[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66652-66664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26265]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 191127-0095; RTID 0648-XR030]


Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination on the 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Giant Manta Ray

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of critical habitat determination.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have determined that a designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent at this time. Based on a comprehensive review of 
the best scientific data available, we find that there are no 
identifiable physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the giant manta ray within areas under U.S. 
jurisdiction. We also find that there are no areas outside of the 
geographical area occupied by the species under U.S. jurisdiction that 
are essential to its conservation. As such, we find that there are no 
areas within the jurisdiction of the United States that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the giant manta ray.

DATES: This finding is made on December 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the determination, list of references, 
and supporting documents prepared for this action are available from 
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On January 22, 2018, we published a final rule to list the giant 
manta ray (Manta birostris) as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (83 FR 2916). Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the 
ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to designate 
critical habitat concurrently with making a determination to list a 
species as threatened or endangered unless it is not determinable at 
that time, in which case the Secretary may extend the deadline for this 
designation by 1 year. At the time of listing, we concluded that 
critical habitat was not determinable because sufficient information 
was not available to: (1) Identify the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species at an appropriate level of 
specificity, particularly given the uncertainty regarding habitats 
required to support its life history (e.g., pupping and nursery grounds 
were unknown) and migratory movements, (2) determine the specific 
geographical areas that contain the physical and biological features 
essential to conservation of the species, particularly given the global 
range of the species, and (3) assess the impacts of the designation. We 
requested relevant information from interested persons to help us 
identify and describe the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the giant manta ray, and assess the economic 
consequences of designating critical habitat for the species. We 
solicited input from the public, other concerned government agencies, 
the scientific community, industry and any other interested party on 
features and areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat for 
the giant manta ray within U.S. waters. We received information 
regarding giant manta ray occurrence in the Flower Garden Banks 
National Marine Sanctuary (Stewart et al. 2018b) as well as off the 
coast of Florida. We reviewed this information and considered it along 
with other available information we compiled. Together, this 
information comprises the best available scientific data for use in the 
identification of critical habitat for the giant manta ray. However, as 
discussed below, based on these data we find that there are no 
identifiable physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the giant manta ray within areas under U.S. 
jurisdiction, or unoccupied areas under U.S. jurisdiction that are 
essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, at this time 
we find no areas within U.S. jurisdiction that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the giant manta ray.
    This finding describes information on the biology, distribution, 
and habitat use of the giant manta ray and the methods used to identify 
areas that may meet the definition of critical habitat. In this 
determination, we focus on information directly relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat for giant manta rays.

Giant Manta Ray Biology and Status

    The following discussion of the life history and status of giant 
manta ray is based on the best scientific data available, including the 
``Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Giant Manta Ray (Manta 
birostris) and Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi)'' (Miller and Klimovich 
2017).
    Manta rays are large bodied, planktivorous rays, considered part of 
the Mobulidae subfamily. Manta species are distinguished from other 
Mobula rays in that they tend to be larger, with a terminal mouth, and 
have long cephalic fins (Evgeny 2010); however, misidentifications are 
common both between Manta species (i.e., between M. alfredi and M. 
birostris) as well as between Manta and Mobula rays. In addition, 
recent taxonomic studies have suggested that Manta birostris and Manta 
alfredi may actually be closely related to the giant devil ray (Mobula 
mobular) (White et al. 2017), with genetic analyses that demonstrate 
support for nesting these species under the genus Mobula rather than 
Manta (White et al. 2017; Hosegood et al. 2019). The studies still 
recognize both manta rays as distinct species, but refer to them as 
Mobula birostris and Mobula alfredi.
    The giant manta ray, M. birostris, can be found in all ocean 
basins, while the reef manta ray, M. alfredi, is currently only 
observed in the Indian Ocean and the western and south Pacific. 
Additionally, we note that a third, putative manta ray species has been 
identified (referred to here as M. cf. birostris), with its range 
extending along the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, 
based on research conducted in the western Atlantic (A. Marshall, MMF, 
pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019). A manuscript identifying 
this third species is expected in the near future; however, according 
to Dr. Andrea Marshall, this newly identified manta species is highly 
abundant off the U.S. east coast, with a large population also found 
off the Yucat[aacute]n peninsula (A. Marshall, MMF, pers. comm. to M. 
Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019). This new species looks very similar to M. 
birostris, with only a few diagnostic features that could potentially 
distinguish the two (mainly small morphological and meristic ones; A.

[[Page 66653]]

Marshall, MMF, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019). Without 
genetic testing, species identification cannot be completely validated 
(Hinojosa-Alvarez et al. 2016; Kashiwagi et al. 2017; Hosegood et al. 
2019).
    Therefore, for purposes of this critical habitat determination, we 
will consider any records of manta rays in the Atlantic to be M. 
birostris (even though an unknown proportion may comprise M. cf. 
birostris) and will continue to recognize Manta birostris as a species 
under the genus Manta.
    The genus Manta has a complex taxonomic history due partially to 
the difficulty of preserving such large specimens and also the 
conflicting historical reports of taxonomic characteristics (Couturier 
et al. 2012; Kitchen-Wheeler 2013). Prior to 2009, most manta rays were 
categorized as Manta birostris, but Marshall et al. (2009) presented 
new data that supported the splitting of the Manta genus into two 
species: M. birostris and M. alfredi.
    Both Manta species have diamond-shaped bodies with wing-like 
pectoral fins; the distance over this wingspan is termed disc width 
(DW). There are two distinct color types in both species: Chevron and 
black (melanistic). Most of the chevron variants have a black dorsal 
surface and a white ventral surface with distinct patterns on the 
underside that can be used to identify individuals (Marshall et al. 
2008; Kitchen-Wheeler 2010; Deakos et al. 2011). The black color 
variants of both species are entirely black on the dorsal side and 
almost completely black on the ventral side, except for areas between 
the gill-slits and the abdominal area below the gill-slits (Kitchen-
Wheeler 2013).
    Giant manta rays inhabit tropical, subtropical, and temperate 
bodies of water and are commonly found offshore, in oceanic waters, and 
near productive coastlines. It is thought to be a generally long-lived 
species (>28 years) (Stewart et al. 2018a) with low reproductive 
output. Manta rays, like all chondrichthyans, reproduce via internal 
fertilization (Wourms 1981), and the sexes can be differentiated by the 
presence of myxopterigia, or claspers, on the inner margin of the 
pelvic fins in males, whereas females lack these structures. Sexual 
maturity in males can be easily determined by examining the level of 
calcification in these intromittent organs. In their examination of 
mobulids taken as bycatch in the Indonesian drift net fishery, White et 
al. (2006) found that male M. birostris greater than 3,800 mm DW 
possessed fully calcified claspers and were, therefore, mature, while 
those less than 3,800 mm DW possessed either non-calcified or partially 
calcified claspers. In the same study, White et al. (2006) found that 
females 2,732 to 3,774 mm DW were immature and females measuring 4,126 
mm DW and greater were mature. White and Last (2016) report similar 
ranges, with males maturing between approximately 3,750 and 4,000 mm DW 
and females maturing between approximately 4,100 and 4,700 mm DW. In 
the Flower Gardens Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS), Stewart et 
al. (2018b) observed a mature male M. birostris with an estimated size 
of 3,600 mm. The age that M. birostris matures is not known, but it may 
be similar to that of reef mantas, with males maturing at 3-6 years and 
females at 8-10 years (Stewart et al. 2018a).
    Gestation time is also not known for this species, and parturition 
has only been witnessed once and under unnatural conditions (Coles 
1916). It is suspected that gestation would be similar to that observed 
in M. alfredi, which is generally accepted to be 12 to 13 months 
(Kitchen-Wheeler 2013). In addition to the Coles (1916) observation of 
a single embryo aborted during capture, the limited investigations of 
pregnant females with embryos intact have all indicated the presence of 
a single embryo per pregnancy (Muller and Henle 1838-1841; Beebe and 
Tee-Van 1941). Similarly, reports of reef manta ray births and 
dissections have also all revealed only a single embryo (Homma et al. 
1999; Uchida et al. 2008). Size at birth has remained elusive for M. 
birostris. The embryos examined in the previous studies had sizes of 
1,140 mm and 1,270 mm DW (Muller and Henle 1838-1841; Beebe and Tee-Van 
1941), while the smallest free swimming individuals reported by Stewart 
et al. (2018b) were approximately 1,000 mm DW (however, these 
individuals may have been M. cf. birostris). Rambahiniarison et al. 
(2018) recently estimated size at birth of M. birostris to be 2,000 mm 
DW based on the DW of the largest fetus and the smallest free-living 
specimen captured in the Philippines mobulid fishery.
    Very little is known about the early life stages or habitat needs 
or requirements of M. birostris because, until fairly recently, 
juveniles have rarely been observed in the wild. However, large numbers 
of juvenile M. birostris have been caught in Sri Lanka in offshore 
pelagic habitats by the gill-net fisheries, landed by fisherman in 
Brazil and Indonesia, and also observed in oceanic habitats off Mexico 
(Stewart et al. 2016a; Stewart et al. 2018b). Stewart et al. (2016a) 
suggests that adult and juvenile giant mantas may use similar offshore 
pelagic habitats, but that the juveniles may avoid cleaning stations 
and other near-shore areas where adults are more commonly observed to 
reduce predation risk. In fact, results from stable isotope analyses of 
muscle tissues collected from both adult and juvenile M. birostris off 
Peru, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines appear to provide further 
confirmation that the species may not undergo an ontogenetic shift in 
feeding behavior or trophic level, with both adults and juveniles 
sharing the same habitats and targeting the same prey (Stewart et al. 
2017).
    In terms of prey, giant manta rays primarily feed on planktonic 
organisms such as euphausiids, copepods, mysids, decapod larvae, and 
shrimp, with some studies noting their consumption of small and 
moderate sized fishes as well (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Carpenter 
and Niem 2001; Graham et al. 2012; Stewart et al. 2016b; Burgess 2017; 
Rohner et al. 2017). They feed by swimming with their mouths open, 
continuously filtering zooplankton. Their gill rakers filter out water, 
leaving behind food particles that are then directed to the esophagus 
through cross-flow (Paig-Tran 2012). This filter mechanism allows 
mantas to retain prey of various sizes, even if they are smaller than 
the filter pores, which means they can effectively feed on mixed 
zooplankton assemblages where prey range in size from small calanoid 
copepods to larger mysids and euphausiids (Stewart et al. 2016b). Given 
the feeding habits of the giant manta ray, it can be considered a 
generalist carnivore, with a trophic position of approximately 3.4 
(Burgess et al. 2016; Burgess 2017).
    With regards to movement, the giant manta ray is considered to be a 
migratory species, with satellite tracking studies measuring straight 
line distances of up to 1,500 km (Hearn et al. 2014). Some giant manta 
rays appear to migrate seasonally, possibly due to the seasonal 
fluctuations in food sources (Wilson et al. 2001; Luiz et al. 2009; 
Graham et al. 2012; Sobral and Afonso 2014; De Boer et al. 2015; 
Girondot et al. 2015; Stewart et al. 2016a; Hacohen-Domen[eacute] et 
al. 2017). However, in some portions of its range, the species may 
actually exist as well-structured subpopulations with a high degree of 
residency (Stewart et al. 2016a).
    As discussed in the proposed rule (82 FR 3694, January 12, 2017) 
and final rule (83 FR 2916, January 22, 2018) to list the giant manta 
ray, the most significant threat to the species is overutilization for 
commercial purposes. Giant manta rays are both

