Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the Tanzanian DPS of African Coelacanth as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act, 11363-11379 [2015-04405]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223
[Docket No. 141219999–5133–01]
RIN 0648–XD681
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the
Tanzanian DPS of African Coelacanth
as Threatened Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month
petition finding; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, have completed a
comprehensive status review under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the
African coelacanth (Latimeria
chalumnae) in response to a petition to
list that species. We have determined
that, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, and after
taking into account efforts being made
to protect the species, L. chalumnae
does not meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species when
evaluated throughout all of its range.
However, we determined that the
Tanzanian population of the taxon
represents a significant portion of the
taxon’s range, is threatened across that
portion, and is a valid distinct
population segment (DPS). Therefore,
we propose to list the Tanzanian DPS of
L. chalumnae as a threatened species
under the ESA. We are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for this DPS
because the geographical areas occupied
by the population are entirely outside
U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not
identified any unoccupied areas that are
essential to the conservation of the DPS.
We are soliciting comments on our
proposal to list the Tanzanian DPS of
the coelacanth as threatened under the
ESA.
DATES: Comments on our proposed rule
to list the coelacanth must be received
by May 4, 2015. Public hearing requests
must be made by April 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2015–0024, by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150024. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Chelsey Young, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910, USA.
Instructions: You must submit
comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document,
and consider them. Comments sent by
any other method, to any other address
or individual, or received after the end
of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
You can obtain the petition, status
review report, the proposed rule, and
the list of references electronically on
our NMFS Web site at https://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–
8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR,
(301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 15, 2013, we received a
petition from WildEarth Guardians to
list 81 marine species as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). This petition
included species from many different
taxonomic groups, and we prepared our
90-day findings in batches by taxonomic
group. We found that the petitioned
actions may be warranted for 27 of the
81 species and announced the initiation
of status reviews for each of the 27
species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013;
78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR
69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880,
February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104,
February 24, 2014). This document
addresses the findings for one of those
27 species: The African coelacanth L.
chalumnae. Findings for seven
additional species can be found at 79 FR
74853 (December 16, 2014). The
remaining 19 species will be addressed
in subsequent findings.
We are responsible for determining
whether species are threatened or
endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). To make this
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11363
determination, we consider first
whether a group of organisms
constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA,
then whether the status of the species
qualifies it for listing as either
threatened or endangered. Section 3 of
the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include
‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS; together, the Services) adopted
a policy describing what constitutes a
distinct population segment (DPS) of a
taxonomic species (the DPS Policy; 61
FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two
elements that must be considered when
identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness
of the population segment in relation to
the remainder of the species (or
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2)
the significance of the population
segment to the remainder of the species
(or subspecies) to which it belongs. As
stated in the DPS Policy, Congress
expressed its expectation that the
Services would exercise authority with
regard to DPSs sparingly and only when
the biological evidence indicates such
action is warranted.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an
endangered species as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ We
interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be
one that is presently in danger of
extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on
the other hand, is not presently in
danger of extinction, but is likely to
become so in the foreseeable future (that
is, at a later time). In other words, the
primary statutory difference between a
threatened and endangered species is
the timing of when a species may be in
danger of extinction, either presently
(endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
When we consider whether species
might qualify as threatened under the
ESA, we must consider the meaning of
the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is
appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable
future’’ as the horizon over which
predictions about the conservation
status of the species can be reasonably
relied upon. The foreseeable future
considers the life history of the species,
habitat characteristics, availability of
data, particular threats, ability to predict
threats, and the reliability to forecast the
effects of these threats and future events
on the status of the species under
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11364
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
consideration. Because a species may be
susceptible to a variety of threats for
which different data are available, or
which operate across different time
scales, the foreseeable future is not
necessarily reducible to a particular
number of years. Thus, in our
determinations, we may describe the
foreseeable future in general or
qualitative terms.
NMFS and the USFWS recently
published a policy to clarify the
interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant
portion of the range’’ (SPR) in the ESA
definitions of ‘‘threatened’’ and
‘‘endangered’’ (76 FR 37577; July 01,
2014). The policy consists of the
following four components:
(1) If a species is found to be
endangered or threatened in only an
SPR, the entire species is listed as
endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the ESA’s protections apply across
the species’ entire range.
(2) A portion of the range of a species
is ‘‘significant’’ if its contribution to the
viability of the species is so important
that without that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future.
(3) The range of a species is
considered to be the general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time USFWS
or NMFS makes any particular status
determination. This range includes
those areas used throughout all or part
of the species’ life cycle, even if they are
not used regularly (e.g., seasonal
habitats). Lost historical range is
relevant to the analysis of the status of
the species, but it cannot constitute an
SPR.
(4) If a species is not endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range
but is endangered or threatened within
an SPR, and the population in that
significant portion is a valid DPS, we
will list the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
We considered this policy in
evaluating whether to list the coelacanth
as endangered or threatened under the
ESA.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us
to determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened due to any
one or a combination of the following
five threat factors: The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; disease or predation; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
also required to make listing
determinations based solely on the best
scientific and commercial data
available, after conducting a review of
the species’ status and after taking into
account efforts being made by any state
or foreign nation to protect the species
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)).
In making a listing determination, we
first determine whether a petitioned
species meets the ESA definition of a
‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available
information gathered during the status
review for the species, we complete a
status and extinction risk assessment
across the range of the species. In
assessing extinction risk, we consider
the demographic viability factors
developed by McElhany et al. (2000)
and the risk matrix approach developed
by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to
organize and summarize extinction risk
considerations. The approach of
considering demographic risk factors to
help frame the consideration of
extinction risk has been used in many
of our status reviews, including for
Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound
rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped
hammerhead sharks, and black abalone
(see https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/ for links to these reviews). In
this approach, the collective condition
of individual populations is considered
at the species level according to four
demographic viability factors:
Abundance, growth rate/productivity,
spatial structure/connectivity, and
diversity. These viability factors reflect
concepts that are well-founded in
conservation biology and that
individually and collectively provide
strong indicators of extinction risk.
We then assess efforts being made to
protect the species, to determine if these
conservation efforts are adequate to
mitigate the existing threats. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the
Secretary, when making a listing
determination for a species, to take into
consideration those efforts, if any, being
made by any State or foreign nation to
protect the species. We also evaluate
conservation efforts that have not yet
been fully implemented or shown to be
effective using the criteria outlined in
the joint NMFS/USFWS Policy for
Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE;
68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), to
determine their certainty of
implementation and effectiveness. The
PECE is designed to ensure consistent
and adequate evaluation of whether any
conservation efforts that have been
recently adopted or implemented, but
not yet demonstrated to be effective,
will result in improving the status of the
species to the point at which listing is
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not warranted or contribute to forming
the basis for listing a species as
threatened rather than endangered. The
two basic criteria established by the
PECE are: (1) The certainty that the
conservation efforts will be
implemented; and (2) the certainty that
the efforts will be effective. We consider
these criteria, as applicable, below. We
re-assess the extinction risk of the
species in light of the existing
conservation efforts.
If we determine that a species
warrants listing as threatened or
endangered, we publish a proposed rule
in the Federal Register and seek public
comment on the proposed listing.
Status Review
We conducted a status review for the
petitioned species addressed in this
finding (Whittaker, 2014), which
compiled information on the species’
biology, ecology, life history, threats,
and conservation status from
information contained in the petition,
our files, a comprehensive literature
search, and consultation with experts.
We also considered information
submitted by the public in response to
our petition finding. The draft status
review report was also submitted to
independent peer reviewers; comments
and information received from peer
reviewers were addressed and
incorporated as appropriate before
finalizing the draft report.
The status review report provides a
thorough discussion of demographic
risks and threats to the particular
species. We considered all identified
threats, both individually and
cumulatively, to determine whether the
species should reasonably be expected
to respond to the threats in a way that
causes actual impacts at the species
level. The collective condition of
individual populations was also
considered at the species level,
according to the four demographic
viability factors discussed above.
The status review report is available
on our Web site (see ADDRESSES
section). The following section
describes our analysis of the status of
the African coelacanth, L. chalumnae.
Species Description
Latimeria chalumnae, a fish
commonly known as the African
coelacanth, belongs to a very old lineage
of bony fish, the class Sarcopterygii or
lobe-finned fishes, which includes the
coelacanths, the lungfish, and very early
tetrapods. Most species of lobe-finned
fish are extinct. Among the lobe-finned
fishes, L. chalumnae is one of only two
living species belonging to the order
Coelacanthiformes. The belief that the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
coelacanth had gone extinct over 65
million years ago made the discovery of
a living specimen off the coast of South
Africa in 1938 particularly sensational
(McAllister, 1971). Latimeria
chalumnae inhabits coasts along the
western Indian Ocean, while Latimeria
menadoensis, commonly known as the
Indonesian coelacanth, observed for the
first time in 1997, appears to be
restricted to Indonesian waters, but
might also occur along the coastal
islands in the eastern Indian Ocean
(Erdmann et al., 1998; Erdmann, 1999;
Springer, 1999; Fricke et al., 2000b,
Hissman pers. com.). Latimeria
chalumnae and L. menadoensis are
genetically and geographically distinct
(Pouyaud et al., 1999; Holder et al.,
1999; Inoue, 2005). While genetically
distinct, the Indonesian and African
coelacanth species exhibit overlapping
morphological traits, which makes it
difficult to differentiate between them
based on morphology alone.
The coelacanth has a number of
unique morphological features. Most
obvious are its stalked dorsal, pelvic,
anal, and caudal fins. In the water,
under camera observation, the body of
the fish appears iridescent dark blue,
but its natural color is brown (Hissman
pers. com.); individuals have white
blotches on their bodies that have been
used for identification in the field.
When individuals die, their color shifts
from blue to brown. The name
‘‘coelacanth’’ comes from the Greek
words for ‘hollow’ and ‘spine,’ referring
to the fish’s hollow oil-filled notochord,
which supports the dorsal and ventral
caudal fin rays (Balon et al., 1988). This
notochord is composed of collagen
which is stiffened under fluid pressure
(Balon et al., 1988). Coelacanth species
have a unique intracranial joint
allowing them to simultaneously open
the lower and upper jaws, possibly an
adaptation for feeding (Balon et al.,
1988). Coelacanths undergo
osmoregulation via retention of urea
(Griffith, 1991). Their swim bladder is
filled with wax-esters used to passively
regulate buoyancy, allowing the fish to
reach depths of 700 meters during
nightly feeding excursions (Hissmann et
al., 2000). Males and females exhibit
sexual dimorphism in size, with females
larger than males (Bruton et al., 1991b).
The natural range of the African
coelacanth L. chalumnae was once
thought to be restricted to the Comoro
Island Archipelago, located in the
Western Indian Ocean between
Madagascar and Mozambique. For many
years, specimens caught off South
Africa, Mozambique, and Madagascar
were thought to be strays from the
Comoro population (Schliewen et al.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
1993; Hissmann et al., 1998). However,
between 1995 and 2001, catches and
observations of coelacanths from the
coasts of Kenya (De Vos et al., 2002),
Tanzania (Benno et al., 2006), South
Africa (Hissmann et al., 2006), and
Madagascar (Heemstra et al., 1996)
suggested that the species was more
widespread than previously thought,
occupying deep water coastal habitat in
several locations throughout the
Western Indian Ocean. The range extent
of the coelacanth remains unclear, as
direct observations of established
populations rely on dedicated deep
water canyon surveys, or bycatch
observations from gillnets and artisanal
handlines (Hissmann et al., 2006).
Today, three established coelacanth
populations have been confirmed by
survey efforts, inhabiting deep-water
caves off the coast of the Comoros,
South Africa, and the coast of Tanzania.
The coelacanth is known to inhabit
waters deeper than 100m, making
surveys difficult and reliant upon
sophisticated technology including
submersibles and remotely operated
vehicles (ROVs), or highly-trained
divers using special gas mixtures. To
date, the best data addressing
coelacanth habitat use come from in situ
observations of the fish off the steep
volcanic coasts of Grand Comoro Island;
two decades of coelacanth observation
there demonstrate that the coelacanth
inhabits deep submarine caves and
canyons which are thought to provide
shelter from predation and ocean
currents (Fricke et al., 2011). The fish
aggregate in these caves in groups of up
to 10 individuals. Retreat into these
caves after nightly feeding activity is
most likely a key factor for coelacanth
survival, allowing the fish to rest and
conserve energy in a deep-water, lowprey environment (Fricke et al., 1991a).
At night, coelacanths occupy deeper
waters to actively feed, spending the
majority of their time between 200 and
300 m (Fricke et al., 1994; Hissmann et
al., 2000). Larger individuals are known
to venture below 400 m, with the
deepest observation at 698 m (Hissmann
et al., 2000).
