[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11058-11066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 180628590-8590-01]
RIN 0648-XG333
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Cuvier's Beaked Whale in the Gulf of Mexico as Threatened
or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; 90-Day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a negative 90-day finding on a petition to
list the Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM) as a threatened or endangered distinct population segment
(DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As an alternative to
listing a DPS, the petition requests that we list the Cuvier's beaked
whale because it is threatened or endangered in a significant portion
of its range (SPOIR). The petitioner also requests that we designate
critical habitat. We find that the petition and information in our
files do not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM qualifies as a
DPS, eligible for listing under the ESA. Similarly, we find that the
petition and information readily available in our files do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing Cuvier's beaked whale as threatened or endangered in a SPOIR
may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available
upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources
[[Page 11059]]
Division, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701, or online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/negative-90-day-findings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Calusa Horn, NMFS Southeast Region,
727-824-5312, or Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources,
301-427-8457.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 11, 2017, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris) population in the GOM as an endangered or threatened DPS
or, alternatively, list the Cuvier's Beaked whale because it is
threatened or endangered in a SPOIR, under the ESA. The petitioner also
requested designation of critical habitat. The petitioner asserts that
the Cuvier's beaked whale population in the GOM qualifies as a DPS
because the population: (1) Is physically separated from other
populations of the eastern Caribbean and northwestern Atlantic Ocean,
(2) exhibits high site fidelity to the GOM, (3) is delimited by
international governmental boundaries within which there are
differences in management and regulations, (4) occurs in an ecological
setting that is unique to the species, and (5) is likely a genetically
distinct species. The petitioner also states the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) stock designation supports the proposed DPS
listing under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from us
(see ADDRESSES, above).
ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination must address a species,
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment''
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species
under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or
DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease
or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address
identified threats; or any other natural or manmade factors affecting
the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as ``credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.'' Conclusions
drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.''
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended
and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved;
(2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended
measure that contains an analysis of the information presented; (3) is
accompanied by literature citations that are specific enough for the
Services to readily locate the information cited in the petition, and,
to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, electronic or hard
copies of supporting materials; and, (4) for a petition to list,
delist, or reclassify a species, information to establish whether the
subject entity is a ``species'' as defined in the Act. See 50 CFR
424.14(c). Because this is a petition to list a species, we also
evaluate the degree to which the petition includes the following types
of information: (1) Information on current population status and trends
and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in
captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors
under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where
these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether and to what
extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered
species or threatened species (i.e., the species is currently in danger
of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future),
and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the
species and its habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory
protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as
well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing,
that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete,
balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information
that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g). We may also consider information
readily available at
[[Page 11060]]
the time the determination is made. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii). We are
not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the
petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard
copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate
excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps,
reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6) and
424.14(h)(1)(ii).
The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of,
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to
determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petitioned action will generally not be considered
to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new
information or analysis not previously considered. 50 CFR
424.14(h)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request
based on the information in the petition, including its references, and
information readily available to us. We do not conduct additional
research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the
agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the
petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented
if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we
have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners'
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species faces a degree of extinction risk such that listing, delisting,
or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in
information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in
information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate
any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating
extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends,
productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity,
current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and
the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to
extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links
between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats
identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will
not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under
the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments
``have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and
taxonomic coverage than official lists of endangered and threatened
species'' and, therefore, these two types of lists ``do not necessarily
coincide'' (http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm). Additionally,
species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data
standards, criteria used to evaluate species and treatment of
uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition
cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information
that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on
extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Cuvier's Beaked Whale Species Description
Cuvier's beaked whales are members of the beaked whale family
(Ziphiidae) and are odontocetes (toothed whales). They can reach
lengths of about 15-23 ft (4.5-7 m) and weigh 4,000-6,800 lbs (1,845-
3,090 kg). Body size does not differ significantly between males and
females. These medium-sized whales have round and robust bodies, with a
triangular ``falcate'' dorsal fin located far down the whale's back.
Their coloration varies from dark gray to a reddish-brown, with a paler
counter-shaded underside (Jefferson et al., 1994; Baird 2016).
The Cuvier's beaked whale has one of the most extensive
distributions of all beaked whale species, occurring in deep waters
worldwide and ranging from equatorial tropical to cold-temperate
waters; they are not known to occur in the high latitude polar waters
(Dalebout et al., 2005; Heyning and Mead 2009). In the Northern
Hemisphere, they are known to occur near the Aleutian Islands, Bay of
Biscay, British Columbia, Gulf of California, GOM, Hawaii,
Mediterranean Sea, the Shetlands, and the U.S. East and West Coasts. In
the Southern Hemisphere, they are known to occur near New Zealand,
South Africa, and Tierra del Fuego. They have also stranded in tropical
environments such as the Bahamas, Caribbean Sea, and the Galapagos
Islands. Genetic evidence suggests that Cuvier's beaked whales may
exhibit seasonal latitudinal migrations, similar to humpback whales
(Dalebout et al., 2005).