[[Page 66654]]

targeted and caught as bycatch in a number of fisheries throughout 
their range, and are most susceptible to industrial purse-seine and 
artisanal gillnet fisheries. With the expansion of the international 
mobulid gill raker market and increasing demand for manta ray products, 
estimated take of giant manta rays, particularly in many portions of 
the Indo-Pacific, frequently exceeds numbers of identified individuals 
in those areas. Observations from these areas also indicate declines in 
sightings and landings of the species. Given the extremely low 
reproductive output and overall productivity of the giant manta ray, it 
is inherently vulnerable to threats that would deplete its abundance, 
with a low likelihood of recovery. So, while there is considerable 
uncertainty regarding the current abundance of M. birostris throughout 
its entire range, the best available information indicates that the 
species is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range (the 
Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific portion) due to overutilization.

Critical Habitat Identification and Designation

    Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA as: ``(i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed . . . , on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed . . . upon a 
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' This definition provides a step-wise 
approach to identifying areas that may qualify as critical habitat for 
the giant manta ray: (1) Determine the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time of listing; (2) identify physical or biological 
habitat features essential to the conservation of the species; (3) 
delineate specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species on which are found the physical or biological features; (4) 
determine whether the features in a specific area may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (5) determine whether any 
unoccupied areas are essential for conservation. Our evaluation and 
conclusions as we worked through this step-wise process are described 
in detail in the following sections.

Geographical Area Occupied by the Species

    The ``geographical area occupied by the species'' is defined in our 
regulations as ``an area that may generally be delineated around 
species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). 
Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the 
species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).'' (50 CFR 424.02). Further, our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) state: ``The Secretary will not 
designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas 
outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.'' As such, we focus 
the following discussion on the range of the species within waters 
under U.S. jurisdiction.
    In the Atlantic, giant manta rays have been confirmed as far north 
as Long Island, New York (offshore around the Hudson Canyon region) 
(Normandeau Associates and APEM Ltd 2017); however, as will be 
discussed later, we note that they are generally rare north of Cape 
Hatteras, North Carolina. To the south, giant manta rays occur off the 
coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (Marshall 
et al. 2011). Giant manta rays can also be found throughout the U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico and within the U.S. Caribbean, including off Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Marshall et al. 2011). In the central 
Pacific, giant manta rays are found off Hawaii (Clark 2010) and Jarvis 
Island (K. Lino unpublished data). While there have been no confirmed 
sightings of giant manta rays in waters of the other Pacific Remote 
Island Areas, Northern Mariana Islands (Kashiwagi et al. 2011), Guam 
(Kashiwagi et al. 2011), or American Samoa, based on confirmed 
observations of the species elsewhere throughout the Pacific (e.g., 
Ogasawara Islands, Japan (Kashiwagi et al. 2010); Philippines (Verdote 
and Ponzo 2014); French Polynesia (Mourier 2012); Jarvis Island (K. 
Lino unpublished data); Hawaii (Clark 2010)) and coupled with the 
migratory and pelagic nature of giant manta rays, their ability to 
exploit significant depths, and tolerance of tropical to temperate 
water temperatures, we find no known barriers to their movement that 
may prevent them from occurring at these locations.
    In the eastern U.S. Pacific, while there is documentation of a 
giant manta off the west coast (i.e., San Clemente Island, California), 
this sighting was of a single individual in 2014 (Warneke 2014) and 
there have been no documented sightings since (or prior to) this time. 
Given the amount of fishing effort, as well as the human population 
density in these regions, it is highly unlikely that substantial 
concentrations of giant manta rays would have passed unnoticed. As 
such, we consider this individual to be a vagrant of the species (an 
individual that occurs outside of the species' normal range). 
Therefore, as the occurrence of giant manta rays in waters off the U.S. 
west coast is extremely uncommon, we do not consider this geographical 
area to be part of the species' occupied range at the time of listing.

Conclusion

    Based on the above information and analysis, we define the 
geographical area occupied by the giant manta ray at the time of 
listing as all U.S. waters off the east coast, from Florida to Long 
Island, New York, the entire Gulf coast, the U.S. Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico in the Caribbean, and Hawaii, the Pacific Remote Islands 
Areas, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the 
Pacific.

Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation

    Within the geographical area occupied by an endangered or 
threatened species at the time of listing, critical habitat consists of 
specific areas upon which are found those physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection. The ESA does 
not specifically define physical or biological features; however, court 
decisions and joint NMFS-USFWS regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 provide 
guidance on how physical or biological features are expressed. 
Specifically, these regulations state that the physical and biological 
features are those that are essential to support the life-history needs 
of the species, including but not limited to, water characteristics, 
soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic 
species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat 
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. (50 CFR 
424.02).
    Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) defines the terms 
``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean: ``to use 
and the use of all

[[Page 66655]]

methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.'' For giant 
manta rays, we consider conservation to include the use of all methods 
and procedures necessary to bring giant manta rays to the point at 
which factors related to population ecology and vital rates indicate 
that the species is recovered in accordance with the definition of 
recovery in 50 CFR 402.02. Important factors related to population 
ecology and vital rates include population size and trends, range, 
distribution, age structure, gender ratios, age-specific survival, age-
specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success. Based on the 
available knowledge of giant manta ray population ecology and life 
history, we have identified four biological behaviors that are critical 
to the goal of increasing survival and population growth: (1) Foraging, 
(2) pupping, (3) migration, and (4) breeding. In the following section, 
we evaluate whether there are physical and biological features of the 
habitat areas known or thought to be used for these behaviors that are 
essential to the species' conservation because they facilitate or are 
intimately tied to these behaviors and, hence, support the life-history 
needs of the species. Because these behaviors are essential to the 
species' conservation, facilitating or protecting each one is 
considered a key conservation objective for any critical habitat 
designation for this species.

Analysis of the Physical and Biological Features of Foraging Habitat 
That Are Essential to the Conservation of the Species