South African coelacanth habitat has
also been studied, although to a lesser
extent than in the Comoro Islands
(Venter et al., 2000; Hissmann et al.,
2006; Roberts et al., 2006). In the deep
canyons off the coast of South Africa,
suitable coelacanth caves have been
found at depths of 100–130 m, whereas
at Grand Comoro Island, most caves are
in depths of 180–230 m (Heemstra et al.,
2006). In general, it is thought that the
deep overhangs and caves found off the
shelf of South Africa provide suitable
shelter and refuge for coelacanths.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11365
Habitat off of Tanzania consists of
rocky terraces occurring between 70–
140 m depth; the water temperature at
coelacanth catch depths is around 20 °C
(Nyandwi, 2009). A large number (n =
19) of Tanzanian coelacanths have been
caught in the outer reefs near the village
of Tanga. In this region, some
coelacanth catches have been reported
to occur at 50–60 m; however, the
validity of these reports is questionable
(Benno et al., 2006; Nyandwi, 2009,
Hissman pers. com.). These incidents
may indicate a shallower depth
preference for Tanzanian coelacanths
than that exhibited by Comoran
coelacanths; however, more surveys are
needed to better understand coelacanth
habitat use in this region (Benno et al.,
2006). The benthic substrate off the
coast of Tanzania is sedimentary
limestone rather than the volcanic rock
of the Comoros. In this habitat,
coelacanths are thought to use
submarine cavities and shelves that
have eroded out of the limestone
composite for shelter.
Coelacanths demonstrate strong site
fidelity with relatively large overlapping
home ranges, greater than 8 km, as
demonstrated at Comoro and South
African sites where expeditions have
tracked individual movements using
ultrasonic transmitters (Fricke et al.,
1994; Heemstra et al., 2006). Surveys off
Grand Comoro over 21 years
demonstrate that individual coelacanths
may inhabit the same network of caves
for decades; for example, 17 individuals
originally identified in 1989 were resighted in 2008 in the same survey area
(Fricke et al., 2011).
Temperature use for the Comoran
coelacanth, based on survey
observations, was found to be between
16.5 and 22.8 °C (Fricke et al., 1991b).
Surveys of South African coelacanth
habitat off of Sodwana Bay confirm this
temperature use across a broad portion
of its range (Hissmann et al., 2006). This
corresponds to estimates of thermal
requirements based on the temperaturedependent oxygen saturation of their
blood, with an optimum at 15 °C and an
upper threshold at 22–23 °C (Hughes et
al., 1972). Thus, the coelacanth depends
on cooler waters to help maintain its
oxygen demands. Most likely, the depth
distribution of coelacanth depends
partly on this temperature requirement.
The coelacanth’s ecological niche is
likely shaped by this narrow
temperature requirement, prey
abundance, and the need for shelter and
oxygen.
It is thought that sedimentation and
siltation act as a negative influence on
coelacanth distribution. This is
supported by a hypothesis surrounding
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11366
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the split between the two living
coelacanth species estimated to have
occurred 40–30 million years ago (Mya),
corresponding with the collision
between India and Eurasia (50 Mya),
which created high levels of siltation
and isolated individuals to the east and
west of India (Inoue et al., 2005). This
hypothesis has been supported by some
surveys off Sodwana Bay where it was
observed that some canyons, despite
offering suitable habitat requirements,
were not occupied by coelacanths; it
was concluded that the turbidity of the
water in these caves discouraged
coelacanth habitation, as nearby
canyons not affected by turbidity were
occupied by coelacanths (Hissmann et
al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006).
Coelacanths are considered
ovoviviparous, meaning the embryos are
provided a yolk sac and develop inside
the adult female until they are delivered
as live births; coelacanth embryos are
not surrounded by a solid shell.
Embryos remain in gestation for 3 years;
this period of embryogenesis has been
determined by scale rings of embryo and
newborn coelacanth specimens (Froese
et al., 2000). The coelacanth gestation
period is considered the longest of any
vertebrate (Froese et al., 2000). It has
been hypothesized that the coelacanth
may live upwards of 40 or 50 years, and
even up to 100 years (Bruton et al.,
1991a, Fricke et al., 2011, Hissman per.
com.). Coelacanth generation times are
long. In fact, they are expected to reach
reproductive maturity between 16 and
19 years of age (Froese et al., 2000).
Coelacanth fecundity is not well known;
26 embryos were found within one
female caught in 2001 from off of
Mozambique, and other known
fecundities are 5, 19, and 23 pups
(Fricke et al., 1992).
Coelacanths are extremely slow drifthunters. They descend at least 50 to 100
m below their daytime habitat to feed at
night on the bottom or near-bottom, and
are thought to consume deep-water
prey, or prey found at the bottom of the
ocean (Uyeno et al., 1991; Fricke et al.,
1994). Stomach content analysis has
revealed a variety of prey items
including deepwater fishes ranging from
cephalopods (including cuttlefish) to
eels such as conger eels (Uyeno et al.,
1991). The fish exhibits low-energy drift
feeding behavior, which is thought to
conserve energy and oxygen for the fish.
Metabolic demands have been studied
in the coelacanth, and demonstrate that
they have one of the lowest resting
metabolisms of all vertebrates (Hughes
et al., 1972; Fricke et al., 2000a). The
coelacanth’s gill surface area is much
smaller than other fishes of similar size;
this morphological feature is a factor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
thought to heavily limit their growth
rate and productivity due to its control
over oxygen utilization (Froese et al.,
2000). Studies of the fish’s blood
physiology have demonstrated that the
oxygen dissociation curve is
temperature dependent, and shows an
affinity for oxygen at lower
temperatures (15 °C). Small gill surface
area and blood physiology are thought
to influence the coelacanth’s restriction
to cold deep water habitat, and may
correlate with their low metabolic rates,
meager food consumption and generally
slow growth and maturation (Froese et
al., 2000).
Population Abundance, Distribution,
and Structure
It was once thought that coelacanths
were restricted to the Comoro Island
Archipelago, and that individuals
caught in other locations in the Western
Indian Ocean were strays. However,
growing evidence suggests that L.
chalumnae consists of several
established populations throughout the
Western Indian Ocean (Schartl et al.,
2005). Two resident and scientifically
surveyed coelacanth populations exist
in waters off South Africa and the
Comoro Islands (Hissmann et al., 2006;
Fricke et al., 2011). Increases in
coelacanth catch off the coast of
Tanzania during the last decade and
genetic analysis of individuals caught
there demonstrated that an established
population exists there as well, as
confirmed by the observance of 9
coelacanth individuals during a 2007
survey off the Tanzanian coast (Nikaido
et al., 2011). Additional coelacanth
catches have been recorded off
Madagascar, Mozambique, and Kenya,
but these regions have not yet been
surveyed (Nulens et al., 2011) so their
status is unclear. What is known of the
coelacanth’s distribution is largely
based on bycatch data. Thus, the true
number of established coelacanth
populations, and the extent of the
species’ range across the Western Indian
Ocean remain uncertain.
Insufficient data exist to
quantitatively estimate coelacanth
population abundance or trends over
time for the majority of its range.
Population abundance estimates are
greatly challenged by sampling and
survey conditions wherein deep
technical scuba or submersibles are
necessary to reach and document the
coelacanth in its natural habitat.
Quantitative estimates of coelacanth
abundance have been made only for the
Comoro Islands. Coelacanth population
abundance estimates for the western
coastline of Grand Comoro were
initially made in the late 1980s by
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Fricke et al. (1991a) and updated to
include survey data from 1991 (Fricke et
al., 1994). The survey area during this
time covered 9 percent of the projected
coelacanth habitat along the western
coast of Grand Comoro (Hissmann et al.,
1998). These estimates showed a
relatively stable population ranging
between 230–650 individuals (Fricke et
al., 1994). Surveys conducted in 1994
across the southwestern coast of Grand
Comoro (the same sample area as in
earlier surveys) revealed a 68 percent
decrease in cave inhabitants and a 32
percent decrease in the total number of
coelacanths encountered as compared to
a 1991 survey that covered the same
area at the same time of year (Hissmann
et al., 1998). Three additional surveys of
the western coast of Grand Comoro
occurred in the 2000s, and are
summarized in Fricke et al. (2011).
These survey methods and area were
consistent with earlier surveys
occurring in the late 1980s and 1990s.
During surveys between 2000 and 2009,
several marked individuals not sighted
in 1994 re-appeared, and cave
occupancy rates in these later surveys
were similar to surveys of the early
1990s (Fricke et al., 2011). In total, nine
dedicated coelacanth surveys have
occurred in this area since 1986 (Fricke
et al., 2011). Estimates of population
abundance along the western coast of
Grand Comoro, based on repeated
surveys over almost 2 decades, are
between 300 and 400 individuals, with
145 individuals identifiable via unique
markings (Fricke et al., 2011). The 1994
survey showing population declines is
thought to be an anomaly driven by
higher water temperature, as later
surveys demonstrate that the local
population of western Grand Comoro
has remained stable since the 1980s
(Fricke et al., 2011). Some local
Comoran fishermen have suggested that
seasonal abundance patterns may exist
for the coelacanth as they do for the
locally-targeted oilfish, but there are
insufficient data to address this
phenomenon (Stobbs et al., 1991).
Across the coelacanth’s range,
juveniles (<100 cm) are largely absent
from survey and catch data, suggesting
that earlier life stages may exhibit
differences in distribution and habitat
use (Fricke et al., 2011). Length at birth
is assumed to be 40 cm (Bruton et al.,
1991a). Size classes between 40 and 100
cm are largely absent from surveys of
the Comoros, South Africa, and
Tanzania; these smaller sizes are also
absent from shallower water, suggesting
that they inhabit deeper water than
older individuals (Fricke et al., 2011). In
general, the distribution and relative
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
abundance of juveniles across the
coelacanth’s range remains unknown.
Population estimates have not been
conducted in other parts of the
coelacanth’s range, and it is possible
that undiscovered populations exist
across the Western Indian Ocean
because coelacanths have been caught
(in low numbers) off the coast of
Madagascar, Kenya and Mozambique.
Based on current understanding,
coelacanth habitat and distribution is
determined by the species’ need for cool
water and structurally complex caves
and shelf overhangs for refuge. Using
these requirements, Green et al. (2009)
conducted a bathymetric survey using
data coverage of the Western Indian
Ocean in order to identify potential
habitat for coelacanth populations,
beyond occupied habitat already
identified. The authors identified
several locations off Mozambique and
South Africa that met characteristics of
coelacanth habitat. Lack of adequate
data coverage for Tanzania and
Madagascar precluded thorough
analyses of these regions, so the authors
did not rule out these locations as
suitable coelacanth habitat. Although
this bathymetric study did not lead to
any additional surveys to confirm its
findings, the analysis demonstrates the
presence of suitable habitat throughout
the Western Indian Ocean, and thus the
potential for yet-undiscovered
coelacanth populations. Based on the
data presented, populations that have
been surveyed appear to be stable with
unknown abundance and trends
elsewhere.
Genetic data on coelacanth
population structure are limited and
known distribution of coelacanth
populations is potentially biased by
targeted survey efforts and fishery catch
data. However, recent whole-genome
sequencing and genetic data available
for multiple coelacanth specimens can
be used to cautiously infer some
patterns of population structure and
connectivity across the coelacanth’s
known range (Nikaido et al., 2011;
Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et al.,
2013). Currently, whole-genome
sequences exist for multiple individuals
from Tanzania, the Comoros, and from
the Indonesian coelacanth L.
menadoensis.
Significant genetic divergence at the
species level has been demonstrated to
exist between L. chalumnae and L.
menadoensis (Inoue et al. 2005) as
described above.
Intraspecific population structure has
been examined using L. chalumnae
specimens from Tanzania, the Comoros,
and southern Africa (Nikaido et al.,
2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
al., 2013). These studies suggest that L.
chalumnae comprises multiple
independent populations distributed
across the Western Indian Ocean.
However, based on limited samples, the
geographic patterns and relatedness
among coelacanth populations are not
well understood. Using mitochondrial
DNA analyses, Nikaido et al. (2011)
demonstrated that individuals from
northern Tanzania differ from those
from southern Tanzania and the
Comoros. In fact, this study estimated
that a northern Tanzanian population
diverged from the rest of the species an
estimated 200,000 years ago. Nikaido et
al. (2011) hypothesized that
differentiation of individuals from
northern Tanzania may relate to
divergence of currents in this region,
where hydrography limits gene flow and
reduces the potential for drifting
migrants. More recent data reflecting a
greater number of samples and higherresolution population analyses do not
support a genetic break between
individuals from north and south
Tanzania. Instead, this more robust
population-genetics approach reveals
significant divergence among
individuals from South Africa,
Tanzania, and two populations which
diverged but are co-existing within the
Comoros; the mechanism of divergence
between the two co-existing populations
of the Comoros remains unclear
(Lampert et al., 2012). All studies are
consistent in that they demonstrate low
absolute divergence among populations,
which either relates to extremely low
evolutionary rates in L. chalumnae, or
recent divergence of populations after
going through a bottleneck (such as a
founding effect) (Lampert et al., 2012).
Information derived from unique
sequences of mitochondrial DNA
support the Comoros as an ancestral
population to other populations
distributed throughout the Western
Indian Ocean, because this population
appears to have a greater number of
ancestral haplotypes (Nikaido et al.,
2011).
All coelacanth populations
demonstrate the common characteristic
of low diversity, but the Comoros
population is the least diverse (Nikaido
et al., 2011, Nikaido et al., 2013).
Genetic evidence for inbreeding has
been observed in investigations of
coelacanth mitochondrial DNA and
DNA fingerprinting, where high bandsharing coefficients showed significant
inbreeding effects (Schartl et al., 2005).