[[Page 11061]]
Beaked whales appear to have a habitat preference for deep (usually
greater than 3,300 ft (1,000 m)), complex topographic features such as
the continental slope and edge, or steep underwater geological features
like banks, seamounts, and submarine canyons (Whitehead et al., 1997;
Hooker and Baird, 1999, 2002; Frantzis et al., 2003; MacLeod and Zuur,
2005, cited in Smith 2010 thesis). Studies on beaked whales have been
carried out in a number of locations including the Northwest Atlantic
(Hooker and Baird, 1999), Bahamas (MacLeod and Zuur, 2005), the
Ligurian Basin (D'Amico et al., 2003; Moulins et al, 2007), Hawaii
(Baird et al., 2004; 2006) and Greece (Frantzis et al., 2002). The
Cuvier's beaked whale is one of the more frequently observed species of
beaked whale, and is considered widespread and cosmopolitan (Heyning,
1989).
Cuvier's beaked whales mature slowly and can live up to 60 years.
Females reach sexual maturity at 7-11 years of age, have a gestation
period of about 1 year, and give birth to a single calf every 2-3
years. Although few stomach contents have been examined, they appear to
feed mostly on deep-sea squid, but also sometimes take fish and
crustaceans (MacLeod et al., 2003; West et al., 2017). Cuvier's beaked
whales likely forage between approximately 600 m to nearly 3,000 m in
depth (Baird et al., 2006, 2008, Tyack et al., 2006, Schorr et al.,
2014). Dive data indicates that Cuvier's beaked whale routinely conduct
some of the deepest and longest dives of any marine mammal (Baird et
al., 2006; Tyack et al., 2006). Cuvier's beaked whales off the coast of
Southern California were recorded diving to depths of 2,992 m and
lasting 137.5 minutes (Schorr et al., 2014).
The Cuvier's beaked whale is among the most common and abundant of
all the beaked whales, and their abundance worldwide is likely over
100,000 individuals (Taylor et al., 2008, downloaded October 9, 2017).
Under the MMPA, we prepare stock assessment reports for several
Cuvier's beaked whale stocks that occur in waters under U.S.
jurisdiction. We currently evaluate Cuvier's beaked whale using six
geographically defined stocks: The Alaska Stock (n = unknown), the
California/Oregon/Washington stock (n = 3,274), the Hawaiian stock (n =
723), the Northern GOM stock (n = 74), the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin
Island stock (n = unknown) and the Western North Atlantic stock (n =
6,532). The stock assessment reports with population estimates are
available online (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock). Our stock assessment reports for the Northern GOM stock and
Western North Atlantic stock do not include a correction factor for
detection probability and therefore may miscalculate actual abundance.
Beaked whales are deep divers that spend little time at the surface
(Reeves et al., 2002), and, therefore, their detection probabilities
with traditional visual survey methods are low (Barlow and Gisiner,
2006; Barlow et al., 2006). Thus, reliance on shipboard and aerial
surveys can result in an underestimate of density if corrections are
not applied for missed animals (Barlow 2015). The Cuvier's beaked
whales are long diving animals and remain under the water's surface for
extended periods, resulting in high availability and perception biases.
Cuvier's beaked whale detection probability is estimated at 0.23 for
shipboard surveys and 0.074 for aerial surveys (Barlow 1999). Roberts
et al. (2016) used a correction factor to account for detection
probability and estimates the abundance of beaked whales in the
Northern GOM at n = 2,910. We note that the Robert's et al. (2016)
estimate of 2,910 Cuvier's beaked whales in the Northern GOM
substantially exceeded our previous stock assessment report estimate
for this reason. The previous stock assessment report assumed that all
animals were seen and recorded (i.e., g(0) = 1) while Robert's et al.
(2016) estimated detection probabilities by applying a g(0) = 0.23 for
shipboard sightings and a g(0) = 0.074 aerial sightings. The
application of the correction factor to account for detection
probability results in a higher abundance estimate for the Northern GOM
Cuvier's beaked whale stock than that in the previous stock assessment
report (Robert's et al., 2016). Under the MMPA, the Cuvier's beaked
whale Northern GOM stock is not considered ``strategic'' because we
assume that average annual human-caused mortality and serious injury
does not exceed potential biological removal (Waring et al., 2012).