    Giant manta rays are filter-feeders and generalist carnivores that 
feed on a variety of planktonic organisms, including euphausiids, 
copepods, mysids, decapod larvae and shrimp, as well as small fishes. 
Prey needs to be of sufficient density and quality to support the 
energy requirements for the giant manta rays, particularly as they 
conduct long-distance migrations across open oceans. Sustained 
decreases in prey quantity, quality, availability, or accessibility can 
decrease foraging success of giant manta rays and eventually lead to 
reduced individual growth, reproduction, and development. Therefore, 
using the best available data, we examined the diet and energy needs of 
giant manta rays, including foraging behavior, to determine whether we 
could identify physical or biological features of habitat that 
facilitate successful giant manta ray feeding and, thus, are essential 
for the conservation of the species.
    As mentioned above, planktonic organisms comprise the majority of 
the diet for giant manta rays. While it was previously assumed that 
manta rays obtain most of their energy needs from surface zooplankton, 
results from recent studies indicate that these feeding events may not 
be the primary source of the dietary intake (Burgess et al. 2016; 
Stewart et al. 2016b). For example, for giant manta rays off Ecuador, 
Burgess et al. (2016) estimated that, on average, mesopelagic food 
sources contribute 73 percent to the giant manta ray's diet compared to 
27 percent for surface zooplankton. In the Mexican Pacific, Stewart et 
al. (2016b) interpreted dive profiles and submersible video data of M. 
birostris to suggest that giant manta rays frequently forage on 
vertically migrating zooplankton and zooplankton in the epipelagic 
scattering layers in addition to surface zooplankton.
    Analysis of stomach contents and collection of zooplankton during 
observed giant manta ray feeding events reveal a varied diet, with no 
targeting of a specific species or size of prey (Graham et al. 2012; 
Armstrong et al. 2016; Stewart et al. 2016b; Burgess 2017; Rohner et 
al. 2017). Rather, density of the prey appears to be the driving factor 
that triggers giant manta ray feeding behavior. However, the levels 
necessary to attract giant manta rays remain unknown. For example, a 
study conducted by Burgess (2017) found that giant manta ray 
aggregations off the northwest side of Isla de la Plata, Ecuador, were 
unlikely associated with foraging opportunities as observations of 
feeding events were rare. Specifically, Burgess (2017) collected 
surface zooplankton during feeding events (n=5) and during non-feeding 
events (n=79) and calculated that the dry zooplankton biomass was 1.9 
mg m-3 during the rare M. birostris feeding events and 1.4 
mg m-3 during non-feeding events. Although comparable data 
are unavailable for M. birostris elsewhere throughout its range, these 
figures are substantially lower than what has been reported for the 
closely related reef manta ray, M. alfredi, in eastern Australia during 
regular active feeding (19.1 mg m-3) and non-feeding (9.3 mg 
m-3) events (Armstrong et al. 2016). In fact, Armstrong et 
al. (2016) determined that the critical prey density threshold for M. 
alfredi feeding was 11.2 mg m\-3\. If M. birostris has similar prey 
density thresholds, these data lend support to Burgess (2017)'s finding 
that the aggregative behavior of giant manta rays at Isla de la Plata 
is unlikely related to feeding. Furthermore, the data suggest that for 
habitat to be characterized as providing necessary foraging 
opportunities, it likely requires substantially higher levels of 
zooplankton biomass than what was found off Isla de la Plata.
    In terms of energy needs, the only available data that provides 
insight for M. birostris is from a study that examined the stomach 
contents of giant manta rays collected within the Bohol Sea 
(Philippines) in 2015 (Rohner et al. 2017). Using adiabatic bomb 
calorimetry, Rohner et al. (2017) calculated that krill (Euphausia 
diomedeae), the dominant prey species for M. birostris in this 
particular area, contributed 24,572 kJ (20,451 kJ s.d.) per 
100 g of stomach content in M. birostris. When scaled up based on the 
total number of euphausiids per stomach, the authors estimated that E. 
diomedeae contributed up to 631,167 kcal in the giant manta ray diet 
(Rohner et al. 2017). This energetic contribution is significantly 
greater than what has been found for reef manta rays in captivity. 
Rohner et al. (2017), citing a personal communication, reports that in 
aquaria, a 350 cm DW M. alfredi is fed 3,500 kcal per day and a 450 cm 
DW M. alfredi is fed 6,100 kcal per day, with captive reef manta rays 
consuming 12.7 percent of their body weight in euphausiids weekly 
(Homma et al. 1999). Although energy requirements and caloric intake 
for captive manta rays will likely be different than those found in the 
wild, Rohner et al. (2017) proposes that the significant calorific 
value of the M. birostris stomach contents suggests that giant manta 
rays partake in numerous feeding events over several days or, 
alternatively, engage in a few, sporadic, opportunistic feeding events 
on large aggregations of prey that can be used to sustain them until 
their next meal. Burgess (2017) tends to agree with the latter. The 
author cites the particularly large capacity of the M. birostris 
stomach, as well as the branchial filter pad and filtration mechanism 
used by manta rays (which allows for the capture of numerous 
macroscopic zooplankton and small fishes of varying sizes) to support 
the assumption that manta rays likely exploit large patches of 
zooplankton for a high net energy gain in a short period of time 
(Burgess 2017). However, with only one study that has examined the 
energy contents of a particular prey item of M. birostris in a specific 
area, it is difficult to make any conclusions as to the general energy 
needs or requirements for the species throughout its range.
    With the lack of available data regarding prey density thresholds 
or

[[Page 66656]]

caloric value requirements, we next looked at areas where manta rays 
have been observed or assumed to be feeding to determine whether we 
could identify any physical or biological features of these habitats 
that are tied to foraging behavior. In many portions of the species' 
range, it is the presence of seasonal upwelling events, which 
concentrate plankton and create patches of high productivity, that 
appear to drive the occurrence of giant manta rays in areas, presumably 
for foraging. For example, off the northern Yucat[aacute]n peninsula, 
Hacohen-Domen[eacute] et al. (2017) found a higher probability of M. 
birostris occurrence from July through September, with the main 
difference being the increase in primary productivity during this time 
of year (with particularly high probability of occurrence when primary 
productivity was at 4,500 mg 
C[middot]m-2[middot]day-1). Other features 
associated with a greater probability of giant manta ray presence in 
this area included sea surface temperatures (SST) warmer than 27 
[deg]C, shallow (<10 m depths) and nearshore waters (<50 km from 
shore), with a bottom slope of <0.5[deg] (Hacohen-Domen[eacute] et al. 
2017). However, the authors note that most of the manta rays observed 
in the study were not foraging but rather swimming alone or in pairs. 
While Hacohen-Domen[eacute] et al. (2017) did not observe or analyze 
feeding habits in their study, Hinojosa-Alvarez et al. (2016) confirmed 
foraging behavior in this area (specifically between 21[deg]46.020' N 
and 87[deg]01.200' W and 21[deg]30.00' and 86[deg]4100), with videos of 
Yucat[aacute]n manta rays feeding in surface waters from May through 
August (the same period as the seasonal upwelling).
    Seasonal occurrence of manta rays was also observed off the 
continental shelf of French Guiana. Specifically, Girondot et al. 
(2015) observed a peak in the presence of manta rays between July and 
December in the river-ocean transition zone off French Guiana. While 
specific features of the habitat where giant manta rays were observed 
was not provided, the authors did note that phytoplankton biomass and 
primary productivity is generally highest during the months of manta 
ray presence, with a biomass of over 25 mg Chl-a m-3 and 
productivity of over 8 g C[deg]m-2*day-1 
(Girondot et al. 2015).
    Similarly, in southeastern Brazil, giant manta rays are most 
frequently sighted in Laje de Santos Marine State Park (24[deg] S) 
during seasonal upwelling, from June to August (Luiz et al. 2009). 
During this time, the warm Brazil Current weakens and coastal waters 
change direction and move northward, bringing waters from the southern 
Falklands Current to areas of southeastern Brazil (Luiz et al. 2009). 
This current displaces a low salinity front (generated by discharge 
from the La Plata River) from the mouth of the La Plata River during 
the summer to areas north in the winter (Luiz et al. 2009). It is 
thought that this coastal front, which accumulates plankton, may 
attract giant manta rays at Laje de Santos Marine State Park in the 
winter months (Luiz et al. 2009). However, besides the greater presence 
of manta rays in this region during the seasonal upwelling event (based 
on diver photos), no information was provided regarding foraging 
activities or the essential physical or biological features of the 
habitat that are necessary to support this behavior.
    Off the coast of Suriname, De Boer et al. (2015) found that the 
presence of M. birostris coincided with the region's two rainy seasons. 
As the outflows of nutrient-rich waters from the Amazon and Suriname 
rivers lead to a low salinity front during the rainy seasons, the 
authors suggest that giant manta rays are visiting the coastal waters 
of Suriname for feeding purposes (De Boer et al. 2015). Although only a 
few observations of manta rays were recorded during the survey period, 
the authors found the behavior was likely indicative of foraging (i.e., 
swimming just below the surface with pectoral fins curled) (De Boer et 
al. 2015); however, again, no physical or biological features of the 
foraging habitat were identified.
    While upwelling events appear to be the main environmental factor 
driving manta ray foraging behavior, we note that Graham et al. (2012) 
also observed a giant manta ray feeding in oligotrophic waters during a 
seasonal fish spawning event. The giant manta ray was initially tagged 
off the northern Yucat[aacute]n peninsula in eutrophic waters and 
observed feeding on copepeds (Graham et al. 2012). However, 57 days 
later, it was re-sighted in oligotrophic waters foraging on fish eggs 
released during a seasonal spawning event of little tunny (Euthynnus 
alletteratus), suggesting that giant manta rays are also able to 
exploit different habitats when conditions arise that are suitable for 
foraging (Graham et al. 2012).
    Overall, based on the foregoing information regarding known or 
presumed foraging areas for giant manta rays, the general and 
consistent physical oceanographic feature that appear to be associated 
with foraging habitat is high primary productivity from upwelling 
events, which favors the potential accumulation of zooplankton. Yet the 
levels of primary productivity necessary to produce suitable foraging 
habitat are unknown, and this feature is relatively ubiquitous 
throughout the global range of the species, with not all areas of high 
primary productivity providing meaningful foraging habitat for giant 
manta rays. Furthermore, given that the characteristics of habitat 
necessary to produce areas of high primary productivity varies by 
region and site (e.g., seasonal upwelling events due to increased river 
discharge or wind-driven fronts), we proceeded to focus our examination 
on whether we could identify any physical and biological features of 
giant manta ray foraging areas within U.S. waters that are essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    In general, very little published literature exists on giant manta 
ray occurrence and behavior in U.S. waters. Adams and Amesbury (1998) 
documented the presence of three giant manta rays in the estuarine 
waters of the Indian River Lagoon system and in Port Canaveral, 
Florida. Foraging behavior was not observed and the authors proposed 
that individuals likely enter the estuary sporadically and stay for 
only short durations. Freedman and Roy (2012) used Ocean Biogeographic 
Information System (OBIS) data on giant manta ray observations to 
examine the spatial distribution of the species along the U.S. east 
coast. They found a higher number of observations near the continental 
shelf edge and bordering the Gulf Stream, and suggested a seasonal 
distribution of the species driven mainly by temperature, with giant 
manta rays primarily observed in waters from 19 [deg]C to 22 [deg]C 
(Freedman and Roy 2012). Manta rays are also known to visit the east 
coast of Florida, more often in the spring and summer months, moving 
north as water temperatures rise above 20 [deg]C (Levesque 2019). 
However, while it is known that giant manta rays prefer warmer waters, 
there is no evidence that this is a physical or biological feature that 
is essential to the conservation of the species or related to foraging 
activity. In fact, as noted in the literature, giant manta rays can be 
found in waters anywhere from 18 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C (Yano et al. 1999; 
Freedman and Roy 2012; Graham et al. 2012; Burgess 2017; Hacohen-
Domen[eacute] et al. 2017). Additionally, the OBIS data, upon which 
Freedman and Roy (2012) based their conclusions, also has inherent 
flaws as it is an open-access database where any member can submit 
observations of marine species without validation. As will be discussed 
below, there are significant misidentification issues associated with 
M. birostris observations and conclusions drawn from this type of 
sightings data should

