water habitat (factor A); poaching (factor 
B); watercraft collisions and others (factor E). Accordingly, we are 
reclassifying the species as threatened under the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Because we have concluded that the West Indian manatee is a 
threatened species throughout all of its range, no portion of its range 
can be ``significant for purposes of the definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Service's Significant 
Portion of its Range (SPR) Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of 
threats to the West Indian manatee, and promotes conservation actions 
by Federal, State, and local governments in the United States, foreign 
governments, private organizations and groups, and individuals. The Act 
provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the State, 
and for recovery planning and implementation. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are 
discussed, in part, below.
    A number of manatees occur in near-shore waters off Federal 
conservation lands and are consequently afforded some protection from 
development and large-scale habitat disturbance. West Indian manatees 
also occur in or offshore of a variety of State-owned properties, and 
existing State and Federal regulations provide protection on these 
sites. There are also a significant number of manatees that occur along 
shores or rivers of private lands, and through conservation 
partnerships, many of these use areas are protected through the owners' 
stewardship. In many cases, these partnerships have been developed 
through conservation easements, wetland restoration projects, and other 
conservation means.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions with respect to the West Indian manatee within the United 
States or under U.S. jurisdiction. If a Federal action may adversely 
affect the manatee or its habitat, the responsible Federal agency must 
consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, 
or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the West Indian manatee. Federal action agencies that may 
be required to consult with us include but are not limited to the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and others, due to involvement in actions or 
projects such as permitting boat access facilities (marinas, boat 
ramps, etc.), dredge and fill projects, high-speed marine events, warm-
water discharges, and many other activities.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign 
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to 
provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the 
training of personnel.
    The Secretary has the discretion to prohibit by regulation, with 
respect to any threatened species, any act prohibited under section 
9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, the Service developed 
general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those 
prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to most threatened 
species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 provide that all the 
prohibitions for endangered wildlife under 50 CFR 17.21, with the 
exception of 50 CFR 17.21(c)(5), will generally also be applied to 
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions make it illegal for any person 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (including 
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 
collect, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon 
the high seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or 
ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce, any endangered (and hence, threatened) wildlife species. It 
also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain 
exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation 
agencies. These prohibitions will continue to be applicable to the West 
Indian manatee. The general provisions for issuing a permit for any 
activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species are 
found at 50 CFR 17.32.
    The Service may develop regulations tailored to the particular 
conservation needs of a threatened species under Section 4(d) of the 
Act if there are specific prohibitions and exceptions that would be 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of that particular 
species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and exceptions under 
50

[[Page 16703]]

CFR 17.31 and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and incorporated 
into the regulations, but they may also be more or less restrictive 
than those general provisions. The Service believes the prohibitions 
and exceptions set out in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 are most appropriate 
to address the particular conservation needs of the West Indian manatee 
at this time.
    In Florida, questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). In Puerto Rico, 
questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed 
species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 
1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (telephone 404-
679-7097, facsimile 404-679-7081).

Effects of This Rule

    When it becomes effective, this final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) 
to reclassify the West Indian manatee from an endangered species to a 
threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. This rule formally recognizes that the West Indian manatee is 
no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. However, this reclassification does not 
significantly change the protections afforded to this species under the 
Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing this 
species, or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 of the Act or its 
implementing regulations, is subject to a penalty under section 11 of 
the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies must 
ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian 
manatee. In addition, although the West Indian manatee is reclassified 
to threatened when this rule becomes effective, the West Indian manatee 
is still considered depleted and strategic under the MMPA.
    Recovery actions directed at the West Indian manatee will continue 
to be implemented as outlined in the recovery plans (USFWS 1986 and 
2001, entire). Highest priority recovery actions needed to address 
remaining threats include: (1) Reducing watercraft collisions with 
manatees; (2) protecting habitat, including foraging and drinking water 
sites and for the Florida subspecies, warm-water sites; and (3) 
reducing entanglements in fishing gear. Other recovery initiatives also 
include addressing harassment and illegal hunting in sites where these 
occur.
    Finalization of this rule does not constitute an irreversible 
commitment on our part. Reclassification of the West Indian manatee 
from threatened status back to endangered status could occur if changes 
occur in management, population status, or habitat, or if other factors 
detrimentally affect or increase threats to the species. Such a 
reclassification would require another rulemaking.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing 
regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions 
that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 
17.31 make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to 
threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Whenever 
a species is listed as threatened, the Act allows promulgation of 
special rules under section 4(d) that modify the standard protections 
for threatened species found under section 9 of the Act and Service 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 (for wildlife) and 17.71 (for plants), when 
it is deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
the species. No additional regulations are being implemented, or 
anticipated to be implemented, for the West Indian manatee because 
there is currently no conservation need to do so for this species. If 
there is a conservation need for a 4(d) rule at some point in the 
future for the West Indian Manatee, such a rulemaking would require a 
companion special rule under the MMPA.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 
3206, the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the 
Native American Policy of the Service, January 20, 2016, we readily 
acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 
recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We 
contacted tribes in the southeastern United States within the range of 
the West Indian manatee and requested their comments on our proposed 
rule. The Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 
Florida responded to our request (see Summary of Comments).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-
0178 or upon request from the North Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office or Caribbean Ecological Services Field

[[Page 16704]]

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the 
North Florida Ecological Services Field Office and the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

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. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Manatee, West 
Indian'' under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Manatee, West Indian............  Trichechus manatus.  Wherever found.....               T   32 FR 4001, 3/11/
                                                                                              1967;
                                                                                             35 FR 8491, 6/2/
                                                                                              1970;
                                                                                             82 FR [Insert
                                                                                              Federal Register
                                                                                              page where the
                                                                                              document begins],
                                                                                              4/5/2017;
                                                                                             50 CFR 17.108(a);
                                                                                             50 CFR
                                                                                              17.95(a).\CH\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: March 16, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06657 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P