The species L. chalumnae exhibits
significantly lower levels of genetic
divergence than its sister species L.
menadoensis (Nikaido et al., 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11367
Because rates of molecular substitution
and evolution are thought to be similar
for these two species, the significantly
lower diversity measures for L.
chalumnae points to smaller
populations (as compared to L.
menadoensis) or the occurrence of
repeated genetic bottlenecks, rather than
slow evolution rate alone (Inoue et al.,
2005, Nikaido et al., 2013). Low
diversity within populations and
evidence for inbreeding suggest that
populations are independent and small.
While population structure is not
clearly resolved across the region,
available genetic data suggest the
following: (1) Oceanographic and
environmental conditions may cause
uneven gene flow among coelacanth
populations across the region; (2)
populations across the Western Indian
Ocean are independent, and do not
represent strays from the Comoros, or a
panmictic population (or a population
in which all individuals are potential
mates); (3) Evolutionary rates of
coelacanths are extremely slow, and
lower diversity in L. chalumnae as
compared with L. menadoensis points
to smaller population sizes and/or
genetic bottleneck effects.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
African Coelacanth
Available information regarding
current, historical, and potential threats
to the coelacanth was thoroughly
reviewed (Whittaker, 2014). Across the
species’ range, we found the threats to
the species to be generally low, with
isolated threats of overutilization
through bycatch and habitat loss in
portions of its range. Other possible
threats include climate change,
overutilization via the curio trade, and
habitat degradation in the form of
pollution; however, across the species’
full range we classify these threats as
low. We summarize information
regarding each of these threats below
according to the factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available
information does not indicate that
neither disease nor predation is
operative threats on this species;
therefore, we do not discuss those
further here. See Whittaker (2014) for
additional discussion of all ESA section
4(a)(1) threat categories.
The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range
There is no evidence curtailment of
the historical range of L. chalumnae has
occurred throughout its evolutionary
history, either due to human
interactions or natural forces. Genetic
data and geological history suggest that
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11368
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the split between L. chalumnae and its
Indonesian sister species L.
menadoensis occurred 40–30 Mya, and
that the genus was previously
distributed throughout the coasts of
Africa and Eurasia (Springer, 1999;
Inoue et al., 2005). However, no data are
available to inform an understanding of
historical changes in the range of the
species L. chalumnae. Although the
order Coelacanthiformes was deemed to
have become extinct 65 million years
before the 1938 discovery in South
Africa, this surprising encounter cannot
be used as evidence for a curtailment of
the species’ range from historical levels
given lack of any historical data on the
species prior to its discovery. The
species is naturally hidden from human
observation, and therefore, highly
technical diving, deep water survey
equipment, or unique fishing techniques
(such as hand lines) are required to
reach the fish’s cavernous, structurally
complex, and deep habitat; thus, the
contemporary and historical extent of its
range remains unclear.
Due to its occurrence in deep water
(>100 meters), the coelacanth may be
particularly buffered from human
disturbance (Heemstra et al., 2006).
Nonetheless, increases in human
population and development along the
coastline of the Western Indian Ocean
could impart long-term effects on the
fish throughout its range. World human
population forecasts predict that the
largest percentage increase by 2050 will
be in Africa, where the population is
expected to at least double to 2.1 billion
(Kincaid, 2010). The result of increased
population density on coastal
ecosystems of East Africa may include
increased pollution and siltation, which
may impact the coelacanth despite its
use of a deep and relatively stable
environment.
Human population growth will likely
lead to increases in agricultural
production, industrial development,
and water use along the coast of the
Western Indian Ocean; these land use
changes may increase near shore
sedimentation, possibly affecting
coelacanth habitat. As described earlier,
sedimentation is theorized to negatively
impact coelacanth distribution
(Springer, 1999). The coelacanth has
been shown to avoid caves with turbid
water, even if other preferred conditions
of shelter and food are present
(Hissmann et al., 2006). Many East
African countries are still developing,
and the population is growing.
Increased food demand may lead to
changes in land and water use, and an
increase in agriculture and thus run-off
and siltation to the coast. It is possible
that, if increases in siltation occur,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
coelacanth habitat may be affected, and
range reduced. However, the nature of
these economic and land use changes,
as well as their direct effect on
sedimentation and subsequent impact
on coelacanth habitat, remain highly
uncertain.
Pollution of coastal African waters
does not currently pose a direct threat
to the coelacanth. A review of heavy
metals in aquatic ecosystems of Africa
showed generally low concentrations,
close to background levels, and much
lower than more industrial regions of
the world (Biney et al., 1994). Yet,
surprisingly, a toxicological study of
two coelacanth specimens detected
lipophilic organochlorine pollutants
such as polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCBs) and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
(Hale et al., 1991). Levels ranged from
89 to 510 pg kg¥l for PCB and 210 to
840 pg kg¥l for DDT concentration, and
were highest in lipid-rich tissues such
as the swim bladder and liver (Hale et
al., 1991). The coelacanth has high lipid
content, and its trophic position may
increase the probability of toxic
bioaccumulation. Insufficient data are
available to determine the impact of
these toxins on coelacanth health and
productivity.
Direct habitat destruction is likely to
impact coelacanths off the coast of
Tanga, Tanzania. Plans are in place to
build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani
Bay, 8 km south of the original Tanga
Port. The construction of the Mwambani
port is part of a large project to develop
an alternative sea route for Uganda and
other land-locked countries that have
been depending on the port of
Mombasa. Development of the port
would include submarine blasting and
channel dredging and destruction of
known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity
of Yambe and Karange islands—the site
of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth
catches (Hamlin, 2014). The new port is
scheduled to be built in the middle of
a newly-implemented Tanga Coelacanth
Marine Park. The plans for Mwambani
Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear
to be ongoing, despite conservation
concerns. If built, the port would likely
disrupt coelacanth habitat by direct
elimination of deep-water shelters, or by
a large influx of siltation that would
likely result in coelacanth displacement.
Habitat destruction in the form of
nearshore dynamite fishing on coral
reefs may indirectly impact the
coelacanth due to a reduction in prey
availability, but these impacts are highly
uncertain. As a restricted shallow-water
activity, this destructive fishing would
not impact the coelacanth’s deep (+100
m) habitat directly. However, coral reefs
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in this region provide essential fish
nursery habitat and are hot spots for
biodiversity (Salm, 1983). Loss of
nearshore coral habitat may negatively
impact pelagic fish species due to loss
of nursery habitat; it is highly uncertain
how these impacts may affect the prey
availability for the coelacanth. Dynamite
fishing in the Comoros was observed
recently by researchers (Fricke et al.,
2011). While this method is not
widespread throughout the Comoros,
reduction in the sustainability of
nearshore or pelagic fish populations
may encourage fishermen to increase
use of these new methods. Dynamite
fishing in Tanzania is widespread, and
has led to destruction of nearshore coral
reefs and disruption of essential fish
habitat (Wells, 2009). Destructive
fishing practices occur throughout coral
reefs along the coast of the Western
Indian Ocean (Salm, 1983). The true
extent to which the destruction of near
shore coral habitat may affect the
coelacanth remains uncertain,
especially as the fish is thought to
consume primarily deep-water prey
(Uyeno, 1991; Uyeno et al., 1991).
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Bycatch
Since its discovery in 1938, all known
coelacanth catches are considered to
have been the result of bycatch.
Particularly in the Comoro Islands,
where the highest number of coelacanth
catches has occurred, researchers have
found no evidence of a targeted
coelacanth fishery given that methods
do not exist to directly catch the deepdwelling fish (Bruton et al., 1991c). The
coelacanth meat is undesirable, and
thus the fish is not consumed by
humans (Fricke, 1998).
Out of 294 coelacanth catches since
its 1939 discovery, the majority of
catches (n = 215 as of 2011) have been
a result of bycatch in the oilfish, or
Revettus, artisanal fishery occurring
only in the Comoro Island archipelago
(Stobbs et al. 1991; Nulens et al. 2011).
The Comoros oilfish fishery uses
unmotorized outrigger canoes (locally
called galawas). The fish are caught
using handlines and hooks close to
shore at depths as great as 800m (Stobbs
et al., 1991). This traditional fishery is
´
known locally as maze fishing, and
coelacanth catches have only occurred
on Grand Comoro and Anjouan Islands
(Stobbs et al., 1991). Oilfish are
traditionally caught at night, an act
considered locally to be very dangerous
(Stobbs et al., 1991). Often, this artisanal
fishing is performed only on dark
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
moonless calm nights. In general,
subsistence fishing in the region is
limited by weather conditions, and
often disrupted by monsoon or tropical
storms. This fishery is also limited by a
tradition of social pressure which
restricts fishing to offshore waters
adjacent to each fisherman’s village
(Stobbs et al., 1991).
Since its discovery in the Comoros (in
1938), coelacanth catch rate has been
very low, between 2–4 individuals per
year. Coelacanth catch rate in the
Comoros shows no significant trend
over time; however, it has fluctuated
historically with changes in fishing
technology and shifts in the ratio
between artisanal and more modern
pelagic fishing methods (Stobbs et al.,
1991; Plante et al., 1998). From a
broader temporal perspective, there was
an increasing but insignificant change in
coelacanth catch from the Comoros from
1954 to 1995 (Plante et al., 1998).
However, between 1995 and 2008, the
number of galawas in the Comoros has
declined steadily, corresponding with a
steady increase in motorized boats
(Fricke et al., 2011). The most recent
update of coelacanth catch inventory
indicates that catch rates in the Comoro
archipelago have declined and
stabilized over the past decade (Nulens
et al., 2011). In fact, between 2000 and
2008, catch rates were the lowest ever
observed, likely due to the increase in
motorized boats and decreased artisanal
handline fishing over the past decade
´
(Fricke et al., 2011). Today, maze
fishing is going out of favor in the
Comoros (Plante et al., 1998; Fricke et
al., 2011); this trend is expected to
continue into the future, and reduces
fishing pressure on the coelacanth in
this region, most likely explaining the
reduction in coelacanth catch over the
past decade (Stobbs et al., 1991; Plante
et al., 1998; Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens
et al., 2011). Fishing mortality has been
determined to be negligible in the
Comoros population, likely relating to
its population stability over time
(Bruton et al., 1991a; Fricke et al., 2011).
Outside of the Comoros, coelacanths
have been caught in Tanzania,
Madagascar, Mozambique, Kenya, and
South Africa (Nulens et al., 2011).
Historically, far fewer coelacanth
catches have occurred outside of the
Comoros Islands. However, over the
past decade, the trend in coelacanth
catches shows a drastic increase in
catch rate off Tanzania via shark gillnets
(Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens et al., 2011).
´
Hand line maze fisheries are absent
outside of the Comoros, thus catches
across the rest of the Western Indian
Ocean have occurred using different
gear—deep-set shark gillnets and trawls.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Trawls have been the mechanism for
only 3 total coelacanth catches; minimal
catch through trawling is thought to
relate to the coelacanth’s preferred
rocky steep cavernous habitat, substrate
not suitable for trawling activity (Benno
et al., 2006). The first confirmed
coelacanth catches using shark gillnets
occurred in Madagascar in 1995 and in
Tanzania in 2003, although a few earlier
unconfirmed catches in these locations
may have occurred as early as 1953
(Benno et al., 2006). The first Tanzanian
catch in 2003 followed the introduction
of shark gillnets in the region in 2001
(Benno et al., 2006). As of September
2003, the capture of coelacanths has
been dominated by those caught in
Tanzania (Nulens et al., 2011). Since the
first 2003 catch in Tanzania, over 60
catches via deep water gillnets have
been reported, with over 12 fish caught/
year between 2003 and 2008 (Benno et
al., 2006; Nulens et al., 2011). These
shark gillnets are set at depths between
50 and 150m, and it is thought that
accidental coelacanth catches in
Tanzania occur when coelacanths leave
their caves for nighttime hunting
(Nyandwi, 2009).
Expansion of the shark gillnet fishery
across the Western Indian Ocean may
result in increased bycatch of the
coelacanth, as has been observed off the
coast of Tanzania, but the potential for
such an increase is uncertain. Available
information suggests that shark fishing
effort has been increasing off the coast
of east Africa, including the coelacanth
range countries of Mozambique,
Madagascar, Kenya, and South Africa
(Smale, 2008). Techniques for catching
sharks in this region include deep-set
shark gillnets, such as those responsible
for the commencement of coelacanth
bycatch in Tanzania in 2003 (Nulins et
al., 2011). Shark gillnet fishing is used
in other East African countries, such as
Mozambique, where these fisheries are
highly profitable, and are driven by the
demand for fin exports, with evidence
for frequent illegal export occurring
(Pierce et al., 2008). Despite the use of
gillnet fishing practices elsewhere in
East Africa, other areas have not shown
a similar spike in coelacanth bycatch as
has been observed in Tanzania.
Quantification of effort from the shark
gill net fishery in South Africa has been
challenging due to high levels of illegal
or unreported fishing occurring; for
example, as little as 21 percent of the
actual catch for shark gillnet and seine
fisheries may be reported in South
Africa (Hutchings et al., 2002).