Analysis of the Petition
We first evaluated whether the petition presented the information
indicated in 50 CFR 424.14(c) and 424.14(d). The petition contains
information on the Cuvier's beaked whale, including the species
description, distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and
factors contributing to the status of Cuvier's beaked whale status in
the GOM. The petitioner asserts that the Cuvier's beaked whale in the
GOM qualifies as a DPS, meeting both the discreteness and significance
requirements, is impacted by habitat degradation by oil spills,
potential prey reduction due to fisheries, entanglement in fishing
gear, vessel strikes, noise pollution, water pollution, and climate
change, and that the loss of this population would represent a
significant loss for the species' diversity. Alternatively, the
petition states that the Cuvier's beaked whale is threatened or
endangered in a SPOIR, which the petition identifies as the GOM.
DPS Analysis
The petition requests that we list the Cuvier's beaked whales in
the GOM as a threatened or endangered DPS, and presents arguments that
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM meet the Services' requirements for
identifying a DPS eligible for listing. Our joint NMFS-USFWS DPS policy
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) identifies two elements to be considered
when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the
species to which it belongs. A population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this
separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
If a population segment is considered discrete under either of the
above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then
be considered in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report
151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPSs be
used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic
diversity. In carrying out this examination, the Services consider
available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's
importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
In evaluating this petition, we first looked for information to
suggest that the Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM may qualify as a DPS.
We evaluated the information provided in the petition and readily
available in our files to see if the data suggest that the Cuvier's
[[Page 11062]]
beaked whale in the GOM is discrete, meaning that the population is
markedly separated as a consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors from other populations of the
Cuvier's beaked whale.
According to the petitioner, the Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM
is physically and ecologically separated from other Cuvier's beaked
whale populations, and is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which there are differences in management and
regulations, thereby qualifying the GOM population as discrete under
the DPS policy. Further, the petitioner states that the Cuvier's beaked
whale Northern GOM stock designation under the MMPA is based on
distribution data that supports their conclusion that the population is
delimited by international boundaries.
The petitioner asserts that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are
physically separated from populations in the Caribbean and North
Atlantic. The petition describes the GOM as being semi-enclosed by land
on all sides, with an opening to the Caribbean Sea through the Yucatan
Channel and another opening to the North Atlantic Ocean through the
Straits of Florida. According to the petition, the population occurs
along the continental shelf and deep-water canyons in the northern GOM
(Roberts et al., 2016). The petition states that sightings have
occurred almost exclusively in the northern GOM, but notes a limited
number of unconfirmed sightings in the Yucatan Channel (Nino-Torres et
al., 2015) and in the Straits of Florida off northern Cuba (Jefferson
and Lynn 1994; Whitt et al., 2014).
We do not find that the information presented in the petition and
in our files supports the conclusion that Cuvier's beaked whales in the
GOM are physically isolated from other Cuvier's beaked whale
populations. While the GOM is a semi-enclosed sea, no information
suggests that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are unable to travel
through the Yucatan Channel or Straits of Florida. As the petitioner
acknowledges, there are confirmed and unconfirmed sightings data of the
species potentially from the Yucatan channel and Straits of Florida.
The petitioner provided information on a confirmed sighting of four
Cuvier's beaked whales in the Straits of Florida offshore of Havana
Cuba (Jefferson and Lynn, 1994, as cited in Whitt et al., 2014).
Additionally, data on other cetacean species that prefer similar
habitats (slopes, canyons, and escarpments in the northern GOM) and
have similar foraging niches (undertaking long, deep dives to hunt for
mesopelagic squid and fish) to the Cuvier's beaked whale suggests
individuals can travel out of the GOM and into the North Atlantic Ocean
and Caribbean Sea. For example, opportunistic tracking data from two
rehabilitated short-finned pilot whales showed that the animals
released off the Florida Keys traveled through the Straits of Florida
to the Blake Plateau in the North Atlantic Ocean (offshore North and
South Carolina) (Wells et al., 2013). Similar movement patterns have
been observed in a rehabilitated and released Risso's dolphin. In that
case, tracking data from an animal released offshore of Sarasota,
Florida, in the GOM, traveled more than 3,300 km into the North
Atlantic Ocean off Delaware (Wells et al., 2009). In addition, male
sperm whales are known to move in and out of the GOM from the Atlantic
Ocean and Caribbean Sea (Best 1979; Rice 1989; Whitehead 1993; and
Englehaupt et al., 2009). The GOM is connected to the Caribbean Sea via
the Yucatan Channel, a relatively deep (2,000 m) channel, and to the
Atlantic Ocean through the Straits of Florida, a channel with a depth
of about 860 m (Davis and Fargion, 1996). These channels likely allow
cetaceans, like Cuvier's beaked whale, to migrate to and from the North
Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. No information in the petition or
readily available in our files supports the conclusion that the
channels are an impediment to their movement. The limited information
available suggests that cetaceans that occur in deep water habitat
along the continental slope similar to Cuvier's beaked whales,
including the short-finned pilot whale, Risso's dolphin, and sperm
whale, can move into the North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea from
the GOM. This, in combination with the confirmed and unconfirmed
sightings data of Cuvier's beaked whales in the Yucatan channel and
Straits of Florida, indicates that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM
can travel freely outside of the GOM. As such, we find that the
petition does not present substantial information indicating that the
Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM are markedly separated as a
consequence of physical factors from Cuvier's beaked whale populations
worldwide.