[[Page 66657]]

be made with caution as there are significant uncertainties and 
limitations to the data.
    In the FGBNMS, Stewart et al. (2018b) documented high numbers of 
giant manta rays but specifically noted that foraging behavior was 
rare. Citing a personal observation (E. Hickerson), Stewart et al. 
(2018b) stated that mantas were only rarely seen exhibiting barrel 
rolling behavior (3 of 88 observations), indicative of feeding, at the 
banks. In his study of the Flower Garden Banks and surrounding banks, 
Childs (2001) documented M. birostris feeding behavior in February and 
March of 2000 through the use of a remotely operated vehicle. He noted 
that M. birostris generally fed along escarpments and within the water 
column over the reef crest; however, no other details were provided 
regarding these events.
    In our own examination of the available data, we compiled manta ray 
sightings data (NMFS unpublished data) from a number of available 
surveys (Table 1), photo databases, individual observations, and social 
media websites (e.g., YouTube and Facebook), and plotted the 
information to assess whether we could determine ``hot spots'' of giant 
manta rays, or areas where manta rays appear to be visiting 
consistently over time. We initially made the main assumption that 
sightings of the species were correlated with areas of high prey (as 
tends to be the case with observations of giant manta rays in other 
portions of its range). In other words, when a manta ray was spotted, 
we assumed it was likely because that animal was foraging in the area, 
but we also looked for behavioral (e.g., barrel rolling, mouth open, 
cephalic lobes unfurled) or environmental data (e.g., high plankton 
biomass) that could support this assumption as foraging may not be the 
only reason for manta ray presence.
    Because most manta sightings within surveys are opportunistic in 
surveys designed for other species, there are some misidentification 
issues and gaps in the time series. Many of the sightings data were 
obtained from aerial surveys aimed at collecting information on the 
distribution and abundance of marine mammals (for example, the Atlantic 
Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) and North 
Atlantic Right Whale Consortium data). This presents a problem as 
observers on these surveys are usually not trained in identifying 
mobulid rays to the species level. In discussions with biologist Todd 
Pusser, a contract observer for NOAA in the southeast region during the 
1990s and early 2000s who was then contracted through the NOAA 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) at Woods Hole and 
participated in these marine mammal surveys from Canada to Cape 
Hatteras, North Carolina, he confirmed that in both the NOAA aerial and 
ship surveys along the Atlantic coast, mobulid sightings were simply 
logged as ``manta ray'' or ``manta spp,'' thus greatly inflating the 
sightings data for M. birostris (T. Pusser, pers. comm. to C. Jones, 
NMFS SEFSC, 2018). In fact, when photos were available from 
accompanying ship and aerial surveys, the majority of the sightings 
logged as M. birostris in the northeast Atlantic were Mobula tarapacana 
or M. mobular (T. Pusser, pers. comm. to C. Jones, NMFS SEFSC, 2018).

                        Table 1--Available Survey Datasets With Reported Manta Sightings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Survey name                                    Year(s)                          Survey location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Aerial Baseline Survey--       2016, 2017......................................  Atlantic (38.45[deg] N
 NYSERDA.                                                                                 to 41.08[deg] N).
AMAPPS (aerial)......................  2010 through 2018...............................  Atlantic (26.03[deg] N
                                                                                          to 45.32[deg] N).
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium  1986 through 2017...............................  Atlantic (25[deg] N to
 database (various surveys).                                                              41[deg] N).
SEFSC Mid-Atlantic Tursiops Survey     1994, 1995......................................  Atlantic (24.5[deg] N
 (aerial).                                                                                to 40.50[deg] N).
SEFSC Southeast Cetacean Aerial        1992, 1995......................................  Atlantic (26.21[deg] N
 Survey.                                                                                  to 35.19[deg] N).
Florida Manta Project (boat & aerial;  2016, 2017, 2018................................  Atlantic (26.5[deg] N
 directed manta ray survey).                                                              to 27[deg] N).
GA Aquarium (boat & aerial; directed   2010 through 2017...............................  Atlantic (29.5[deg] N
 manta ray survey).                                                                       to 29.9[deg] N).
SEFSC Platform Calibration Survey      1991............................................  Atlantic (35.8[deg] N
 (aerial).                                                                                to 39.3[deg] N).
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal           2010, 2011, 2012................................  Gulf of Mexico (98[deg]
 Assessment Aerial Surveys--NRDA.                                                         W to 80.5[deg] W).
GoMAPPS (aerial).....................  2017, 2018......................................  Gulf of Mexico (97[deg]
                                                                                          W to 81[deg] W).
GulfCet (aerial).....................  1992, 1993, 1994, 1996,1997.....................  Gulf of Mexico
                                                                                          (96.5[deg] W to
                                                                                          84[deg] W).
SEFSC GoMex (aerial).................  1992, 1993, 1994, 1996..........................  Gulf of Mexico
                                                                                          (96.3[deg] W to
                                                                                          82[deg] W).
NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystems Program     2006, 2010......................................  Pacific Islands
 (towed diver survey).                                                                    (160[deg] W; Jarvis
                                                                                          Island).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Survey locations are given as geographic regions: Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Islands. For Atlantic
  locations, the latitude range over which the surveys were conducted is given. For Gulf of Mexico and Pacific
  Island locations, the longitude range over which the surveys were conducted is given.

    We similarly found this to be the case with another available 
dataset from the northeast Atlantic that documented 504 sightings of 
``Giant Manta Ray'' (Normandeau Associates and APEM Ltd 2017). This 
aerial survey, conducted in 2016 and 2017 and supported by the New York 
State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), encompassed 
the waters of the New York Bight from Long Island southeast to the 
continental shelf break. This dataset also had accompanying photos of 
each animal observation, which a NMFS species expert was able to review 
and confirm that only 6 of the 504 ``giant manta ray'' sightings were 
actually Manta birostris (C. Horn, NMFS SERO, pers. comm. to M. Miller, 
NMFS OPR, 2018). Similarly, in 2015, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries 
Observer Program database underwent a species verification review 
whereby NMFS scientists conducted a detailed review of observer photo 
records with the assistance of manta and devil ray experts (i.e., Dr. 
Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, Dr. Andrea Marshall, and Guy Stevens). 
From 2009 to 2015, there were 25 manta and mobula species records with 
photos in the database (J. Hare, memo, addressed to R.E. Crabtree, 
February 1, 2019). Most of the mobula bycatch consisted of Mobula 
tarapacana, with only two confirmed records of Manta birostris. These 
individuals were observed caught off the coast of North Carolina. This 
observer data appears to further confirm the rare occurrence of M. 
birostris in the U.S. mid-Atlantic and northeast, and supports the 
advice provided by species experts that all M. birostris sightings 
north of Cape Hatteras should be questioned if there are no 
corresponding photos.
    There may also be occasional misidentifications of M. birostris 
south