Nonetheless, shark fisheries in this
region are thought to be overexploited,
which may lead to an increase in future
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11369
effort due to sustained global demand
(Hutchings et al., 2002). It is reasonable
to conclude that the use of shark gillnets
will continue or increase in Tanzania
and will continue to expand throughout
the Western Indian Ocean; however,
whether this trend will result in an
increased threat of coelacanth bycatch is
uncertain, especially given the
uncertainty over the fish’s range and
habitat use throughout the coast of East
Africa.
Commercial Interest
The coelacanth is not desirable
commercially as a traditional food
source or for artisanal handicrafts.
Targeted methods of fishing the
coelacanth have never been developed,
and local cultures do not value the
coelacanth commercially or for
subsistence purposes (Fricke, 1998).
In the Comoros, the coelacanth has
become a source of pride and national
heritage (Fricke, 1998). However,
cultural interest in the coelacanth does
not put the fish at risk, and on the
contrary, may encourage its
conservation. Commercial interest
through tourism to the coelacanth’s
habitat is not a realistic threat either, as
the deepwater habitat is largely
inaccessible. In the 1980s there was a
rumor that Japanese scientists were
attempting to develop a new anti-aging
serum using the coelacanth notochord
oil. Although these claims made
international headlines, the rumor has
since been rejected. As Fricke pointed
out (Fricke, 1998), the unsubstantiated
rumor of the ‘fountain of youth’ serum
had an unexpected result of stirring
publicity and conservation interest in
the fish. Interest in the coelacanth
notochord oil for medicinal purposes
does not pose a threat to the species, as
claims of its life extending properties
are unsubstantiated.
Interest in coelacanth specimens on
the black market is a possible threat to
the species. The concern mostly
surrounds a curio trade rather than a
potential aquarium trade. Because the
fish is deep-water dependent, it survives
for only a short period of time at the
surface, and thus far, is not maintained
in aquariums. Several attempts have
been made to keep the coelacanth alive
in captivity, but these attempts have
demonstrated that the deep water fish is
fragile and that it has been shown to
survive at the surface for less than 10
hours (Hughes et al., 1972); the cause of
death is thought to be a combination of
capture stress and overheating resulting
in asphyxiation. Comment threads
found on the popular Web site Monster
Fish Keepers, a forum for private
aquarium and fish hobbyists, reveal
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
11370
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
widespread knowledge of the
coelacanth’s fragility; these hobbyists
express general understanding that the
coelacanth’s life can be sustained at
surface depth no longer than a few
hours (Hamlin, 1992; Monsterfish,
2007). Thus, black market trade of the
coelacanth for private aquaria is not a
realistic threat. However, the blackmarket curio trade may be a source of
exploitation. The same fish hobbyist
forums reveal general interest in the fish
as a curio specimen, and willingness to
pay large sums relative to the typical
Comoran income for a dead specimen
(Monsterfish, 2009). Thus, black market
curio trade may provide an economic
incentive for capture of the fish.
However, we did not find data
suggesting that a black market curio
trade is currently active.
Scientific Interest
Since discovery of the species in
1938, international scientists and
researchers have cherished the
coelacanth as the only representative of
an important evolutionary branch in the
tree of life. This has led to a long history
of surveys to better understand the fish’s
ecology, habitat, distribution, and
evolution. A tissue library from
bycaught specimens is maintained at the
Max Planck Institute in Germany, which
provides the opportunity for scientific
use of samples derived from these
accidental coelacanth catches (Fricke,
1998). Coelacanth specimens have been
used by more than 30 laboratories. In
earlier years of coelacanth research, a
reward of US$300–400 was offered to
fishermen for each coelacanth caught
(Fricke, 1998). However, those rewards
have not been offered for decades. Prior
to strict regulations on coelacanth trade,
the global museum trade offered
between US$400 and US$2000 for each
specimen caught. Today, trade of the
coelacanth is prohibited by the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) because the
coelacanth is listed as an Appendix I
species; however, some transfer of
specimens for scientific study is
permitted. We did not find any evidence
that targeted coelacanth catch for
scientific purposes is occurring. Thus,
the demand for specimens for scientific
research is not considered a threat.
In the future, scientific interest and
study may be used as a basis for the
public display of the coelacanth. The
public display of the fish would be of
high commercial value, and efforts to
keep the coelacanth in captivity have
already been made. In the late 1980s
and early 1990s, American and Japanese
aquariums attempted to directly capture
and bring the coelacanth into captivity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
(Suzuki et al., 1985; Hamlin, 1992).
These attempts were not successful; it
was determined that coelacanth cannot
be directly caught, and that they only
survive for a few hours outside of their
deep water environments (Hamlin,
1992). In the future, larger aquariums
may pursue the use of pressurized tanks
to keep the coelacanth alive in captivity,
but their success is uncertain given the
challenge of transporting a fish from its
native habitat, and then maintaining it
in an aquarium environment.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Their Continued Existence
Climate Change
Coelacanth habitat preference and
distribution is dictated by specialized
requirements for appropriate shelter
(caves, caverns, and shelves), prey
availability, and a combination of depth
and temperature that meets the fish’s
need for oxygen (relating to optimal
blood saturation at 15 °C) (Hughes,
1972). Evidence from coelacanth
habitation in South Africa is
particularly useful in demonstrating the
trade-offs among these important
characteristics: There, coelacanths
occupy depths of 100–140 m. The
optimal temperature for the uptake of
oxygen (15 °C) occurs at lower depths of
200 m, where fewer caves exist. It is
thought that the occupation of shallower
depths is a trade-off between the need
for shelter and optimal oxygen uptake;
increases in oceanic temperature as is
expected in connection with climate
change may disrupt the tight balance
between coelacanths’ metabolic needs
and the need for refuge (Roberts et al.,
2006).
Across the globe, ocean temperature is
increasing at an accelerated rate (IPCC,
2013). The extent of this warming is
reaching deeper and deeper waters
(Abraham et al. 2013). Increase of global
mean surface temperatures for 2081–
2100 relative to 1986–2005 is projected
to likely be in the ranges derived from
the concentration-driven CMIP5 model
simulations by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that is,
0.3 °C to 1.7 °C (RCP2.6), 1.1 °C to 2.6
°C (RCP4.5), 1.4 °C to 3.1 °C (RCP6.0),
or 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C (RCP8.5) (IPCC, 2013).
While these predictions relate to surface
ocean temperatures, evidence from
deep-water ocean measurements and
models suggest that heat flux to the
deep ocean has accelerated over the last
decade (Abraham et al., 2013). If deepwater warming continues to keep pace
with (or exceed the pace of) surface
warming, even the most conservative
IPCC scenarios may mean a warming of
current coelacanth habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The coelacanth is typically observed
at 15–20 °C, with upper thermal
preferences of 22–23 °C (Hughes et al.,
1972). The effect of these thermal
boundaries on the coelacanth’s
distribution has been demonstrated by a
1994 survey of the Comoro Islands,
which revealed a 68 percent decrease in
cave inhabitants and a 32 percent
decrease in the total number of
coelacanths encountered as compared to
a 1991 survey (Hissmann et al., 1998).
Temperature is thought to have directly
led to this decline in coelacanth
observations; in 1994, temperature of
the survey region was 25.1 °C, the
warmest ever recorded by researchers
there (Hissmann et al., 1998). However,
it is important to note that individuallyidentifiable coelacanths had returned to
their previous habitat in subsequent
surveys (Fricke et al., 2011); this
suggests that the warm conditions in
1994 led to a displacement of
coelacanth habitat, but did not lead to
extirpation of that population, or a
reduction in the population abundance.
This information suggests that warming
may impact coelacanth distribution, but
there may be suitable habitat to
accommodate a displacement of
populations, where warming may not
lead to decreases in population sizes or
extirpation of populations. Despite deep
water warming that has occurred over
the last decade, the surveyed coelacanth
population in the Comoros is described
as stable, and not declining (Fricke et
al., 2011).
Based on the majority of climate
model predictions, it is likely that
current coelacanth habitat will reach
temperatures exceeding the fish’s
thermal preferences by 2100 (IPCC,
2013). It is unlikely that the lowdiversity fish with long generation times
will physiologically adapt to withstand
the metabolic stress of a warming ocean.
However, the fish may be able to move
to suitable habitat outside of its current
range, thus adapting its range to avoid
the warming deep water conditions. If
the fish is displaced based on its need
for cooler waters, but complex cave
shelters are not available, local
extirpation or range restriction may
occur. However, currently, these
impacts and responses are highly
uncertain. Thus, it is reasonable to
conclude that a warming ocean may
impact the fish’s distribution, but the
impact of warming on the future
viability of the species is uncertain. Due
to the coelacanth’s temperaturedependent oxygen demand, coupled
with a highly specific need for deep
structurally complex cave shelter,
warming oceanic waters may pose a
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
threat to the coelacanth and
displacement of populations, but the
impact of this threat on the future
viability of the species is highly
uncertain, and climate change threats
have not been clearly or mechanistically
linked to any decline in coelacanth
populations.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
CITES Appendix I regulates trade in
species in order to reduce the threat
international trade poses to those
species. The coelacanth is included in
CITES-Appendix I. Appendix I
addresses those species deemed
threatened with extinction by
international trade. CITES prohibits
international trade in specimens of
these species except when the purpose
of the import is not commercial, meets
criteria for other types of permits, and
can otherwise be legally done without
affecting the sustainability of the
population, for instance, for scientific
research. In these exceptional cases,
trade may take place provided it is
authorized by the granting of both an
import permit and an export permit (or
re-export certificate). We found no
evidence of illegal trade of the
coelacanth. Trade is limited to the
transfer of specimens for scientific
purposes. There is no evidence that
CITES regulations are inadequate to
address known threats such that they
are contributing to the extinction risk of
the species.
The coelacanth is also listed as
Critically Endangered on the
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red
List. The IUCN is not a regulatory body,
and thus the critically endangered
listing does not impart any regulatory
authority to conserve the species.
The threat to the coelacanth stemming
from anthropogenic climate change
includes elevated ocean temperature
reaching its deep-water habitat and
resulting in decreased fitness or
relocation of populations based on
elimination of suitable habitat, which
may become restricted due to the tight
interaction between the coelacanth’s
thermal requirements and need for
highly complex cave shelter and prey.
Impacts of climate change on the marine
environment are already being observed
in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere
(Hoerling et al., 2004; Melillo et al.,
2014) and the most recent IPCC
assessment provides a high degree of
certainty that human sources of
greenhouse gases are contributing to
global climate change (IPCC, 2013).
Countries have responded to climate
change through various international
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
and national mechanisms, including the
Kyoto Protocol of 2007. Because climate
change-related threats have not been
clearly or mechanistically linked to
decline of coelacanths, the adequacy of
existing or developing measures to
control climate change threats is not
possible to fully assess, nor are
sufficient data available to determine
what regulatory measures would be
needed to adequately protect this
species from the effects of climate
change. While it is not possible to
conclude that the current efforts have
been inadequate such that they have
contributed to the decline of this
species, we consider it likely that
coelacanth will be negatively impacted
by climate change given the predictions
of widespread ocean warming (IPCC,
2013).
Extinction Risk
In general, demographic
characteristics of the coelacanth make it
particularly vulnerable to exploitation.
While coelacanth abundance across its
entire range is not well understood, it is
likely that population sizes across the
Western Indian Ocean are small, as
described in Whittaker (2014). The
likelihood of low abundance makes
coelacanth populations more vulnerable
to extinction by elevating the impact of
stochastic events or chronic threats
resulting in coelacanth mortality. Their
growth rate and productivity is
extremely limited. The coelacanth has
one of the slowest metabolisms of any
vertebrate, and this relates to their
meager demand for food, slow swim
speed and passive foraging, need for
refuge to rest, and small gill surface area
which limits their absorption of oxygen.
In addition, their gestation period is
longer than any vertebrate (3 years),
although their fecundity is moderate.
They are long-lived species, with long
generation times. The extremely long
gestation period and late maturity
makes the coelacanth particularly
vulnerable to external threats such as
bycatch, possibly impeding recovery
from mortality events (Froese et al.,
2000). Genetic data suggest that the
coelacanth comprises independent and
isolated populations, originating in the
Comoros, but fully established around
the Western Indian Ocean. The small
and isolated nature of coelacanth
populations, only three of which are
confirmed to exist, increases
vulnerability by preventing their
replacement and recovery from external
threats and mortality events, and
increases the potential for local
extirpations. Finally, the species
exhibits extremely low levels of
diversity (Schartl et al., 2005). Low
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11371
levels of diversity reflect low adaptive
and evolutionary potential, making the
coelacanth particularly vulnerable to
environmental change and episodic
events. These events may reduce
diversity further, and result in a
significant change or loss of variation in
life history characteristics (such as
reproductive fitness and fecundity),
morphology, behavior, or other adaptive
characteristics. Due to their low
diversity, coelacanth populations may
be at an increased risk of random
genetic drift and could experience the
fixing of recessive detrimental genes
that could further contribute to the
species’ extinction risk (Musick, 2011).