The petitioner also asserts that the GOM Cuvier's beaked whales are
ecologically separated from neighboring Cuvier's beaked whale
populations and bases this conclusion on data from other regions of the
world where Cuvier's beaked whale populations exhibit long-term site
fidelity behavior. Specifically, the petition cites McSweeney et al.
(2007), who studied site fidelity, patterns of association, and
movements of Cuvier's beaked whales (n=35) off Hawaii using a 21- year
photographic data set, which included re-sightings of 14 individuals
over the course of 15 years. The mean distance between re-sightings
ranged from 2.88 km to 88.75 km, which the petitioner states is
relatively small. The petition also states that Cuvier's beaked whales
are year-round residents off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and cite to
Baird et al. (2016), McLellan et al. (2015), and unpublished data.
Specifically, Baird et al., (2016) found that satellite tagged
individuals (n=9) remained in the study area off Cape Hatteras, where
the Gulf Stream crosses the continental shelf, for up to two months.
According to the petitioner, photo identification studies (A. Read
unpublished data) and aerial surveys also confirm long-term site
fidelity in this area (McLellan et al., 2015). The petitioner
references a publication abstract (McLellan et al., 2015) that states
that aerial surveys found Cuvier's beaked whale to be the most commonly
encountered species, observed in every month of the year off Cape
Hatteras. Based on these studies, the petitioner asserts that it is
reasonable to infer that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM exhibit
similar site fidelity, and, as a result, are ecologically isolated from
Cuvier's beaked whale populations in the North Atlantic and Caribbean.
The petition did not provide the reference for ``A. Read unpublished
data,'' and we were unable to locate it within our files.
We evaluated the information provided in the petition and readily
available in our files to determine if it presented substantial
information indicating that Cuvier's beaked whale populations exhibit
long-term site fidelity in other locations and whether Cuvier's beaked
whales in the GOM would exhibit a similar behavior that could suggest
ecological separation. First, we evaluated if information provided in
the petition supports the assertion that Hawaii's population of
Cuvier's beaked whale exhibits long-term site fidelity. McSweeney et
al. (2007) is the primary source cited by the petitioner to support
this claim. This study described site fidelity and movement patterns
using photographic data for Cuvier's and Blainville's beaked whales off
Hawaii's west coast. A total of 4,611 photographs of Cuvier's beaked
whales were obtained from 35 encounters (23 directed, 12 opportunistic)
from 1986 to 2006. The authors determined that the photographs
represented 35 individuals.
[[Page 11063]]
Of the 35 individuals, 21 (60 percent) were seen only once and 14 (40
percent) were seen on two or more occasions (McSweeney et al., 2007).
Five adult males and nine adult females (n=14) were seen more than
once. The interval between the first and last sighting of adult males
ranged from 3 to 728 days (median = 11 day). The interval between the
first and last sighting of adult females ranged from 16 to 5,676 days
(median = 737 days). Re-sighting intervals (i.e., duration between
sightings) were significantly longer for adult females (median = 432
days, range = 16 to 5,676 days) than for adult males (median = 11 days,
range = 3 to 728 days). McSweeney et al. (2017) acknowledge that,
depending on the species, male cetaceans often travel long distances in
search of mating opportunities, whereas females will remain in an area
or return to an area if prey are abundant or reliably concentrated
(Cluttton-Brock, 1989). Of the 14 individuals re-sighted, there were 13
within year re-sightings and 8 across year re-sightings. While some
individual whales were re-sighted during the 21-year data set, the
intervals between re-sightings spanned multiple years. It is unknown
whether the whales remained in the area or moved out of the area in the
years between sightings. McSweeney et al. (2007) acknowledge that these
Cuvier's beaked whales have a broader range and that the study area
does not represent their full range. While McSweeney et al. (2007)
suggest long-term repeated use of an area off Hawaii's west coast by
some Cuvier's beaked whales (n=14), the full range of those individuals
is unknown. The movements of those 14 individuals during long gaps
between re-sightings (sometimes spanning years) are unknown and it is
likely that their movements extended beyond the study area, as noted by
the study's authors. In addition, 60 percent of the Cuvier's beaked
whales recorded in McSweeney et al. (2017) exhibited no site fidelity.
Thus, McSweeney et al., (2007) does not present substantial evidence
indicating that Cuvier's beaked whales exhibit long-term population
level site fidelity.