[[Page 66658]]

of Cape Hatteras as both Mobula tarapacana and M. mobular are also 
common in this portion of the species' range within the Atlantic 
(Stevens et al. 2018a, C. Jones unpublished data). Additionally, M. 
tarapacana co-occurs with Manta birostris in the Gulf of Mexico and 
Caribbean (Childs 2001), potentially confounding those aerial sighting 
records as well. Thus, while the presence of M. birostris south of Cape 
Hatteras is much more likely (based on photographic evidence), the 
proportion of M. birostris in these datasets to the other two commonly 
misidentified mobula rays is presently unknown, significantly 
increasing the uncertainty of the accuracy of the available sightings 
data.
    In addition to misidentification rates, we found other inherent 
problems with the sightings data during our analysis, including the 
uncertainty regarding unique sightings and the large gaps in time 
between surveys. For aerial surveys, planes are generally flown 
following designated transect lines. Depending on the transect distance 
and timing, there is potential for double-counting the same animal if 
the animal is also moving. Without being able to view the ventral side 
of the animal, it is difficult for aerial observers to identify whether 
the manta ray they are spotting is the same individual from a previous 
observation. Aerial surveys are also subject to availability bias 
(i.e., the percentage of time a manta would be near enough to the 
surface to be viewed by an aerial observer) and perception bias (i.e., 
the probability of an observer viewing the animal when it is 
available). While it is possible to control for some of this 
uncertainty using distance-weighted sampling techniques for perception 
bias combined with data from satellite tags for availability bias, we 
do not have the data or information that would be necessary in order to 
conduct this type of analysis at this time, nor are we aware of any 
available studies that have accounted for this uncertainty in reporting 
and analyzing manta ray sightings.
    Furthermore, as some of the aerial surveys were not regularly 
conducted on an annual or seasonal basis, but rather for specific 
research purposes that were unrelated to manta ray distribution or 
abundance, the resulting data was skewed in terms of effort in specific 
locations and over certain time periods and could not be used to 
identify potential areas used routinely or repeatedly by giant manta 
rays. For example, along the east coast, the SEFSC Mid Atlantic 
Tursiops Surveys (MATS), for which we have manta ray sightings 
information, were conducted in February of 1994 and July and August of 
1995 to examine the distribution and estimate an index of relative 
abundance for Atlantic bottlenose dolphins inhabiting nearshore coastal 
waters in the mid and southern Atlantic bight. We also have data from 
the SEFSC Southeast Cetacean Aerial Survey, SECAS, from February to 
March in 1992 and March of 1995, a survey that was conducted to 
estimate cetacean abundance. The Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal 
Assessment Aerial Surveys--Natural Resource Damage and Assessment 
surveys were only conducted during the spring and summer of 2010 and 
seasonally during 2011 to 2012 to assess the abundance and spatial 
distribution of marine mammals and sea turtles within the region 
impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Atlantic Marine 
Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS), which conducted 
annual aerial surveys from 2010-2017, had as its main objective 
assessing the abundance, distribution, ecology, and behavior of marine 
mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds throughout the U.S. Atlantic. 
However, again, these surveys, as well as others that were analyzed 
(see Table 1), varied with respect to the geographical coverage, years 
and even months in which they were conducted. Currently there are no 
available analyses of datasets or studies that control for spatial and 
temporal variation in sampling effort, perception and availability 
bias, and potential misidentification rates to distinguish areas of 
high giant manta ray abundance.
    Recently, we became aware of an ongoing dedicated manta ray aerial 
survey, conducted by the Georgia Aquarium, which has documented manta 
ray presence off the east coast of Florida since 2010. The manta aerial 
surveys are conducted in spring and summer (March/April to June/July) 
and follow general track lines 0 to 2.5 nautical miles (0 to 4.63 km) 
from the beach that run parallel to the shore, from St. Augustine Beach 
Pier (29[deg]52' N) to Flagler Beach Pier (29[deg]29' N). The number of 
mantas are counted and, occasionally, dorsal photos of mantas are 
collected during these surveys. However, due to the murkiness of the 
water, photos are rather hard to obtain if the mantas are too deep in 
the water column, and no ventral photos are available (H. Webb, GA 
Aquarium, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019), preventing the 
identification of individual manta rays or analysis of potential site 
fidelity over the course of multiple years. Overall, the sightings data 
indicate the seasonal visitation of manta rays to Florida's inshore 
waters; however, the specific physical or biological features that 
attract giant manta rays to this particular area are poorly understood. 
The numbers, location, and peak timing of the manta rays to this area 
varies by year, but with a notable decline in manta rays observed in 
the study area since 2015 (H. Webb unpublished data). While sea surface 
temperatures are thought to play a role in the initial migration of 
manta rays to the study site, preliminary analysis suggests that the 
within-season temperatures are not strongly correlated with manta ray 
distribution or abundance within the area (H. Webb, GA Aquarium, pers. 
comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019). Although foraging has been 
anecdotally observed during these surveys (H. Webb, GA Aquarium, pers. 
comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019) and mentioned in a few online 
fishing articles (Roberts 2016; Levesque 2019), we are unaware of any 
research that has determined the driving factor of manta ray occurrence 
in this area and/or investigated the physical or biological features of 
this area that may be essential to support the life history needs of 
the species. Without information on specific habitat characteristics or 
the relationship between environmental variables and manta ray 
abundance or distribution, the available sightings data do not allow us 
to identify important foraging areas at this time. A manuscript 
summarizing findings from the Georgia Aquarium sightings dataset is 
forthcoming (H. Webb, GA Aquarium, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 
2019), and we intend to review any new information that becomes 
available regarding manta ray use of this area off Florida.
    Overall, the best available information indicates that giant manta 
rays will feed on a variety of planktonic organisms and are not limited 
by the required presence of a specific prey species for successful 
foraging to occur. Areas of high primary productivity (e.g., upwelling) 
are generally regarded as habitat that could potentially support giant 
manta ray foraging events; however, the physical and biological 
characteristics of high productivity areas can vary depending on the 
location and season. Additionally, the presence of these areas does not 
necessarily indicate giant manta ray foraging will occur as the 
available data suggest some unknown prey density threshold may be 
necessary to facilitate manta ray foraging or aggregations. In U.S. 
waters, foraging has been anecdotally observed, but the available

[[Page 66659]]

data do not indicate any specific physical and biological features of 
these areas that are essential for facilitating foraging events or 
specific sites that are used consistently for foraging purposes. For 
the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to identify any physical or 
biological features related to foraging that are essential to the 
conservation of the species, nor any specific areas that are essential 
to support the foraging needs of the species within waters under U.S. 
jurisdiction.

Analysis of the Physical and Biological Features of Pupping Habitat 
That Are Essential to the Conservation of the Species

    Giant manta rays likely give birth to only one pup per pregnancy 
after a long gestation time (12-13 months). This very low reproductive 
output for the species means that the success of pupping events is 
essential for the conservation of the species. Identifying and 
protecting important pupping habitat throughout the species' range will 
be necessary to support recruitment of young individuals to the 
recovering population. Without sufficient nursery habitat, the 
population is unlikely to increase to a level associated with low 
extinction risk and delisting. Protection of the species' nurseries is 
crucial because the rebuilding of the population cannot occur without 
protecting the source (juvenile) population and its associated 
habitats. Therefore, using the best available data, we attempted to 
identify potential nursery habitats and determine whether we could 
identify physical or biological features of the habitat that facilitate 
successful giant manta ray pupping and, thus, are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    For the purposes of identifying potential nursery habitat, we 
considered giant manta rays that were less than 4,000 mm DW to be 
immature, with a size at birth of ~2,000 mm DW. As mentioned 
previously, juvenile giant manta rays are rarely observed in the wild 
but are present in the fishery landings data from many countries, 
including Sri Lanka, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines. While this 
indicates that fishermen are accessing potentially important juvenile 
habitat and possibly nursery areas, we have no data on these fishing 
grounds that could provide insight into important physical or 
biological features of these areas. However, recent manta ray research 
in U.S. waters has documented the presence of juvenile giant manta rays 
in the FGBNMS in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico as well as off the east coast 
of Florida, suggesting the existence of juvenile and potential manta 
ray nursery habitat, which we discuss below.
    For the FGBNMS, both Childs (2001) and Stewart et al. (2018b) 
suggested this area may contain potential nursery grounds for the 
species. Although juveniles are rarely observed globally, a high number 
of juveniles were sighted at several locations in the FGBNMS over 
multiple years. Based on an analysis of NOAA diver logs (from various 
coral reef and fish surveys), approximately 171 individual manta rays 
have been sighted within the FGBNMS since 1994 (C. Jones unpublished 
data). Of these, 114 have approximate recorded sizes. Around 97 percent 
of the individuals sighted were less than 4 m DW (i.e., immature), and 
around 50 percent were 2 m DW (i.e., estimated size at birth of M. 
birostris) or less. However, M. cf. birostris may comprise the majority 
of these sightings as Stewart et al. (2018b) noted that at least 55 
percent of the manta rays identified in their study likely belong to M. 
cf. birostris, which is thought to be closer in size to M. alfredi 
(Stevens et al. 2018a) and potentially explains the observations of 
mantas with sizes smaller than the estimated size at birth for M. 
birostris.
    Using the nursery habitat criteria proposed by Heupel et al. 
(2007), Stewart et al. (2018b) suggested that the FGBNMS may contain 
nursery habitat for giant manta rays because juveniles, which are 
generally rare, are found in this area, remain in the area for a period 
of several days to months, and have been sighted with gaps of more than 
a year between re-sightings. The FGBNMS is a unique area, situated over 
100 miles offshore of the Texas/Louisiana border and comprised of 
shallow, underwater features, called salt domes, upon which diverse 
coral reef communities have developed and thrived. There is substantial 
upwelling, distinct thermoclines, and unique eddies that form in the 
area, presumably due to interactions between currents and the 
pronounced benthic features. Stewart et al. (2018b) proposed that the 
FGBNMS may be an optimal nursery ground because it contains habitat 
near the edge of the continental shelf and in proximity to abundant 
pelagic food resources. Important prey for manta rays, like 
euphausiids, are abundant in the deep scattering layers in the basin 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Stewart et al. 2018b). The authors state 
that an additional benefit of the FGBNMS is that the shallow bottom 
habitat may protect juvenile rays from predation while they rest and 
recover their body temperature in the warm mixed layer after deep 
foraging dives (Stewart et al. 2018b).
    However, while the FGBNMS provides habitat for juvenile giant manta 
rays, the available data do not indicate any specific physical and 
biological features within the FGBNMS that are essential for supporting 
pupping behavior or necessary for a manta ray nursery. For example, in 
examining specific physical features, like temperature, we found that 
the majority of individuals (~75 percent) at the FGBNMS were sighted 
between July and September (Stewart et al. 2018b). Sea surface 
temperatures during these sightings ranged from 20 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C, 
with ~75 percent of mantas observed in 28 [deg]C to 31 [deg]C (C. Jones 
unpublished data). However, dives during which observations were 
collected were skewed towards summer months (i.e., warmer temperatures) 
and specific sites and depths (limited to areas above 150 ft (45.7 m)), 
meaning that the increased observations of giant manta rays in the 
higher temperature range may be a consequence of the survey methodology 
and not a reflection of an essential feature of the habitat.
    Next, we reviewed the available data regarding behavior to see if 
we could identify specific habitat features based on use of the habitat 
that are necessary to support pupping. As stated in Stewart et al. 
(2018b) and Childs (2001), the primary behavior of manta rays observed 
in the FGBNMS was mainly swimming, with manta rays swimming above reef 
crest and sand flats, along escarpments, and in the water column. 
Although more juveniles were sighted at East and West Flower Garden 
Banks (hermatypic coral habitat) than at Stetson Bank (silt/claystone 
dominated coral community), acoustic telemetry tagging has shown that 
juvenile mantas move between East, West, Stetson, and Bright Bank 
within FGBNMS (R. Graham, Wildlife Conservation Society, pers. comm. to 
C. Horn, NMFS SERO, 2018). Stewart et al. (2018b) suggest the FGBNMS 
likely provides ample feeding opportunities for juveniles, but they 
acknowledge that foraging behavior is only rarely observed. Similarly, 
Childs (2001) mentioned that foraging behavior at the FGBNMS was 
observed in only two months (February and March) of his study despite 
manta rays occurring in the area during all months.
    While the presence of young giant manta rays suggest potential 
pupping in the vicinity of the area (Childs 2001), the available data 
do not allow us to identify where this pupping is occurring. 
Additionally, the available data do not explain why or how giant manta 
rays are using this particular habitat (e.g., foraging, transiting, 
resting) or allow us to identify the essential