While demographic factors increase
the coelacanth’s vulnerability, the status
review classified the risk of threats
across its range as low or very low
(Whittaker, 2014). We found that, in
general, the coelacanth is largely
buffered from habitat impacts due to its
occurrence in deep water. Thus, the
threats of dynamite fishing, pollution,
land-use changes, and sedimentation are
considered low-risk. The direct loss of
coelacanth habitat may occur if the deep
port of Mwambami Bay is developed off
the coast of Tanzania. However,
whether plans to build this port will
come to fruition remains uncertain, and
the effects will impact a small portion
of the coelacanth’s range. The threat of
port development does not represent a
widespread threat to the species, and
the port of Mwambami Bay is the only
large coastal development project (that
we found) that would directly impact
the fish.
As for impacts from overutilization,
bycatch has historically been thought to
pose the greatest threat to the
coelacanth, but survey data show there
is no observed link between coelacanth
bycatch and population decline. A
decade ago, the Comoros oilfish fishery
was responsible for the highest rate of
coelacanth bycatch. Historically, the
Comoran fishery was responsible for
catch rates of about 3 fish per year, and
is not thought to have contributed to
declines in population abundance.
While the Comoran oilfish fishery has
seen recent declines in effort and has
never contributed to population decline
of the coelacanth, a greater threat of
bycatch has emerged in Tanzania over
the last decade. As evidenced by high
rates of coelacanth bycatch via the shark
gillnet fishery, which began in 2001 in
Tanzania, this fishing method has the
potential to impact the coelacanth.
Since 2003 in Tanzania, coelacanth
catch rates have been more than 3 times
greater than ever observed in the
Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is
unclear whether this catch rate is
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11372
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
unsustainable due to limited
information on trends and abundance of
the Tanzanian population. While
traditional Comoran handline fishing is
no longer the most pressing bycatch
threat to the fish, data suggest that the
expansion of a shark gill net fishery
throughout the Western Indian Ocean
could result in additional coelacanth
bycatch. The reduction of sustainable
fisheries throughout the east African
and South African coastline may
encourage shifts to alternative fishing
methods, such as gillnets, or trawling
closer to shore, both of which could
increase the probability of coelacanth
bycatch. Bycatch in Tanzania is an
ongoing threat, and potential for
additional coelacanth bycatch across the
fish’s range poses a potential but
uncertain threat to the fish’s persistence
into the foreseeable future. Coelacanth
population abundance in Tanzania, and
whether current bycatch rates are
sustainable, is unknown. Thus, the risk
of bycatch across the species’ entire
range is generally low. There is no real
indication that overutilization for
scientific purposes, public display, or
the curio trade is occurring; thus we do
not consider these factors as
contributing a risk to the future
persistence of the species across its
range.
Because threats are low across the
species’ range, we have no reason to
consider regulatory measures
inadequate in protecting the species.
Regarding other natural or manmade
factors, the threat of climate change via
ocean warming may work
synergistically to enhance all other
threats to the coelacanth across its
range, but the nature of these impacts is
highly uncertain as described in
Whittaker (2014). The extent of this
impact on the coelacanth remains
uncertain, and there has been no clear
or mechanistic link between climate
change or temperature warming and
coelacanth population declines. Thus,
the threat of climate change poses a low
risk to the coelacanth.
Overall, the fish’s demographic
factors make it particularly vulnerable
to ongoing and future threats, but
existing threats pose a generally low
risk. Thus, we find that the coelacanth
is at a low risk of extinction due to
current and projected threats to the
species.
Protective Efforts
Since its discovery, much debate has
surrounded the need to conserve the
coelacanth, as an evolutionary relic and
for its value to science. The long history
of this debate was summarized by
Bruton (1991). The international
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
organization the Coelacanth
Conservation Council (CCC) has been
the primary body advocating for
coelacanth conservation over the years
since 1987.
The CCC has its headquarters in
Moroni, Comoros, and the Secretariat is
currently in Grahamstown, South Africa
with branches in Canada, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Germany
and Japan. The CCC has set forth general
objectives of promoting coelacanth
research and conservation, along with
establishing an international registry of
coelacanth researchers and the
compilation of a coelacanth inventory
and bibliography, which were published
for the first time in 1991 and recently
updated in 2011 (Bruton et al., 1991b;
Nulens et al., 2011).
Several conservation initiatives were
implemented in the Comoros in the
1990s to reduce coelacanth bycatch. For
instance, fishing aggregation devices
were installed to encourage pelagic
fishing and reduce pressure on the
coelacanth from nearshore handline
fishing. During this time, the use of
motorized boats was encouraged for the
same purpose, in order to direct fishing
off-shore and reduce the use of artisanal
handlines. Initially, there were some
challenges, including lack of
infrastructure preventing the repair of
motors. However, the fishing trend
today in the Comoros shows a clear shift
to motorized pelagic fishing, and
reduced interest in traditional handline
fishing; this trend is occurring due to a
natural shift in social perspectives and
local economic trends.
A supporter of coelacanth
conservation and member of the U.S.
Explorer Club, Jerome Hamlin, author
and curator of the Web site
DINOFISH.com, has encouraged the use
of a ‘Deep Release Kit’ for coelacanth
conservation when bycaught. The Deep
Release Kit was created in response to
the ‘Save the Coelacanth Contest’
sponsored by DINOFISH.com (Hamlin,
2014). The kit consists of a barbless
hook attached to a sack. The fisherman
puts some of his sinker stones in the
sack, places the hook in the lower jaw
of the fish he has just caught with the
shank pointing down to the sack, and
releases the fish to the bottom where it
frees itself. The purpose of the Deep
Release procedure is to get the fish
quickly to the cold bottom water with
no further exertion on its part. A surface
release (in theory) leaves the fish
without the strength to get back down
to depth. Hundreds of these devices
have been distributed in the Comoros
and Tanzania. These kits are some of the
only direct coelacanth conservation
measures in the Comoros or Tanzania.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Yet, it is unclear whether these have
been used at sea, their success is
unproven, and it is unknown whether
the method has been adopted by local
fishermen.
Ongoing scientific research on the
coelacanth may play a role in
coelacanth conservation, as
management of the species can improve
with a more complete understanding of
its biology and natural history. In 2002,
South Africa instituted its African
Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme,
which has coordinated an extensive
array of research including bathymetric
surveys, taxonomic studies, and
observational expeditions. This program
is funded by the Global Environment
Facility of the World Bank and it is in
its third phase, taking an ecosystembased approach to understanding
coelacanth distribution and habitat
utilization across the Western Indian
Ocean, and providing deep-water
research tools and resources for this
research.
Local efforts for marine conservation
exist in the Comoros. For example, the
´
Moheli Marine Park takes a comanagement approach to stop some
destructive fishing and conserve marine
habitat using a series of no-take
reserves. The park encompasses 212
km2, and was set up during a 5-year
biodiversity conservation project which
began in 1998, funded by the World
Bank’s Global Environment Facility; the
goals of the project were to address the
loss of biodiversity in Comoros and
develop local capacity for natural
resource management (Granek et al.,
2005). However, no alternative revenuegenerating activities have been
provided, making life difficult for some
fishermen. The World Bank’s Global
Environment Facility biodiversity
management project in the Park ended
in 2003, and there has been no source
of additional financing to continue the
resource co-management. The Moheli
Park has brought together some key
institutions to encourage sustainable
management and monitoring of marine
habitat of the Comoros; however,
specific laws have not been enacted,
and existing legislation has not been
enforced (Ahamada et al., 2002). No
coelacanths have ever been caught off
the island of Moheli, so the park’s
impact on bycatch of the species is not
applicable.
Other conservation efforts in the form
of marine parks distributed throughout
the Western Indian Ocean may benefit
the coelacanth by reducing habitat
destruction and improving prey
availability; however, the direct impacts
of these conservation efforts on the
species is difficult to evaluate. Efforts to
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
improve marine resource management
and conservation in developing nations
of east Africa have increased in the past
decade. Today, 8.7 percent of the
continental shelf in Kenya, 8.1 percent
in Tanzania, and 4.0 percent in
Mozambique have been designated as
marine protected areas (Wells et al.,
2007). Many of these parks intersect
with known coelacanth habitat, or are in
range countries where coelacanths have
been caught and potential populations
exist. However, in many areas, ongoing
socioeconomic challenges have
precluded effective management of
these regions (Francis et al., 2002).
Analysis of east African Marine
Protected Area (MPA) management has
demonstrated that socio-economic
barriers make it more difficult to reach
conservation goals (Tobey et al., 2006).
Because of this, much effort has gone
into creating community-based
conservation planning in recent years
(e.g., Harrison (2010)). Management
constraints still remain. First, there are
large gaps in ecosystem knowledge
surrounding these marine parks; for
instance, many vital habitats and
species are not yet fully represented by
MPAs in place today (Wells et al., 2007).
Next, monitoring is not widely
implemented and data are not available
to determine whether biodiversity or
socio-economic goals are being met
(Wells et al., 2007).
A new marine park in Tanga,
Tanzania has been put in place, and was
prompted by increases in coelacanth
catch in the region. The Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park is located on
the northern coastline of Tanzania,
extending north of the Pangani River
estuary 100 km along the coastline
towards Mafuriko village just north of
Tanga city. The park covers an area of
552 km2, of which 85 km2 are terrestrial
and 467 km2 are marine. The plans for
the park were announced in 2009, and
a general management plan published in
2011 (Parks; MPRU, 2011). The goal of
the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park is to
conserve marine biodiversity, resource
abundance, and ecosystem functions of
the Park, including the coelacanth and
its habitat; and enable sustainable
livelihoods and full participation of
local community users and other key
stakeholders. The plans for the park,
specific to the coelacanth, are to restrict
fishing within its boundaries, including
fishing with deep-set shark gillnets, the
primary source of coelacanth bycatch in
the area. Additional restrictions against
destructive fishing and development
practices have been set forth in the
park’s 2011 general management plan
(MPRU, 2011). Partnership and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
guidance from the IUCN has encouraged
plans for community-based and
adaptive park management (Harrison,
2010).
Applying the considerations
mandated by our PECE policy, we
determine that the implementation and
enforcement of the park’s regulations
and goals are unclear and untested;
further, there are several reasons to
believe that infrastructure, funding, and
park management may not be adequate
to fully prevent coelacanth bycatch
within the park’s boundaries: For one,
illegal fishing off the coast of Tanzania
is high (Tobey et al., 2006; Hempson,
2008; Wells, 2009). Widespread poverty
and other regional socio-economic
challenges in the region have reduced
the effectiveness and implementation of
other east African marine parks, and it
is likely that the Tanga Coelacanth
Marine Park will face similar challenges
(Toby, 2006; Wells, 2012). Although
recommendations and goals are set in
place to increase tourism to the Park as
an economic offset for stricter fishing
regulations, the economic infrastructure
and incentives needed for this shift are
not in place or have not yet been proven
to be effective. Next, there are plans to
build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani
Bay, just 8 km south of the original old
Tanga Port, which would include
submarine blasting and channel
dredging and destruction of known
coelacanth habitat in the vicinity of
Yambe and Karange islands—the site of
several of the Tanzanian coelacanth
catches. The new port is scheduled to be
built in the middle of the Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park. The
construction of Mwambani port is part
of a large project to develop an
alternative sea route for Uganda and
other land-locked countries which have
been depending on the port of
Mombasa. The plans for Mwambani
Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear
to be ongoing, despite conservation
concerns. It is unclear whether this port
will be built, but its presence would
negate many of the benefits (even now,
unproven) of the Park. The general
management plan for the park will be
fully evaluated every 10 years, with a
mid-term review every 5 years. The
effectiveness of Tanga Coelacanth
Marine Park is not yet known, and for
reasons described above, we do not
consider this park to provide certain
conservation measures that would
alleviate extinction risk to the species.
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
As noted above, we find that the
species is at a low risk of extinction
throughout its range. In other words, our
range-wide analysis for the species does
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11373
not lead us to conclude that the species
meets the definition for either an
endangered species or a threatened
species based on the rangewide
analysis. Thus, under the final
Significant Portion of Its Range (SPR)
policy announced in July 2014, we must
go on to consider whether the species
may have a higher risk of extinction in
a significant portion of its range (79 FR
37577; July 1, 2014).
The final policy explains that it is
necessary to fully evaluate a portion for
potential listing under the ‘‘significant
portion of its range’’ authority only if
information indicates that the members
of the species in a particular area are
likely both to meet the test for biological
significance and to be currently
endangered or threatened in that area.
Making this preliminary determination
triggers a need for further review, but
does not prejudge whether the portion
actually meets these standards such that
the species should be listed:
To identify only those portions that
warrant further consideration, we will
determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions
may be significant and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction in those portions or
likely to become so within the foreseeable
future. We emphasize that answering these
questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is endangered
or threatened throughout a significant
portion of its range—rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed
analysis of the issue is required.
79 FR 37586.
Thus, the preliminary determination
that a portion may be both significant
and endangered or threatened merely
requires NMFS to engage in a more
detailed analysis to determine whether
the standards are actually met (Id. at
37587). Unless both are met, listing is
not warranted. The policy further
explains that, depending on the
particular facts of each situation, NMFS
may find it is more efficient to address
the significance issue first, but in other
cases it will make more sense to
examine the status of the species in the
potentially significant portions first.