Next, we evaluated the information in the petition and readily
available in our files to determine whether it supports the
petitioner's assertion that Cuvier's beaked whales in the northwest
Atlantic exhibit high site fidelity, in support of their claim that
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM would exhibit similar behavior. Baird
et al. (2016) provided information on the movements and habitat use of
Cuvier's beaked whales tagged off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Six
Cuvier's beaked whales were tagged in 2015 and three animals were
tagged in 2014. During 2 to 59 days of tracking, all of the tagged
Cuvier's beaked whales remained on or near the continental slope off
Cape Hatteras, which the authors suggest provide more evidence of a
resident population than an oceanic population. Similarly, using
sighting data from aerial surveys and strandings records, McLellan et
al. (2018) concluded that the waters off Cape Hatteras provide
important year-round habitat for multiple species of beaked whales. The
waters off Cape Hatteras, at the convergence of two major currents, the
Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream, are an area of high biological
productivity (Schaff et al., 1992). Roberts et al. (2016) also
identified a high level of marine mammal biodiversity and beaked whale
abundance off Cape Hatteras. These studies indicate the waters offshore
Cape Hatteras are an area of high productivity and an important habitat
for marine mammals, including several species of beaked whales.
However, these studies do not demonstrate that individual Cuvier's
beaked whales are year-round residents of the Cape Hatteras area.
Rather, the limited tracking studies and sightings data only
demonstrate that Cuvier's beaked whales can regularly be found in this
area of high biological productivity, likely for foraging purposes, for
a period of up to 59 days. Given that the duration of the available
tracking study was limited to a maximum of about 2 months, the data do
not comprise substantial information indicating that any individual
whale--much less any population of whales--resides exclusively in that
area.
Finally, we did not find any information in the petition or readily
available in our files indicating that Cuvier's beaked whales in the
GOM exhibit long-term site fidelity. Site fidelity is the tendency for
individuals to return to the same area repeatedly or remain in an area
for an extended period, and may occur at both breeding and feeding
areas. Site fidelity, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that
a population is distinct as it is possible that individuals are
emigrating or migrating within the population. We found no information
in the petition or readily available in our files addressing site
fidelity of Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM.
We conclude that the available information does not suggest that
the Cuvier's beaked whales generally exhibit site fidelity to a degree
that would result in the ecological separation of Cuvier's beaked
whales in the GOM. The studies cited by the petitioner do not present
substantial information that Cuvier's beaked whale off the west coast
of Hawaii or off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, are distinct from other
populations of the same taxon because of site fidelity. The majority of
individuals studied by McSweeney et al. (2007) did not show repeated
use of steep and isolated Hawaiian shelf waters, and those that were
re-sighted had long intervals of time between encounters to move and
mix with a broader population. Similarly, although McLellan et al.
(2018) suggest the productive mixing zone off Cape Hatteras is an
important year-round habitat for Cuvier's beaked whales, their tracking
data were of insufficient duration to suggest individual whales do not
mix with a broader population to an extent that would imply a markedly
separate population. In addition, the GOM is a very different ecosystem
from the Hawaiian shelf or the Cape Hatteras convergence zone,
characterized by more broadly distributed resources, more ephemeral
upwelling current patterns, and a more gradual continental slope. It is
reasonable to assume that different oceanic features can influence prey
availability, which can drive beaked whale distributions or preferences
for particular foraging areas.
Thus, after examining the petition's references and information
readily available in our files, we conclude there is not sufficient
information to indicate that the Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are
behaviorally or ecologically separated from other Cuvier's beaked whale
populations. The spatial and temporal movement patterns throughout this
species' range are largely unknown and no information was presented for
the putative GOM DPS. Although some studies have suggested that
individual Cuvier's beaked whales may exhibit some site-fidelity and
repeated use of waters off Hawaii's west coast and Cape Hatteras, those
findings do not support the petitioner's conclusion that the Cuvier's
beaked whales in the GOM are markedly separate from other neighboring
areas.
Additionally, no information in our files or in the petition
indicates that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are functioning
independent of other populations through ecological or behavioral
processes such as reproduction, communication, or foraging. Although
the referenced studies provide evidence of repeated use of certain
areas by Cuvier's beaked whales, they do not provide substantial
evidence indicating that Cuvier's beaked whale individuals exhibit
long-term
[[Page 11064]]
site-dependency that might lead to the separation of Cuvier's beaked
whales in the GOM. The available information indicates that Cuvier's
beaked whales have extensive ranges with substantial mixing, which is
further supported by genetic evidence confirming that Cuvier's
worldwide represent a single independent genetic entity (Dalebort et
al., 2005). As such, the available information does not constitute
substantial information indicating that Cuvier's beaked whales in the
GOM are discrete from Cuvier's beaked whales worldwide because of
ecological or behavioral factors. No other information on other
physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors for the GOM
population that would suggest marked separation from other populations
was in the petition or readily available in our files.