[[Page 66660]]

physical or biological features of the habitat. Therefore, we cannot 
identify any pupping areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat.
    Research (supported by NMFS and the National Ocean Service, in 
collaboration with the Manta Trust) on the movements and genetics of 
giant manta rays continues in the FGBNMS and may help provide answers 
to these questions in the future. However, at this time, the available 
data do not indicate any physical or biological features of this 
habitat that are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Similar to the FGBNMS, juvenile M. birostris have also been 
regularly observed off the east coast of Florida in the past several 
years. Since 2016, researchers with the Marine Megafauna Foundation 
have been conducting annual surveys along a small transect off Palm 
Beach, Florida, between Jupiter Inlet and Boynton Beach Inlet (~44 km, 
24 nautical miles) (J. Pate, MMF, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 
2018). Results from these surveys indicate that juvenile manta rays are 
present in these waters for the majority of the year (observations span 
from May to December), with re-sightings data that suggest some manta 
rays may remain in the area for extended periods of time or return in 
subsequent years (J. Pate unpublished data). For example, one satellite 
tagged male has been re-sighted multiple times in the past 3 years 
(Marine Megafauna Foundation 2019). However, similar to the limitations 
of the FGBNMS data and the level of resolution, it is currently unclear 
what physical or biological characteristics of this habitat are 
necessary to facilitate successful pupping behavior or are essential 
for nursery habitat. Manta rays are difficult to detect using boat-
based observation. When an observer spotted a manta ray, he/she would 
get into the water and collect habitat information, behavioral data, as 
well as photos of the manta ray. This type of data collection has 
limitations. For example, water turbidity, depth, and weather 
conditions may make manta rays harder to spot from a boat. As such, the 
fact that the majority of manta rays were spotted over sand is likely 
due to increased visibility over this type of habitat compared to 
others (such as reef habitat) (J. Pate, personal communication, 2018) 
as opposed to a biological necessity for this type of habitat. 
Additionally, the main behavior observed in the transect area was 
swimming, with occasional observations of foraging behavior near 
Jupiter Inlet (J. Pate, MMF, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2018). 
In other words, similar to the FGBNMS, the available data only indicate 
juvenile manta ray presence in these areas and does not explain why or 
how giant manta rays are using the particular habitat that would help 
us identify any physical or biological features that are essential for 
the conservation of the species. We also note that the majority, if not 
all, of these juvenile manta rays observed off the east coast of 
Florida are thought to be M. cf. birostris (J. Pate, MMF pers. comm. to 
M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2018) and not M. birostris. NMFS researchers are 
currently collaborating with colleagues at the Marine Megafauna 
Foundation to tag these manta rays off the Florida coast and collect 
genetic information in order to inform taxonomy, determine population 
structure, and learn more about their movements to gain a better 
understanding of their habitat use in this region. Anecdotal 
observations from some of these recent tagging trips (June and August 
2019) suggest this area may provide foraging opportunities (N. Farmer, 
NMFS SERO, pers. comm. to M. Miller, NMFS OPR, 2019); however, further 
investigation is required as the available information does not 
indicate any specific physical and biological features of this area 
that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species.
    We also obtained anecdotal observations of juvenile giant manta 
rays in the U.S. Caribbean from off Puerto Rico (n=10; sightings dating 
back to 2004) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (n=16; sightings dating back 
to 2012), and in the U.S. Pacific from off Hawaii and the Pacific 
Remote Island Areas (n=24; sightings dating back to 2003) that indicate 
the use of these waters by young giant manta rays (NMFS unpublished 
data). However, as stated before, simply the observation of the 
presence of juveniles using these waters (and further confounded by a 
lack of known abundance, duration, movement, or frequency of occurrence 
in these areas) is not enough information to indicate that these areas 
contain physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    In summary, while we have evidence of the presence and use of 
specific areas by juvenile giant manta rays, the available information 
does not allow us to identify any physical or biological features 
within these areas that are essential to support the life-history needs 
of the species. Without knowledge of the essential features that create 
meaningful pupping and nursery grounds, we cannot identify any areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat at this time.

The Physical and Biological Features of Migratory Habitat That Are 
Essential to the Conservation of the Species

    Based on the available data, it is evident that both small and 
large-scale migratory movements are a necessary component in the life-
history of the giant manta ray. Seasonal sightings data suggests that 
large-scale movements are undertaken primarily for foraging purposes, 
correlated with the movement of zooplankton and influenced by current 
circulation and tidal patterns, seasonal upwelling, and seawater 
temperature (Luiz et al. 2009; Couturier et al. 2012; Freedman and Roy 
2012; Graham et al. 2012; Sobral and Afonso 2014; De Boer et al. 2015; 
Girondot et al. 2015; Armstrong et al. 2016; Hacohen-Domen[eacute] et 
al. 2017). Small-scale movements also appear to be associated with 
exploiting local prey patches in addition to refuging and cleaning 
activities (O'Shea et al. 2010; Marshall et al. 2011; Graham et al. 
2012; Rohner et al. 2013; Stewart et al. 2016a; Stewart et al. 2016b; 
Sotelo 2018). However, as sightings of giant manta rays tend to be 
sporadic, with the species more commonly found offshore and in oceanic 
waters, it is difficult to track small-scale and large-scale migratory 
behavior of the species. For logistical reasons, survey effort tends to 
be focused in nearshore habitats. Yet, through the opportunistic 
tagging of giant manta rays with pop-up satellite archival tags when in 
these nearshore areas, researchers have been able to provide evidence 
of the migratory nature of giant manta rays and demonstrate the 
species' ability to make large-scale migrations. For example, satellite 
tracking has registered movements of the giant manta ray from 
Mozambique to South Africa (a distance of 1,100 km), around Ecuador and 
its islands (between the Isla de la Plata, Bajo Cope, and Isla Santa 
Clara (El Oro, Ecuador); around 230 km), and from the Yucat[aacute]n, 
Mexico into the Gulf of Mexico (448 km) (Marshall et al. 2011; Guerrero 
and Hearn 2017; Sotelo 2018). Off Mexico's Yucat[aacute]n peninsula, 
Graham et al. (2012) calculated a maximum distance travelled by a giant 
manta ray to be 1,151 km (based on a cumulative straight line distance 
between locations; tag period ranged from 2 to 64 days). Similarly, 
Hearn et al. (2014) report on a tagged M. birostris that was tracked 
from Isla de la Plata (Ecuador) to west of Darwin Island (tag was 
released after 104 days), a straight-line distance of 1,500 km, further 
confirming that the species is capable of fairly long distance 
migrations.