Whichever question is asked first, an
affirmative answer is required to
proceed to the second question. Id. (‘‘[I]f
we determine that a portion of the range
is not ‘‘significant,’’ we will not need to
determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we will not need to determine
if that portion was ‘‘significant.’’). Thus,
if the answer to the first question is
negative—whether that regards the
significance question or the status
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11374
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
question—then the analysis concludes
and listing is not warranted.
After a review of the best available
information, we identified the
Tanzanian population of the African
coelacanth as a population facing
concentrated threats because of
increased catch rates in this region since
2003, and the threat of a deep-water port
directly impacting coelacanth habitat in
this region. Due to these concentrated
threats, we found that the species may
be at risk of extinction in this area.
Under the policy, if we believe this
population also may constitute a
‘‘significant’’ portion of the range of the
African coelacanth, then we must go on
to a more definitive analysis. We may
either evaluate the extinction risk of this
population first to determine whether it
is threatened or endangered in that
portion or first determine if it is in fact
‘‘significant.’’ Ultimately, of course,
both tests have to be met to qualify the
species for listing.
We proceeded to evaluate whether
this population represents a significant
portion of the range of the African
coelacanth. The Tanzanian population
is one of only three confirmed
populations of the African coelacanth,
all considered to be small and isolated.
Because all three populations are
isolated, the loss of one would not
directly impact the other remaining
populations. However, loss of any one
of the three known coelacanth
populations would significantly
increase the extinction risk of the
species as a whole, as only two small
populations would remain, making
them more vulnerable to catastrophic
events such as storms, disease, or
temperature anomalies. Tanzanian and
Comoran populations are approximately
1,000 km apart, ocean currents are
thought to have led to their divergence
over 200,000 years ago, and connectivity
between them is not thought to be
maintained (Nikiado et al., 2011). The
South African population is separated
from the Comoran and Tanzanian
populations by hundreds of miles. The
Tanzanian population exhibits the
greatest genetic divergence from the
other populations, suggesting that it
may be the most reproductively isolated
among them (Lampert et al., 2012).
Potential catastrophic events such as
storms or significant temperature
changes may affect the Comoran and
Tanzanian populations simultaneously,
due to their closer geographic
proximity. The South African
population, while not as genetically
isolated, may experience isolated
catastrophic events due to its geographic
isolation. This reasoning supports our
conclusion that the Tanzanian
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
population comprises a significant
portion of the range of the species
because this portion’s contribution to
the viability of the African coelacanth is
so important that, without the members
in this portion, the African coelacanth
would be likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range.
Because the Tanzanian population of
the coelacanth was determined to
represent a significant portion of the
range of the species, we performed an
extinction risk assessment on the
Tanzanian population by evaluating
how the demographic factors
(abundance, productivity/growth rate,
spatial structure/connectivity, and
diversity) of the species would be
impacted by the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors, considering only those factors
affecting the Tanzanian population.
Coelacanth abundance across its
entire range is not well understood, and
no abundance estimates exist for the
Tanzanian population. Based on general
knowledge of the African coelacanth,
the Tanzanian population is likely
associated with very restricted and
specific habitat requirements and low
growth rates. We conclude that it is
likely that the population size of the
Tanzanian population is small for the
same reasons described above for the
species as a whole: It exhibits low levels
of diversity (Nikaido et al., 2013), long
generation times, and restricted habitat
(Hissmann et al., 2006; Fricke et al.,
2011). The likelihood of low abundance
makes the Tanzanian population more
vulnerable to extinction by elevating the
impact of stochastic events or chronic
threats resulting in coelacanth mortality.
Growth rate and productivity for the
Tanzanian population is thought to
exhibit similar characteristics to other
populations of the species. The species
as a whole has one of the slowest
metabolisms of any vertebrate. The
extremely long gestation period and late
maturity makes the Tanzanian
population particularly vulnerable to
external threats such as bycatch,
possibly impeding recovery from
mortality events (Froese et al., 2000).
The Tanzanian population is thought
to represent a single isolated population
of the species. It has been estimated that
this population diverged from the rest of
the species 200,000 years ago (Nikaido
et al., 2011). Differentiation of
individuals from the Tanzanian
population may relate to divergence of
currents in this region, where
hydrography limits gene flow and
reduces the potential for drifting
migrants. The isolated nature of the
Tanzanian population lowers the
potential for its recovery from external
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
threats; the population is not thought to
maintain connectivity with other
populations, and thus has no source for
replacement of individuals lost outside
of its own reproductive processes. Fastmoving currents along the Eastern coast
of Africa are thought to prevent
connectivity among populations in the
region (Nikaido et al., 2011). This may
be particularly true for Tanzania. We
consider current evidence for the
Tanzanian population’s high isolation
from the rest of the species to contribute
to a moderate risk of extinction, as these
are natural factors (relevant under
section 4(a)(1)(E)) that may increase
vulnerability of this population by
preventing its replacement and recovery
from external threats and mortality
events, and increase the potential for
extinction.
Genomic analyses of individuals from
the Tanzanian population and other
representatives of the species reveal that
divergence and diversity within and
among populations is very low (Nikaido
et al., 2013). Low levels of diversity
reflect low adaptive and evolutionary
potential, making the Tanzanian
population particularly vulnerable to
environmental change and episodic
events. These events may reduce
diversity further, and result in a
significant change or loss of variation in
life history characteristics (such as
reproductive fitness and fecundity),
morphology, behavior, or other adaptive
characteristics. Due to the Tanzanian
population’s low diversity, this
population may be at an increased risk
of random genetic drift and could
experience the fixing of recessive
detrimental genes that could further
contribute to the species’ extinction risk
(Musick, 2011).
Regarding habitat threats to the
Tanzanian population, loss and
degradation of coelacanth habitat can
take the form of pollution, dynamite
fishing, sedimentation, and direct loss
through development. Future human
population growth and land use changes
off the coast of Tanzania increase these
threats to the Tanzanian population, but
their trends and impacts are highly
uncertain. In general, the coelacanth is
largely buffered from habitat impacts
due to its occurrence in deep water, and
general effects of pollution and
development are similar to those
described for the rest of the species.
However, specifically related to the
Tanzanian population, direct loss of
habitat is likely to occur if the deep port
of Mwambami Bay is developed. The
port is planned to be built just 8 km
south of the original old Tanga Port, and
this would include submarine blasting
and channel dredging and destruction of
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity
of Yambe and Karange islands—the site
of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth
catches. The new port is scheduled to be
built in the middle of the Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park. The
construction of Mwambani port is part
of a large project to develop an
alternative sea route for Uganda and
other land-locked countries that have
been depending on the port of
Mombasa. The plans for Mwambani
Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear
to be ongoing, despite conservation
concerns, and thus it is reasonable to
conclude that it poses a likely threat to
the species. Whether plans to build this
port will come to fruition remains
uncertain, but if built, the deep port
could significantly impact the
Tanzanian population of coelacanths by
destroying habitat directly. For the
Tanzanian population, the construction
of this deep-water port could be
catastrophic, and it is clear that the
boundaries of the new Tanga Marine
Park are insufficient in halting plans for
the port’s development.
As for impacts from overutilization,
bycatch has historically been thought to
pose the greatest threat to the
coelacanth. While survey data from the
Comoros show there is no observed link
between coelacanth bycatch and
population decline, since 2003 in
Tanzania, coelacanth catch rates have
been more than 3 times greater than ever
observed in the Comoros, at over 10 fish
per year. It is unclear whether this catch
rate is sustainable due to limited
information on trends and abundance of
the Tanzanian population. The further
expansion of a shark gill net fishery in
Tanzania, as has been observed over the
last decade, could result in additional
coelacanth bycatch. Bycatch in
Tanzania is an ongoing threat. While
direct data assessing Tanzanian
coelacanth population decline are not
available, the relatively high and
persistent catch rate in this region has
the potential to deplete this small and
isolated population, which has life
history characteristics that greatly
impede its recovery and resiliency to
mortality.
We consider the threat of
overutilization for scientific purposes,
public display, or for the curio trade as
low for reasons described above, as they
apply to the rest of the species.
We consider the threat of inadequate
regulatory mechanisms as low for the
Tanzanian population for the same
reasons described above for the rest of
the species. Additionally, we classify
the risk of climate change as low for the
Tanzanian population for the same
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
reasons described above for the rest of
the species.
Overall, the Tanzanian population’s
demographic factors make it particularly
vulnerable to ongoing and future
threats, which pose a moderate risk to
the species. Based on the best available
information, threats of bycatch to the
Tanzanian population appear to be
persistent, and the potential
development of a deep port within this
population’s habitat could be
catastrophic to the population in the
foreseeable future. Thus, we find that
the Tanzanian population is at a
moderate risk of extinction due to
current and projected threats.
Therefore, we conclude that the
Tanzanian population is at moderate
risk of extinction in a significant portion
of the African coelacanth’s range of the
species.
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
In accordance with the SPR policy, if
a species is determined to be threatened
or endangered in a significant portion of
its range, and the population in that
significant portion is a valid DPS, we
will list the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
Because the Tanzanian population
represents a significant portion of the
range of the species, and this population
is at a moderate risk of extinction, we
performed a DPS analysis on that
population.
As defined in the ESA (Sec. 3(15)), a
‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature. The
joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) policy on identifying
distinct population segments (DPS) (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996) identifies
two criteria for DPS designations: (1)
The population must be discrete in
relation to the remainder of the taxon
(species or subspecies) to which it
belongs; and (2) the population must be
‘‘significant’’ (as that term is used in the
context of the DPS policy, which is
different from its usage under the SPR
policy) to the remainder of the taxon to
which it belongs.
Discreteness: A population segment of
a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions: (1) ‘‘It is markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative
measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of
this separation’’; or (2) ‘‘it is delimited
by international governmental
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11375
boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)’’
of the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996).
Significance: If a population segment
is found to be discrete under one or both
of the above conditions, then its
biological and ecological significance to
the taxon to which it belongs is
evaluated. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to: (1)
‘‘Persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual
or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence
that the loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence
that the discrete population segment
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside its historic range;
and (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics’’ (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996).
Discreteness
The Tanzanian population cannot be
differentiated from other populations
based on its morphology. In fact, no
coelacanth population exhibits
significant distinguishing morphological
characteristics, and morphological
differences within the Latimeria genus
as a whole have been debated (Pouyad
et al., 1999, Holder et al., 1999;
Erdmann et al., 1999). No unique
behavioral, physical, or ecological
characteristics have been identified for
the Tanzanian population to set it apart
from the rest of the taxon. Only a single
dedicated survey of the Tanzanian
population is available; thus, future
surveys may reveal distinguishing
ecological features of the population.
As stated above, genetic data on
coelacanth population structure are
limited and known distribution of
coelacanth populations is potentially
biased by targeted survey efforts and
fishery catch data. However, recent
whole-genome sequencing and genetic
data available for multiple coelacanth
specimens can be used to cautiously
infer some patterns of population
structure and connectivity across the
coelacanth’s known range (Nikaido et
al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido
et al., 2013). Intraspecific population
structure has been examined using L.
chalumnae specimens from Tanzania,
the Comoros, and southern Africa
(Nikaido et al., 2011; Lampert et al.,
2012; Nikaido et al., 2013). These
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11376
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
studies suggest that L. chalumnae
comprises multiple isolated and
reproductively independent populations
distributed across the Western Indian
Ocean, only three which have been
confirmed (inhabiting waters off of
Tanzania, the Comoros, and South
Africa).
While population structure of the
taxon, described earlier, is not fully
resolved, all genetic data available
suggest that the Tanzanian population
represents a single isolated population
of the species. Multiple genetic studies
corroborate a significant divergence
between Tanzanian individuals, and
individuals from the South African and
Comoros populations (Nikaido et al.;
2011, Lampert et al., 2012). This
includes evidence from both nuclear
and mitochondrial DNA (Nikaido et al.,
2011, Lampert et al., 2012, Nikaido et
al., 2013). The Tanzanian population is
the most diverged of all coelacanth
populations (Lampert et al., 2012).
Differentiation of individuals from the
Tanzanian population may relate to
divergence of currents in this region,
where hydrography limits gene flow and
reduces the potential for drifting
migrants (Nikaido et al., 2011). All
available data suggest that the
Tanzanian population does not likely
maintain connectivity with other
populations, and likely has no source
for replacement of individuals outside
of its own reproductive processes.
The Tanzanian population is
geographically isolated from the
Comoran and South African
populations. The Tanzanian population
is approximately 1,000 km away from
the Comoran population and over 4,000
km away from the South African
population, with oceanic currents
further reducing their potential for
connectivity. While it is thought that the
Comoran population is the source of
other populations along the Western
Indian Ocean, the Tanzanian and South
African populations may have been
established as many as 200,000 years
ago, as genetic data suggest (Nikaido et
al., 2011).
Based on genetic evidence, and the
clear geographic isolation of the
Tanzanian population, we determined
that the Tanzanian population of L.
chalumnae is discrete from other
populations within the species.