While the petitioner did not describe the genetic information in
their evaluation of the discreteness criteria, we have included this
information here because quantitative measures of genetics can provide
evidence of separation from other populations. Although there are few
samples available for genetic investigation of population structure of
Cuvier's beaked whale, the data suggest limited gene flow among ocean
basins. Daleboat et al. (2005) presented the first description of
phylogeographic structure among Cuvier's beaked whales worldwide using
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control sequences obtained from strandings (n
= 70), incidental fisheries takes (n =11), biopsy (n = 1) and whale-
meat markets (n = 5). Specimens were grouped in ocean basins and
regions within ocean basins as follows: Southern Hemisphere, n = 25
(South Pacific, n = 19; Indian Ocean, n = 6); North Pacific, n = 31
(Eastern-Central, n = 22; Western, n = 9); North Atlantic, n = 31
(Eastern, n = 5; Mediterranean, n = 12; Western-Tropical, n = 14).
Strong mtDNA differentiation was observed among Cuvier's beaked whales
worldwide, with over 42 percent of the total molecular variance
attributed to variation between the three ocean basins (i.e., Southern
Hemisphere, North Atlantic, and North Pacific). Phylogenetic
reconstruction revealed strong frequency differences among ocean
basins, but no reciprocal monophyly or fixed character differences. The
estimated rates of female migration among ocean basins are low (<= 2
individuals per generation or 15 years). These results revealed that
there is little movement of female Cuvier's beaked whales among the
three ocean basins. The authors note that regional sample size was too
small to detect subdivisions within ocean basins except in the
Mediterranean region (n =12) where the Cuvier's beaked whale population
was highly differentiated from those whales in the North Atlantic Ocean
basin. The phylogeographic pattern revealed that the population in the
Mediterranean differed significantly from eastern Atlantic and western-
tropical Atlantic, but the latter two did not differ significantly from
one another (Dalebout et al., 2005). The authors note that few
conclusions can be drawn about the possible existence of regional
divisions within other basins until more comprehensive sampling is
conducted.
While mtDNA evidence shows some population structuring indicating
differences between Cuvier's beaked whale populations in the Southern
Hemisphere, North Pacific and North Atlantic, it does not indicate that
the Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are genetically separated from
neighboring populations. In fact, while limited in sample size, the
mtDNA samples from the GOM (n = 1) were not significantly different
from those samples from the eastern Atlantic (n = 5) and western
tropical Atlantic (n = 13). Thus, the available mtDNA evidence does not
suggest population structuring between the GOM and North Atlantic
samples. In addition, because mtDNA is maternally inherited,
differences in mtDNA haplotypes between populations do not necessarily
mean that the populations are substantially reproductively isolated
from each other because they do not provide any information on males.
In some cases, mtDNA may indicate discreteness if female and male
movement patterns are the same, but for species in which male and
female movements differ, mtDNA is not sufficient to evaluate the
discreetness in a population (see e.g., loggerhead sea turtle, 68 FR
53947, September 15, 2003 at 53950-51 and Conant et al., 2009, at 18,
22, 25-28; southern resident killer whale, Krahn et al., 2002, at 23-
30). The intermediate levels of mtDNA diversity observed in Cuvier's
beaked whale samples suggest that social groups are unlikely to be
strongly matrifocal (Dalebout et al., 2005). Additionally, the mtDNA
evidence for Cuvier's beaked whales is not coupled with nuclear DNA
evidence and, at this time, it is unknown if male Cuvier's beaked
whales take seasonal migrations or whether sexes differ temporally or
spatially in their distribution. As such, the available genetic
evidence does not provide substantial information indicating that
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are markedly separated from Cuvier's
beaked whales worldwide. We therefore conclude that the information
available in our files does not provide substantial information that
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are markedly separate from other
populations of Cuvier's beaked whales as a consequence of quantitative
measures of genetics.
Finally, the petitioner asserts that international boundaries and
differences in the control of exploitation, habitat management, and
regulatory mechanisms among the United States, Mexico, and Cuba qualify
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM as discrete under the DPS policy. The
petitioner states that these differences are highly significant in
light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. In support, the petition states
that Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are partly delineated by the
international boundaries of Mexico and Cuba and therefore are subject
to different management mechanisms that are limited in comparison to
those in the United States. The only existing foreign or international
regulations cited in the petition are the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) and Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The petition states
that these regulations do not address current threats to the GOM
population.
We examined whether a delineation of a DPS could be made based on
international governmental boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. The petition provides no information regarding
Mexico or Cuba's regulatory mechanisms and does not discuss how they
differ from those in the United States. In the United States, the
Cuvier's beaked whale is protected by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.). The MMPA includes a general moratorium on the ``taking'' of
marine mammals by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States within the United States, its territorial waters, the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or on the high seas, which include for
purposes of the MMPA, foreign EEZs (16 U.S.C. 1371). The MMPA also
contains certain import restrictions and sets forth a national policy
to prevent marine mammal species or population stocks from diminishing
to the point where they are no longer a significant functioning element
of their ecosystem.