[[Page 66661]]

    For the most part, these larger-scale migrations appear to be 
seasonally-based for foraging purposes, as described previously, with 
giant manta rays appearing in areas undergoing seasonal upwelling 
events. For example, through analysis of photographs and videos of 
mobulids from 1990 to 2013, Sobral and Afonso (2014) confirmed the 
presence of M. birostris at the Azores islands and noted that its 
occasional presence (several encounters per year) at these remote 
islands indicates a strong seasonal migratory behavior. However, the 
origin of these mantas, and the potential migratory paths that they use 
to get to these remote islands, remain unknown.
    Similarly, seasonal sightings of M. birostris off the Isla de la 
Plata, Ecuador, predominantly occur from August to October, with a peak 
in early September (Guerrero and Hearn 2017); however, from where these 
mantas originate is currently under investigation. Recently, Sotelo 
(2018) examined the genetic diversity of these manta rays from 2010 to 
2013 and found that it was moderately high, with an average expected 
heterozygosity value (He = 0.679) comparable to similar species that 
are known to undertake long-distance migrations. The results also 
suggest that the manta rays may migrate in family groups, but that they 
may not always visit the same areas consistently. For example, Sotelo 
(2018) found population structure between the manta rays sampled in 
2013 compared to the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, with the 2013 manta 
rays representing a different population. The authors note that copepod 
numbers peaked at the Isla de la Plata in May of 2013, two months later 
than the previous years in the study (Sotelo 2018). As manta rays 
demonstrate high plasticity in terms of their movements in search of 
prey, Sotelo (2018) reasoned that the change in timing of the copepod 
peak likely explains why a different manta ray population visited the 
island in 2013 compared to previous years. However, again, the origin 
of these mantas, and the potential migratory routes traveled by these 
mantas to the Isla de la Plata are currently unknown.
    While long-distance migratory information is lacking, scientists 
have tagged some of these mantas during their seasonal visitation to 
these nearshore areas, and have gained additional information on their 
smaller-scale movement patterns around and from these sites. For 
example, in Isla de la Plata, two mantas were tagged from September 
2017 to January 2018 with tracks that revealed coastal movements 
between Ecuador and northern Peru (Sotelo 2018). These two mantas 
remained within 200 km of the shoreline and did not move more than 300 
km south of Isla de la Plata, where they were originally tagged. 
However, based on the track lines (see Annex C; Sotelo 2018), there is 
no clear migratory corridor that they appear to use, with movements 
traversing throughout the entire area.
    Off the Yucat[aacute]n peninsula, Graham et al. (2012) tagged 6 
giant manta rays (4 females, 1 male, and 1 juvenile) and tracked their 
movements for up to 64 days. The tagged manta rays traversed the 
frontal zones repeatedly, probably in search of prey (Graham et al. 
2012), with no clear migratory route. The majority of manta ray tracks 
were more than 20 km offshore, in water depths of less than 50 m, and 
the animals traveled up to 116 km from their original tagging location 
(Graham et al. 2012). The authors also noted that there were no 
differences in movement patterns based on sex, body size, or ambient 
water-column temperature. Their conclusion, based on the tracking data, 
was that giant manta rays forage over large spatial scales (~100 km 
long) that are too far offshore and wide-ranging to be completely 
captured in the existing Marine Protected Area networks within the 
Mexican Exclusive Economic Zone (Graham et al. 2012). In other words, 
there does not appear to be a specific migratory corridor that dictates 
these smaller-scale foraging movements. Rather, manta rays appear to be 
opportunistic feeders, with movements in and around frontal zones or 
areas that are likely to contain prey.
    While the available data indicate that giant manta rays may be 
capable of long-distance movements, a recent study by Stewart et al. 
(2016a) suggests that the species may not be as highly migratory as 
previously thought. Using pop-up satellite archival tags in combination 
with analyses of stable isotope and genetic data, the authors found 
evidence that M. birostris off the Pacific coast of Mexico may actually 
exist as well-structured subpopulations that exhibit a high degree of 
residency. For example, unlike the giant manta ray in the Hearn et al. 
(2014) study (that traveled from Isla de la Plata to the Galapagos 
Islands), tagged M. birostris individuals from locations nearshore to 
Mexico (Bahia de Banderas; n=5) and offshore Mexico (Revillagigedo 
Islands; n=4) showed no movements between locations (tag deployment 
length ranged from 7 days to 193 days) (Stewart et al. 2016a). The 
stable isotope analysis showed higher [delta]\13\C values for the 
nearshore mantas compared to those offshore, indicating these mantas 
were foraging in their respective locations rather than moving between 
nearshore and offshore environments (Stewart et al. 2016a). 
Additionally, the genetic analysis provided evidence of population 
structure between the coastal Mexico and offshore Mexico populations 
(Stewart et al. 2016a). While the authors note that the species may be 
capable of occasional long-distance movements, the results from their 
study indicate that, for some populations, these types of long-distance 
movements may be rare and may not contribute to substantial gene flow 
or inter-population mixing of individuals (Stewart et al. 2016a).
    Overall, the available data indicate that giant manta rays undergo 
both short- and long-distance migrations; however, the space or any 
specific migratory corridor used by the species during these migrations 
remains unknown. In addition, we have no information on any potential 
migratory corridors that may exist within waters under U.S. 
jurisdiction for the giant manta ray. As mentioned previously, we are 
currently supporting and conducting tracking studies of giant manta 
rays within U.S. waters to better understand the fine-scale movements 
of the species off the coast of Florida and within the FGBNMS. Data 
from these or similar studies may reveal potential migratory corridors 
preferred by giant manta rays. Similarly, survey efforts by the Georgia 
Aquarium off the coast of St. Augustine, Florida, may also help 
elucidate some of these questions in the future.
    As noted previously in this determination, giant manta rays appear 
to have a seasonal pattern of occurrence along the east coast of 
Florida, showing up with greater frequencies (and in greater numbers) 
in the spring and summer months. In fact, sightings of manta rays in 
the region signal to fishermen the start of cobia fishing as fishermen 
have found that cobia tend to closely associate with the manta rays as 
they migrate along the east coast of Florida. Based on information from 
recreational cobia fishing articles, manta rays tend to appear off 
Florida's coast when water temperatures climb above 20 [deg]C to 21 
[deg]C; however, Levesque (2019) notes that it is ``impossible to 
predict when they will show up from one year to the next.'' Killer 
(2010) states that in Florida's Treasure Coast waters, mantas may not 
show up every year, and it is unclear where they come from or where 
they go after they leave the area. Quoting two charter vessel captains, 
Killer (2010) reports that the mantas have been observed along the 
coast moving from south to north as waters warm, but have also been 
observed doing the opposite migration,

[[Page 66662]]

with some potentially moving from offshore to inshore waters as well 
during this time. McNally (2012) believes that the spring migration of 
rays off northeast Florida is occurring much farther offshore than in 
the past, noting that the mantas used to be observed just off the beach 
breakers but are now more than 10 miles offshore. We also note that 
during the migratory season, manta rays tend to be found in both 
shallow and deep waters (Killer 2010; Levesque 2019), with no 
information to suggest they are restricted to a certain area off the 
coast of Florida.
    While the available information confirms the migratory behavior of 
the species in U.S. waters, the data do not indicate that there are any 
specific routes or corridors that are consistently used by the species 
during their migration. In fact, as noted previously, McNally (2012) 
suggests that a dedicated corridor may not exist, or that some other 
unknown feature may be influencing their spatial patterns during these 
migrations. Additionally, Roberts (2016) notes that ``no studies have 
shown a correlation of bottom structure (reef lines, continental shelf, 
etc.) and the ray's migration pattern,'' nor have we come across any 
studies since that article was published. Therefore, at this time, and 
based on the foregoing information, we cannot identify any specific 
essential features that define migratory habitat for giant manta rays.

The Physical and Biological Features of Breeding Habitat That Are 
Essential to the Conservation of the Species