Significance
The Tanzanian population does not
persist in an ecological setting unusual
or unique for the taxon. Although the
Tanzanian individuals are thought to
inhabit limestone ledges rather than
volcanic caves where Comoran and
South African individuals are found, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
depth, prey, temperature, and shelter
requirements are remarkably similar
among the known coelacanth
populations (Hissman et al., 2006). We
found no evidence to suggest that
differences in the ecological setting of
the Tanzanian population have led to
any adaptive or behavioral
characteristics that set the population
apart from the rest of the taxon, or
contribute significant adaptive diversity
to the species.
The Tanzanian population is one of
only three known populations within
the species. Although it is not the only
surviving natural occurrence of the
taxon, we determined that loss of this
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the taxon’s range for
the following reasons: Although
coelacanth populations are not thought
to maintain reproductive connectivity,
loss of one population would make the
other two populations more vulnerable
to catastrophic events, as explained
earlier. The extent of the Tanzanian
population’s range is not known, but
given the existence of only three known
coelacanth populations considered to be
small and isolated, loss of the
Tanzanian population would constitute
a significant gap in the range of the
taxon, and thus we consider this
population to be significant to the taxon
as a whole.
We determined that the Tanzanian
population is discrete based on
evidence for its genetic and geographic
isolation from the rest of the taxon. The
population also meets the significance
criterion set forth by the DPS policy, as
its loss would constitute a significant
gap in the taxon’s range. Because it is
both discrete and significant to the
taxon as a whole, we identify the
Tanzanian population as a valid DPS.
Proposed Determination
We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors and conclude that the species,
viewed across its entire range,
experiences a low risk of extinction.
However, we determined that the
Tanzanian population constitutes a
significant portion of the range of the
species, as defined by the SPR policy
(79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). The
Tanzanian population faces ongoing or
future threats from overutilization and
habitat destruction, with the species’
natural biological vulnerability to
overexploitation exacerbating the
severity of the threats. The Tanzanian
population faces demographic risks,
such as population isolation with low
productivity, which make it likely to be
influenced by stochastic or depensatory
processes throughout its range, and
place the population at an increased risk
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of extinction from the aforementioned
threats within the foreseeable future. In
our consideration of the foreseeable
future, we evaluated how far into the
future we could reliably predict the
operation of the major threats to this
population, as well as the population’s
response to those threats. We are
confident in our ability to predict out
several decades in assessing the threats
of overutilization and habitat
destruction, and their interaction with
the life history of the coelacanth, with
its lifespan of 40 or more years. With
regard to habitat destruction, we
evaluated the likelihood of the deep
water port being constructed. If the port
is to be developed, the results could
significantly impact the Tanzanian
coelacanth population. Evidence
suggests that the plans for its
construction are moving forward; its
construction is not certain, but likely. If
built, the construction of the port would
likely occur within the next decade.
With bycatch, and its interaction with
the fish’s demographic characteristics,
we feel that defining the foreseeable
future out to several decades is
appropriate. Based on this information,
we find that the Tanzanian population
is at a moderate risk of extinction within
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
consider the Tanzanian population to be
threatened.
In accordance with the our SPR
policy, if a species is determined to be
threatened or endangered across a
significant portion of its range, and the
population in that significant portion is
a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather
than the entire taxonomic species or
subspecies. Based on the best available
scientific and commercial information
as presented in the status report and this
finding, we do not find that the African
coelacanth L. chalumnae is currently in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, nor is it likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. However, because
the Tanzanian population represents a
significant portion of the range of the
species, and this population is
threatened, we conclude that the
African coelacanth is threatened in a
significant portion of its range. Because
the population in the significant portion
of the range is a valid DPS, we will list
the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
Therefore, we propose to list the
Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth as threatened under the ESA.
Similarity of Appearance
The petition requested that, if the
African coelacanth were listed under
the ESA, the Indonesian coelacanth also
be listed due to its ‘‘similarity of
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
appearance.’’ The ESA provides for
treating any species as an endangered
species or a threatened species even if
it is not listed as such under the ESA
if: (1) Such species so closely resembles
in appearance, at the point in question,
a species which has been listed
pursuant to section 4 of the ESA that
enforcement personnel would have
substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the listed and
unlisted species; (2) the effect of this
substantial difficulty is an additional
threat to the listed species; and (3) such
treatment of an unlisted species will
substantially facilitate the enforcement
and further the policy of the ESA.
While the African and Indonesian
species exhibit morphological
similarities, they are clearly
geographically and genetically
separated. Enforcement personnel
would have no difficulty in
differentiating between the Tanzanian
DPS of the African coelacanth and the
Indonesian coelacanth because of
similarity of appearance because their
geographic separation (in the Western
Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific,
respectively) should facilitate regulation
of taking. The species experience no
overlap in range and catch of both
species is relatively low, and welldocumented. We do not deem ESA
protection for the Indonesian coelacanth
to be advisable at this time, as the clear
genetic and geographic differences
between the two species set them apart
in a way that allows for easy
identification, regardless of their similar
appearance.
Because we are proposing to list the
Tanzanian DPS as a threatened species
under the ESA, we also considered any
potential similarity of appearance issues
that may arise in differentiating between
the proposed DPS and other populations
of the species. No morphological
characteristics separate the Tanzanian
DPS from other populations of the
species. However, we do not conclude
that listing the South African or
Comoran populations based on
similarity of appearance is warranted.
First, outside of Tanzania, coelacanth
catches are infrequent, and well
documented. Second, the three known
coelacanth populations do not overlap
geographically. Differentiation between
the African and Indonesian coelacanth,
and likewise between the Tanzanian
DPS and other populations of the
species, could potentially pose a
problem for enforcement of section 9
prohibitions on trade, should any be
applied. However, that issue is
addressed, at least with respect to
imports and exports, by the inclusion of
coelacanth in CITES Appendix I.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include
recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f));
concurrent designation of critical
habitat, if prudent and determinable (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) and consistent
with implementing regulations; Federal
agency requirements to consult with
NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to
ensure their actions do not jeopardize
the species or result in adverse
modification or destruction of critical
habitat should it be designated (16
U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered
species, prohibitions on taking (16
U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species’
plight through listing promotes
conservation actions by Federal and
state agencies, foreign entities, private
groups, and individuals.
Identifying Section 7 Conference and
Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2))
of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS
regulations require Federal agencies to
consult with us to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of
the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations
also require Federal agencies to confer
with us on actions likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of species
proposed for listing, or that result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat of those
species. It is unlikely that the listing of
this DPS under the ESA will increase
the number of section 7 consultations,
because the DPS occurs outside of the
United States and is unlikely to be
affected by Federal actions.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1)
The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the ESA, on which are found those
physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the
species and (b) that may require special
management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use
of all methods and procedures needed
to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the ESA is no
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11377
longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A))
requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, critical
habitat be designated concurrently with
the listing of a species. However, critical
habitat shall not be designated in
foreign countries or other areas outside
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The best available scientific data as
discussed above identify the
geographical area occupied by the
species as being entirely outside U.S.
jurisdiction, so we cannot designate
critical habitat for this species. We can
designate critical habitat in areas in the
United States currently unoccupied by
the species, if the area(s) are determined
by the Secretary to be essential for the
conservation of the species. Based on
the best available information, we have
not identified unoccupied area(s) in
U.S. water that are currently essential to
the species proposed for listing. Thus,
as we discussed above, we will not
propose critical habitat for this species.
Identification of Those Activities That
Would Constitute a Violation of Section
9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS
published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires NMFS to identify, to the
maximum extent practicable at the time
a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a
violation of section 9 of the ESA.
Because we are proposing to list the
Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth as threatened, no
prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the
ESA will apply to this species.
Protective Regulations Under Section
4(d) of the ESA
We are proposing to list Tanzanian
DPS of the African coelacanth, L.
chalumnae as threatened under the
ESA. In the case of threatened species,
ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the
Secretary’s discretion whether, and to
what extent, to extend the section 9(a)
‘‘take’’ prohibitions to the species, and
authorizes us to issue regulations
necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species. Thus, we
have flexibility under section 4(d) to
tailor protective regulations, taking into
account the effectiveness of available
conservation measures. The 4(d)
protective regulations may prohibit,
with respect to threatened species, some
or all of the acts which section 9(a) of
the ESA prohibits with respect to
endangered species. These 9(a)
prohibitions apply to all individuals,
organizations, and agencies subject to
U.S. jurisdiction. We will consider
potential protective regulations
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
11378
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
pursuant to section 4(d) for the
proposed threatened coelacanth DPS.
We seek public comment on potential
4(d) protective regulations (see below).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule to list
the Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth will be as accurate and
effective as possible, we are soliciting
comments and information from the
public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community,
industry, and any other interested
parties on information in the status
review and proposed rule. Comments
are encouraged on this proposal (See
DATES and ADDRESSES). We must base
our final determination on the best
available scientific and commercial
information. We cannot, for example,
consider the economic effects of a
listing determination. Before finalizing
this proposed rule, we will consider the
comments and any additional
information we receive, and such
information may lead to a final
regulation that differs from this proposal
or result in a withdrawal of this listing
proposal. We particularly seek:
(1) Information concerning the threats
to the Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth proposed for listing;
(2) Taxonomic information on the
species;
(3) Biological information (life
history, genetics, population
connectivity, etc.) on the species;
(4) Efforts being made to protect the
species throughout its current range;
(5) Information on the commercial
trade of the species;
(6) Historical and current distribution
and abundance and trends for the
species; and
(7) Information relevant to potential
ESA section 4(d) protective regulations
for the proposed threatened DPS,
especially the application, if any, of the
ESA section 9 prohibitions on import,
take, possession, receipt, and sale of the
African coelacanth.
We request that all information be
accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation, such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Role of Peer Review
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In December 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review establishing a minimum
peer review standard. Similarly, a joint
NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994) requires us to solicit independent
expert review from qualified specialists,
in addition to a public comment period.
The intent of the peer review policy is
to ensure that listings are based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available. We solicited peer review
comments on the African coelacanth
status review report, including from:
Five scientists with expertise on the
African coelacanth. We incorporated
these comments into the status review
report for the African coelacanth and
this 12-month finding.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we
determined that this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects
and that a Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with the intent of
the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and
Federal interest, this proposed rule will
be given to the relevant governmental
agencies in the countries in which the
species occurs, and they will be invited
to comment. We will confer with the
U.S. Department of State to ensure
appropriate notice is given to foreign
nations within the range the DPS
(Tanzania). As the process continues,
we intend to continue engaging in
informal and formal contacts with the
U.S. State Department, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral
comments received.
References
A complete list of the references used
in this proposed rule is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered
when assessing species for listing. Based
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
decision and the opinion in Pacific
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d
825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has
concluded that ESA listing actions are
not subject to the environmental
assessment requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic impacts cannot be considered
when assessing the status of a species.
Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this
proposed rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866. This
proposed rule does not contain a
collection-of-information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 223
Administrative practice and
procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 223 as follows:
PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 223
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart
B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
§ 223.206(d)(9).
2. In § 223.102, amend the table in
paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for
one species in alphabetical order under
the ‘‘Fishes’’ table subheading to read as
follows:
■
§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
marine and anadromous species.
*
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
*
*
11379
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Species 1
Citation(s) for listing determination(s)
Common name
Scientific name
*
Description of listed entity
*
Coelacanth, African
(Tanzanian DPS).
*
Latimeria
chalumnae.
*
*
Fishes
African coelacanth population inhabiting deep waters off the coast of
Tanzania.
*
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register citation and
date when published as a final
rule].
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
ESA
rules
*
NA
NA
*
1 Species
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 141219999–5132–01]
RIN 0648–XD680
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
the Common Thresher Shark as
Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce the 90day finding for a petition to list the
common thresher shark (Alopias
vulpinus) as either endangered or
threatened under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act (ESA) either worldwide or
as one or more distinct population
segments (DPSs) identified by the
petitioners. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for the species worldwide. We find that
the petition fails to present substantial
scientific or commercial information to
support the identification of DPSs of the
common thresher suggested by the
petitioners, and, as such, we find that
the petitioned action of listing one or
more of these DPSs is not warranted.
Accordingly, we will initiate a review of
the status of the common thresher shark
at this time. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial
information regarding this species.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:54 Mar 02, 2015
Information and comments on
the subject action must be received by
May 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
information, or data, identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0025’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20150025. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Instructions: You must submit
comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document,
and consider them. Comments sent by
any other method, to any other address
or individual, or received after the end
of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–
8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR,
(301) 427–8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2015–04405 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
Jkt 235001
Background
On August 26, 2014, we received a
petition from Friends of Animals
requesting that we list the common
thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
endangered or threatened under the
ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six
distinct population segments (DPSs) of
the common thresher shark, as
described in the petition, and list them
as endangered or threatened. Friends of
Animals also requested that critical
habitat be designated for this species in
U.S. waters concurrent with final ESA
listing.