While the petition asserts that the regulatory mechanisms in Mexico
and Cuba are limited and are markedly different from those in the U.S.,
the
[[Page 11065]]
petition fails to include any discussion related to the existing
regulatory mechanisms for those countries to support its assertion. The
information readily available in our files indicates that in Cuba all
marine mammals are afforded protections under the Environmental Law 81,
the Fishery Decree[hyphen]Law 164, and the Protected Areas Decree-Law
201. The Ministry of Science Technology and Environment enacted
Resolution 160/2011, listing all marine mammals as `Species with
Special Significance' for the country. The information readily
available in our files also indicates that the government of Mexico has
several environmental laws and statutes that offer protections for
marine mammals, including the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and
Environmental Protection, the General Law on Wildlife, and Fisheries
Law. Neither the petition nor the information in our files provide
information supporting the petitioner's claim that control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms for the Cuvier's beaked whale in the Gulf of Mexico differ
significantly across international boundaries.
With regard to international regulatory mechanisms, the U.S.,
Mexico, and Cuba are all parties to the CITES. The Cuvier's beaked
whale is listed on CITES Appendix I, which means, aside from
exceptional circumstances, commercial trade of products of Cuvier's
beaked whale across international borders of member countries is
prohibited. Lastly, the IWC was established under the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in 1946. The IWC
established an international moratorium on commercial whaling for all
large whale species in 1982, effective in 1986. This moratorium
affected all member nations (IWC 2009), including Mexico and numerous
other nations within the range of Cuvier's beaked whale. Based on the
above, we have no information from which to conclude that the GOM
population of Cuvier's beaked whale is discrete from other populations
due to differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms that are significant in
light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
The Relationship Between ``Stock'' and DPS
The petition notes that the Northern GOM Cuvier's beaked whale is
managed as a stock under the MMPA (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock)). The petitioner states that the Cuvier's beaked
whale Northern GOM stock designation under the MMPA included
distribution information, which supports their assertion that the GOM
whales are delimited by international boundaries, meeting the
discreteness criteria under the DPS. Under the MMPA, we divided all
marine mammal species into management units (stocks) based on distinct
oceanographic regions (Barlow et al., 1995; Wade and Angliss 1997).
These stocks include Cuvier's beaked whales in Alaska, California-
Oregon-Washington, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, Western
North Atlantic, and Northern GOM. We consider a number of different
factors when identifying marine mammal stocks under the MMPA including:
(1) Distribution and movements; (2) population trends; (3)
morphological differences; (4) differences in life history; (5)
differences in genetics; (6) contaminant and natural isotope loads; (7)
parasite differences; and (8) oceanic habitat differences (NMFS 2005).
As the petitioner acknowledges, a stock under the MMPA is not
equivalent to a DPS under the ESA. As discussed in the Northern GOM
Cuvier's beaked whale stock assessment report (Waring et al., 2012),
there is no stock differentiation between Cuvier's beaked whales in the
GOM and those in nearby waters. In the absence of information, a
species' range in an ocean can be divided into defensible management
units (Waring et al., 2012) and examples of stock areas include
oceanographic regions (e.g., GOM, Gulf of Alaska, California Current)
(Wade and Angliss, 1997; Barlow et al., 1995). Thus, we considered the
Cuvier's beaked whales in the Northern GOM as a separate stock for
management purposes under the MMPA (Blaylock et al., 1995). However, as
described above, our DPS policy contains different criteria for
identifying a population as a DPS. The DPS policy requires that a
population be both discrete from other populations and significant to
the taxon to which it belongs. While in most circumstances we evaluate
some or all of the same evidence in determining whether a population of
marine mammals should be considered a stock under the MMPA or a DPS for
purposes of the ESA, our determination will not always be the same for
both purposes. In this case, we do not find that the distribution
information for the Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM satisfies either
of the conditions for discreteness under the DPS policy. The available
information does not suggest that the Cuvier's beaked whale in the GOM
is markedly separate from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors, nor is it limited by international governmental boundaries
within which difference in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. At this time, we
find that the information in the petition and in our files, including
that information which was considered in identifying the stock for
management purposes under the MMPA, do not suggest that the Cuvier's
beaked whale in the GOM may be discrete under the DPS policy.
Conclusion Regarding DPS
Overall, based on the information in the petition and readily
available in our files, and guided by the DPS Policy criteria, we are
unable to find evidence to suggest that the GOM population of Cuvier's
beaked whale may be discrete. Because the data do not suggest that the
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM may be discrete from other Cuvier's
beaked whale populations, we are not required to determine whether the
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM may be significant to the global
taxon of Cuvier's beaked whales, per the DPS policy. Therefore, based
upon the information from the petitioner and the information readily
available in our files, we conclude that the petition does not present
substantial information to indicate that the GOM population of Cuvier's
beaked whale may qualify as a DPS under the DPS Policy.