    Little information exists on the reproductive ecology of the giant 
manta ray as mating behavior of M. birostris is rarely observed in the 
wild. However, based primarily on observations of M. alfredi mating 
behavior, Stevens et al. (2018b) identified seven stages of courtship 
for manta rays: (1) Initiation, (2) endurance, (3) evasion, (4) pre-
copulation positioning, (5) copulation, (6) post-copulation holding, 
(7) separation. The initiation stage involves males shadowing females 
at normal cruising speeds. During this stage, males will often attempt 
to facilitate female receptiveness by using the cephalic fins to gently 
stroke the females' dorsal surface. During the endurance stage, 
swimming speeds increase and from 1 to 8 males follow closely behind a 
single female. The evasion stage is characterized by continued close 
following at increased speeds with the female incorporating rapid 
maneuvers, somersaults, and flips, with males attempting to stay right 
behind her. Pre-copulation positioning involves the male using his 
cephalic fins to guide himself down the females' back along the leading 
edge of her pectoral fin. Once at the fin's tip, the male grasps it 
firmly with his mouth then rotates his body so that he is underneath 
the female and the two are abdomen to abdomen. Copulation then occurs, 
usually initiating near the surface, with the male continuing to move 
his fins to maintain position while the female ceases movement. The 
clasper is inserted in the cloaca and copulation lasts between 30 and 
90 seconds, while the pair slowly sinks (Stevens et al. 2018b).
    Only a few instances of courtship involving giant manta rays have 
actually been observed, with only a single instance resulting in 
copulation. On two separate occasions, in early August 1996 at the 
Ogasawara Islands, Japan, Yano et al. (1999) witnessed a male M. 
birostris chasing closely behind a female at relatively high speeds 
(~10 km/hr). In both instances, the behavior was observed for 
approximately 40 minutes but did not result in copulation. Stevens et 
al. (2018b) also witnessed two occurrences of this ``endurance'' stage 
in M. birostris, one involving a single female followed by a single 
male, and the other involving a single female followed by eight males. 
Both of these observations were made off of the remote island of 
Fuvahmulah in the Maldives, lasted approximately one minute, and 
neither resulted in observed copulation. The only observation of 
successful copulation was reported by Yano et al. (1999) who witnessed 
two males chasing a single female in a zigzag pattern off the Ogasawara 
Islands in early July 1997. Speeds were similar to those witnessed 
during other observations; however, these chases progressed all the way 
through the rest of the stages of copulatory behavior (Yano et al. 
1999). The chases occurred approximately 30 minutes apart, with both 
males observed inserting their claspers into the same female (Yano et 
al. 1999).
    In terms of habitat characteristics, the mating behavior in the 
Maldives location occurred at a known aggregation site for the species 
(Stevens et al. 2018b). Females were chased along the reef crest of the 
atolls in the area (Stevens et al. 2018b). However, while the authors 
noted that most of the mating behavior for M. alfredi happened at 
cleaning stations, for M. birostris, the mating occurred at locations 
where giant manta rays tend to just pass through (Stevens et al. 
2018b). In other words, the area where the mating behavior was observed 
did not appear to have any other significance for the species. Off the 
Ogasawara Islands, Japan, Yano et al. (1999) described the site of the 
mating behavior as 100-200 m offshore of the east coast of Chichijima 
(one of the Ogasawara Islands), within an area comprised of rocky reefs 
in 10-20 m depth. The authors noted that each copulation event happened 
within one meter of the surface (Yano et al. 1999).
    Giant manta ray breeding sites are also thought to occur off 
Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands based on the presence of pregnant 
females and recent mating scars. In fact, some of the first pregnant 
females ever seen in the wild have been sighted in the productive 
coastal waters off Isla de la Plata in the Machalilla National Park, 
Ecuador. According to Guerrero and Hearn (2017), between 2009 and 2015, 
8 pregnant giant mantas were observed off Isla de La Plata, with 7 of 
these reported in 2011. Additionally, photographic records from 2012 to 
2015 showing fresh scars on the pectoral fins of mature female giant 
manta rays around Isla de la Plata and Bajo Cop[eacute] indicate the 
likely use of these Ecuadorian aggregation sites as mating areas 
(Guerrero and Hearn 2017). In terms of habitat characteristics of these 
areas, the authors note that the majority of giant manta rays seen in 
Isla de la Plata are off the northwest area of the island, in Punta El 
Faro, Roca Honda, and La Pared (Guerrero and Hearn 2017). These 
particular areas are close to deep waters, with a bottom characterized 
by coarse sand and scattered rocks. Calcareous coral formations can be 
found between 0 and 14 m depths and soft corals (gorgonians) can be 
found in deeper depths (Guerrero and Hearn 2017). La Pared, in 
particular, contains pinnacles and rocks that extend to the northwest 
and create an edge with a steep drop to 52 m depths (Guerrero and Hearn 
2017). The authors state that giant manta rays do not remain in the 
area for very long (usually around a few days to a week), but may 
return in multiple years and hypothesize that their purpose for 
visiting the island could be primarily for cleaning purposes, mating, 
and/or feeding as all three behaviors are observed at this site 
(Guerrero and Hearn 2017).
    Within U.S. waters, there are very few observations of mating 
behavior. In our collection of manta ray sightings and videos, there 
are only 4 records of ``chasing'' or ``courtship'' behavior of M. 
birostris. Three of the records are from diver observations off the 
west coast of Hawaii (Manta Pacific Research Foundation 2019), and the 
fourth is from an instagram video off Avon Fishing Pier, North 
Carolina, taken in July 2019 (G. Stevens, Manta Trust,

[[Page 66663]]

pers. comm. to C. Horn, NMFS SERO, 2019); however, there is no 
corresponding information regarding habitat features related to these 
records (just individual sightings data). Given that the areas where 
giant manta ray mating occurs remain largely unknown, with only a few, 
opportunistic observations of courtship behavior or evidence of 
breeding (i.e., mating scars, pregnant females) in a couple of 
locations, there has not been any systematic evaluation of the 
particular physical or biological features that facilitate or are 
necessary for mating to occur. The general habitat characteristics 
mentioned above in relation to the observations of mating behavior, 
including presence of rocky and coral reefs, shallow depths, coarse 
sand, and reef crests adjacent to deep water, are found throughout the 
species' range and are commonly associated with giant manta ray 
sightings (Yano et al. 1999; Childs 2001; Kashiwagi et al. 2011; 
Marshall et al. 2011; Stevens et al. 2018b; Stewart et al. 2018b). 
However, not all areas with the above features provide meaningful 
mating habitat as, for example, many of the observations from the 
studies previously discussed (for foraging, pupping, and migratory 
habitat) also noted the presence of these habitat features but did not 
observe mating behavior in M. birostris. As such, at this time, the 
available information does not allow us to identify any physical or 
biological features within these areas where mating has been observed 
that are essential to support this behavior.

Unoccupied Areas

    Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA defines critical habitat to include 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a threatened 
or endangered species at the time it is listed if the areas are 
determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the 
species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) address designation of 
unoccupied area as critical habitat and the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(g) state that critical habitat shall not be designated within 
foreign countries or in other areas outside of United States 
jurisdiction.
    As discussed previously, the waters off the U.S. west coast are not 
considered part of the geographical area occupied by giant manta ray at 
the time of listing. We also conclude that it is not an unoccupied area 
essential to the species' conservation given the rare, errant use of 
the area by a vagrant giant manta ray in the past, and no information 
to suggest the area is essential to the conservation of the species. 
The other geographical areas under U.S. jurisdiction that were not 
included in the discussion of occupied areas by the giant manta ray 
(i.e., U.S. waters north of Long Island, New York) are considered to be 
out of the species' livable range and, thus, would not be essential to 
the conservation of the species. As such, we find that there are no 
specific areas outside the geographical areas occupied by M. birostris 
that would meet the definition of critical habitat for the giant manta 
ray.

Critical Habitat Determination

    Given the best available information and the above analysis of this 
information, we find that there are no identifiable occupied areas 
under the jurisdiction of the United States with physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species or 
unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species. 
Therefore, we conclude that there are no specific areas within the 
giant manta ray range and under U.S. jurisdiction that meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Per 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(iv), if no 
areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat,'' then we can conclude 
that a designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
    Although we have made this ``not prudent'' determination, the areas 
occupied by giant manta rays under U.S. jurisdiction will continue to 
be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the ESA, as well as consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 
for Federal activities that may affect the giant manta ray, as 
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time 
of the action. Through the consultation process, we will continue to 
assess effects of Federal actions on the species and its habitat.
    Additionally, we remain committed to promoting the recovery of the 
giant manta ray through both domestic and international efforts. As 
noted in the proposed and final rules (82 FR 3694, January 12, 2017; 83 
FR 2916, January 22, 2018, respectively), the most significant threat 
to the giant manta ray is overutilization by commercial and artisanal 
fisheries operating within the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 
portions of its range, primarily in areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. 
Giant manta rays are both targeted and caught as bycatch in a number of 
fisheries throughout their range, and while the majority of these 
fisheries target manta rays for their meat, there has been an 
increasing demand for manta ray gill plates for use in Asian medicine, 
primarily in the Indo-West Pacific. Efforts to address overutilization 
of the species through regulatory measures appear inadequate, with 
evidence of targeted fishing of the species despite prohibitions in a 
number of countries, and only one regional fisheries management 
organization measure to address bycatch issues (Miller and Klimovich 
2017). Thus, recovery of the giant manta ray is highly dependent upon 
international conservation efforts. To address this, we have developed 
a recovery plan outline that provides our preliminary strategy for the 
conservation of the giant manta ray. This outline can be found on our 
website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray# 
resources and provides an interim recovery action plan as well as 
preliminary steps we will take towards the development of a full 
recovery plan.
    Currently, we are actively engaged in manta ray research to gain a 
better understanding of the biology, behavior, and ecology of this 
threatened species. We are presently working on collecting and 
assimilating anecdotal and survey-related manta sightings and effort 
data to support the development of an ensemble species distribution 
model for the southeastern United States. We are also collaborating 
with partners to examine giant manta ray movements in U.S. waters off 
Florida and within the FGBNMS. This data will provide a better 
understanding of giant manta ray movements and habitat use, including 
environmental drivers of movement. We are also supporting research 
projects assessing the survivorship of giant manta rays caught in 
Peruvian and Indonesian artisanal gillnet fisheries.
    We have developed safe handling and release guidelines for 
fishermen (available at: https://www.fisheries .noaa.gov/webdam/
download/91927887). In an effort to address species identification 
issues during aerial surveys, we have also developed an aerial survey 
mobulid species identification key that will facilitate accurate 
species identification in the future. We added the giant manta ray to 
our Northeast and Southeast Observer Program capture reports, logbooks, 
and manuals/reports, and provided a guide to the identification of 
mobulid rays to observers to gain more accurate information regarding 
the species' distribution and prevalence in U.S. fisheries. In 
addition, we have set up a dedicated email (i.e., [email protected]) 
for the public to report giant manta ray encounters to help us learn 
more about M. birostris movement patterns, habitat use, and human 
interactions in our waters. We will continue to work towards the

[[Page 66664]]

conservation and recovery of giant manta rays, both on a domestic and 
global level, including with our international partners and within 
regional fisheries management organizations and other international 
bodies to promote the adoption of conservation and management measures 
for the threatened giant manta ray.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 2, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26265 Filed 12-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P