Other Information Provided by the Petitioner
The petitioner provided information on the general life history and
biology of the Cuvier's beaked whale, a global abundance estimate,
abundance estimates for the northern GOM stock, and threats (e.g., oil
spills, oil and gas exploration, vessel strike, acoustic impacts,
fishery entanglement etc.) to Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM.
Because we conclude that the petition does not present substantial
information to indicate that the GOM population may qualify as a DPS
under the DPS Policy, the petitioned entity does not constitute a
``species'' that is eligible for listing under the ESA. Thus, we do not
need to evaluate whether the information in the petition indicates that
this population faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern.
[[Page 11066]]
Significant Portion of Its Range
As an alternative to listing the GOM Cuvier's beaked whale as a
DPS, the petitioner requests the Cuvier's beaked whale be listed
because the species is threatened or endangered in a SPOIR, which the
petition identifies as the GOM.
The petitioner states that NMFS incorrectly interprets SPOIR in the
NMFS/FWS SPOIR Policy (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), and recommends that
NMFS should interpret the phrase ``significant portion if its range''
as a portion of a species' range that faces high extinction risk
(threatened or endangered) and that is biologically significant based
on the principles of conservation biology using the concepts of
redundancy, resilience, and representation (the three Rs) (Shaffer &
Stein 2000). Such concepts can also be expressed in terms of the four
population viability characteristics commonly used by NMFS: Abundance,
spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity of the species. While
the petitioner requests we apply their alternative interpretation of
SPOIR, the petition does not include any specific explanation or
analysis addressing how the GOM is ``biologically significant'' based
on the concepts of redundancy, resilience, and representation.
We acknowledge that the SPOIR Policy's definition of
``significance'' has been invalidated in recent litigation involving
FWS. See Desert Survivors v. DOI, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 2215741
(N.D. Cal. May 15, 2018); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248
F. Supp. 3d 946 (D. Ariz. 2017). While we do not apply that definition
in this finding, we note that the remainder of the SPOIR Policy remains
valid and binding, including the provision that any listings made as a
consequence of being threatened or endangered in a SPOIR must be
rangewide.
For purposes of reviewing this particular petition, but without
adopting a standard for other decisions, we analyzed the data provided
in the petition and information readily available in our files to see
if there is any basis to conclude that the GOM population of Cuvier's
beaked whales is ``significant.'' As previously discussed, the Cuvier's
beaked whale is among the most common and abundant of all the beaked
whales, and their abundance worldwide is likely over 100,000
individuals (Taylor et al., 2008). Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM
comprise only a very small portion of this relatively large global
population (Daleabout et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2008). The more
recent abundance estimate (n = 2,910, in Roberts et al., 2016) for the
Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM indicates that those whales comprise
less than 3 percent of the taxon's global abundance. Additionally, the
species has an extensive distribution, with Cuvier's beaked whales
found throughout the world's oceans, ranging from equatorial tropical
to cold temperate waters (Heyning and Mead 2009), and no available
information suggests that the Cuvier's beaked whales in the GOM are
physically isolated from other Cuvier's beaked whale populations (Best
1979; Rice 1989; Whitehead 1993; Englehaupt et al,. 2009; and Wells et
al., 2009, 2013). The available genetic evidence also does not provide
substantial information indicating that Cuvier's beaked whales in the
GOM are markedly differentiated from Cuvier's beaked whale worldwide
(Dalebout et al., 2005) that may indicate genetic significance. The
available genetic evidence indicates the Cuvier's beaked whale is a
single global species (monotypic genus) that is relatively abundant and
widely distributed throughout the world's oceans (Daleabout et al.,
2005). There is no evidence of genetic differentiation between Cuvier's
beaked whales in the GOM and neighboring populations, and thus no
information to suggest that the loss of the GOM would result in a
significant loss in genetic diversity to the species as a whole or
affect the species' ability to adapt to changes in its environment.
Based on the information presented in the petition and readily
available in our files, we do not find substantial information to
suggest that the GOM population may be ``biologically significant'' to
the taxon as a whole based on the concepts of redundancy, resilience,
and representation. We therefore conclude that the petition does not
present substantial information that the GOM population may be
``significant,'' nor that it is of such significance that would be
commensurate with the SPOIR Policy's direction that the listing be
rangewide. Because the petition does not provide evidence or discussion
as to how the GOM qualifies as a SPOIR, and the information in the
petition and our files do not support such a conclusion, we conclude
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating
that listing Cuvier's beaked whale as endangered or threatened in a
SPOIR may be warranted.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available upon request from
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 20, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05669 Filed 3-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P