The petitioner states that the common
thresher shark merits listing as an
endangered or threatened species under
the ESA because of the following: (1)
The species faces threats from historical
and continued fishing for both
commercial and recreational purposes;
(2) life history characteristics and
limited ability to recover from fishing
pressure makes the species particularly
vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3)
there is a lack of regulations that
specifically protect the common
thresher shark.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and promptly
publish the finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
and in our files indicates the petitioned
action may be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90day finding’’), we are required to
promptly commence a review of the
status of the species concerned, which
includes conducting a comprehensive
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information. Within 12
months of receiving the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding
as to whether, in fact, the petitioned
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11363-11379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04405]
[[Page 11363]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223
[Docket No. 141219999-5133-01]
RIN 0648-XD681
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
List the Tanzanian DPS of African Coelacanth as Threatened Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the African coelacanth (Latimeria
chalumnae) in response to a petition to list that species. We have
determined that, based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, and after taking into account efforts being made to protect
the species, L. chalumnae does not meet the definition of a threatened
or endangered species when evaluated throughout all of its range.
However, we determined that the Tanzanian population of the taxon
represents a significant portion of the taxon's range, is threatened
across that portion, and is a valid distinct population segment (DPS).
Therefore, we propose to list the Tanzanian DPS of L. chalumnae as a
threatened species under the ESA. We are not proposing to designate
critical habitat for this DPS because the geographical areas occupied
by the population are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have
not identified any unoccupied areas that are essential to the
conservation of the DPS. We are soliciting comments on our proposal to
list the Tanzanian DPS of the coelacanth as threatened under the ESA.
DATES: Comments on our proposed rule to list the coelacanth must be
received by May 4, 2015. Public hearing requests must be made by April
17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0024, by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0024. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Chelsey Young, NMFS
Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, USA.
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent
by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received
after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We
will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if
you wish to remain anonymous).
You can obtain the petition, status review report, the proposed
rule, and the list of references electronically on our NMFS Web site at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR,
(301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians
to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). This petition included species from many
different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day findings in
batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned actions may be
warranted for 27 of the 81 species and announced the initiation of
status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25,
2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79
FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). This
document addresses the findings for one of those 27 species: The
African coelacanth L. chalumnae. Findings for seven additional species
can be found at 79 FR 74853 (December 16, 2014). The remaining 19
species will be addressed in subsequent findings.
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this
determination, we consider first whether a group of organisms
constitutes a ``species'' under the ESA, then whether the status of the
species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered.
Section 3 of the ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic
species (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two
elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the
significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species
(or subspecies) to which it belongs. As stated in the DPS Policy,
Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise
authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological
evidence indicates such action is warranted.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' We interpret an
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not
presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the
primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered
species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction,
either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
When we consider whether species might qualify as threatened under
the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events
on the status of the species under
[[Page 11364]]
consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of
threats for which different data are available, or which operate across
different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily
reducible to a particular number of years. Thus, in our determinations,
we may describe the foreseeable future in general or qualitative terms.
NMFS and the USFWS recently published a policy to clarify the
interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of the range'' (SPR)
in the ESA definitions of ``threatened'' and ``endangered'' (76 FR
37577; July 01, 2014). The policy consists of the following four
components:
(1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened in only an
SPR, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened,
respectively, and the ESA's protections apply across the species'
entire range.
(2) A portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
(3) The range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
USFWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination. This range
includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life
cycle, even if they are not used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats).
Lost historical range is relevant to the analysis of the status of the
species, but it cannot constitute an SPR.
(4) If a species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range but is endangered or threatened within an SPR, and the
population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
We considered this policy in evaluating whether to list the
coelacanth as endangered or threatened under the ESA.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any
species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of
the following five threat factors: The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are also required to
make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species'
status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or
foreign nation to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)).
In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a
petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a ``species.'' Next,
using the best available information gathered during the status review
for the species, we complete a status and extinction risk assessment
across the range of the species. In assessing extinction risk, we
consider the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al.
(2000) and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope
(1999) to organize and summarize extinction risk considerations. The
approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the
consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status
reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring,
scalloped hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this
approach, the collective condition of individual populations is
considered at the species level according to four demographic viability
factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts
that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and
collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.
We then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to
determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the
existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary,
when making a listing determination for a species, to take into
consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign
nation to protect the species. We also evaluate conservation efforts
that have not yet been fully implemented or shown to be effective using
the criteria outlined in the joint NMFS/USFWS Policy for Evaluating
Conservation Efforts (PECE; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), to determine
their certainty of implementation and effectiveness. The PECE is
designed to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of whether any
conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented,
but not yet demonstrated to be effective, will result in improving the
status of the species to the point at which listing is not warranted or
contribute to forming the basis for listing a species as threatened
rather than endangered. The two basic criteria established by the PECE
are: (1) The certainty that the conservation efforts will be
implemented; and (2) the certainty that the efforts will be effective.
We consider these criteria, as applicable, below. We re-assess the
extinction risk of the species in light of the existing conservation
efforts.
If we determine that a species warrants listing as threatened or
endangered, we publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register and seek
public comment on the proposed listing.
Status Review
We conducted a status review for the petitioned species addressed
in this finding (Whittaker, 2014), which compiled information on the
species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation
status from information contained in the petition, our files, a
comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. We also
considered information submitted by the public in response to our
petition finding. The draft status review report was also submitted to
independent peer reviewers; comments and information received from peer
reviewers were addressed and incorporated as appropriate before
finalizing the draft report.
The status review report provides a thorough discussion of
demographic risks and threats to the particular species. We considered
all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to
determine whether the species should reasonably be expected to respond
to the threats in a way that causes actual impacts at the species
level. The collective condition of individual populations was also
considered at the species level, according to the four demographic
viability factors discussed above.
The status review report is available on our Web site (see
ADDRESSES section). The following section describes our analysis of the
status of the African coelacanth, L. chalumnae.
Species Description
Latimeria chalumnae, a fish commonly known as the African
coelacanth, belongs to a very old lineage of bony fish, the class
Sarcopterygii or lobe-finned fishes, which includes the coelacanths,
the lungfish, and very early tetrapods. Most species of lobe-finned
fish are extinct. Among the lobe-finned fishes, L. chalumnae is one of
only two living species belonging to the order Coelacanthiformes. The
belief that the
[[Page 11365]]
coelacanth had gone extinct over 65 million years ago made the
discovery of a living specimen off the coast of South Africa in 1938
particularly sensational (McAllister, 1971). Latimeria chalumnae
inhabits coasts along the western Indian Ocean, while Latimeria
menadoensis, commonly known as the Indonesian coelacanth, observed for
the first time in 1997, appears to be restricted to Indonesian waters,
but might also occur along the coastal islands in the eastern Indian
Ocean (Erdmann et al., 1998; Erdmann, 1999; Springer, 1999; Fricke et
al., 2000b, Hissman pers. com.). Latimeria chalumnae and L. menadoensis
are genetically and geographically distinct (Pouyaud et al., 1999;
Holder et al., 1999; Inoue, 2005). While genetically distinct, the
Indonesian and African coelacanth species exhibit overlapping
morphological traits, which makes it difficult to differentiate between
them based on morphology alone.
The coelacanth has a number of unique morphological features. Most
obvious are its stalked dorsal, pelvic, anal, and caudal fins. In the
water, under camera observation, the body of the fish appears
iridescent dark blue, but its natural color is brown (Hissman pers.
com.); individuals have white blotches on their bodies that have been
used for identification in the field. When individuals die, their color
shifts from blue to brown. The name ``coelacanth'' comes from the Greek
words for `hollow' and `spine,' referring to the fish's hollow oil-
filled notochord, which supports the dorsal and ventral caudal fin rays
(Balon et al., 1988). This notochord is composed of collagen which is
stiffened under fluid pressure (Balon et al., 1988). Coelacanth species
have a unique intracranial joint allowing them to simultaneously open
the lower and upper jaws, possibly an adaptation for feeding (Balon et
al., 1988). Coelacanths undergo osmoregulation via retention of urea
(Griffith, 1991). Their swim bladder is filled with wax-esters used to
passively regulate buoyancy, allowing the fish to reach depths of 700
meters during nightly feeding excursions (Hissmann et al., 2000). Males
and females exhibit sexual dimorphism in size, with females larger than
males (Bruton et al., 1991b).
The natural range of the African coelacanth L. chalumnae was once
thought to be restricted to the Comoro Island Archipelago, located in
the Western Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Mozambique. For many
years, specimens caught off South Africa, Mozambique, and Madagascar
were thought to be strays from the Comoro population (Schliewen et al.,
1993; Hissmann et al., 1998). However, between 1995 and 2001, catches
and observations of coelacanths from the coasts of Kenya (De Vos et
al., 2002), Tanzania (Benno et al., 2006), South Africa (Hissmann et
al., 2006), and Madagascar (Heemstra et al., 1996) suggested that the
species was more widespread than previously thought, occupying deep
water coastal habitat in several locations throughout the Western
Indian Ocean. The range extent of the coelacanth remains unclear, as
direct observations of established populations rely on dedicated deep
water canyon surveys, or bycatch observations from gillnets and
artisanal handlines (Hissmann et al., 2006). Today, three established
coelacanth populations have been confirmed by survey efforts,
inhabiting deep-water caves off the coast of the Comoros, South Africa,
and the coast of Tanzania.
The coelacanth is known to inhabit waters deeper than 100m, making
surveys difficult and reliant upon sophisticated technology including
submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), or highly-trained
divers using special gas mixtures. To date, the best data addressing
coelacanth habitat use come from in situ observations of the fish off
the steep volcanic coasts of Grand Comoro Island; two decades of
coelacanth observation there demonstrate that the coelacanth inhabits
deep submarine caves and canyons which are thought to provide shelter
from predation and ocean currents (Fricke et al., 2011). The fish
aggregate in these caves in groups of up to 10 individuals. Retreat
into these caves after nightly feeding activity is most likely a key
factor for coelacanth survival, allowing the fish to rest and conserve
energy in a deep-water, low-prey environment (Fricke et al., 1991a). At
night, coelacanths occupy deeper waters to actively feed, spending the
majority of their time between 200 and 300 m (Fricke et al., 1994;
Hissmann et al., 2000). Larger individuals are known to venture below
400 m, with the deepest observation at 698 m (Hissmann et al., 2000).
South African coelacanth habitat has also been studied, although to
a lesser extent than in the Comoro Islands (Venter et al., 2000;
Hissmann et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006). In the deep canyons off
the coast of South Africa, suitable coelacanth caves have been found at
depths of 100-130 m, whereas at Grand Comoro Island, most caves are in
depths of 180-230 m (Heemstra et al., 2006). In general, it is thought
that the deep overhangs and caves found off the shelf of South Africa
provide suitable shelter and refuge for coelacanths.
Habitat off of Tanzania consists of rocky terraces occurring
between 70-140 m depth; the water temperature at coelacanth catch
depths is around 20 [deg]C (Nyandwi, 2009). A large number (n = 19) of
Tanzanian coelacanths have been caught in the outer reefs near the
village of Tanga. In this region, some coelacanth catches have been
reported to occur at 50-60 m; however, the validity of these reports is
questionable (Benno et al., 2006; Nyandwi, 2009, Hissman pers. com.).
These incidents may indicate a shallower depth preference for Tanzanian
coelacanths than that exhibited by Comoran coelacanths; however, more
surveys are needed to better understand coelacanth habitat use in this
region (Benno et al., 2006). The benthic substrate off the coast of
Tanzania is sedimentary limestone rather than the volcanic rock of the
Comoros. In this habitat, coelacanths are thought to use submarine
cavities and shelves that have eroded out of the limestone composite
for shelter.
Coelacanths demonstrate strong site fidelity with relatively large
overlapping home ranges, greater than 8 km, as demonstrated at Comoro
and South African sites where expeditions have tracked individual
movements using ultrasonic transmitters (Fricke et al., 1994; Heemstra
et al., 2006). Surveys off Grand Comoro over 21 years demonstrate that
individual coelacanths may inhabit the same network of caves for
decades; for example, 17 individuals originally identified in 1989 were
re-sighted in 2008 in the same survey area (Fricke et al., 2011).
Temperature use for the Comoran coelacanth, based on survey
observations, was found to be between 16.5 and 22.8 [deg]C (Fricke et
al., 1991b). Surveys of South African coelacanth habitat off of Sodwana
Bay confirm this temperature use across a broad portion of its range
(Hissmann et al., 2006). This corresponds to estimates of thermal
requirements based on the temperature-dependent oxygen saturation of
their blood, with an optimum at 15 [deg]C and an upper threshold at 22-
23 [deg]C (Hughes et al., 1972). Thus, the coelacanth depends on cooler
waters to help maintain its oxygen demands. Most likely, the depth
distribution of coelacanth depends partly on this temperature
requirement. The coelacanth's ecological niche is likely shaped by this
narrow temperature requirement, prey abundance, and the need for
shelter and oxygen.
It is thought that sedimentation and siltation act as a negative
influence on coelacanth distribution. This is supported by a hypothesis
surrounding
[[Page 11366]]
the split between the two living coelacanth species estimated to have
occurred 40-30 million years ago (Mya), corresponding with the
collision between India and Eurasia (50 Mya), which created high levels
of siltation and isolated individuals to the east and west of India
(Inoue et al., 2005). This hypothesis has been supported by some
surveys off Sodwana Bay where it was observed that some canyons,
despite offering suitable habitat requirements, were not occupied by
coelacanths; it was concluded that the turbidity of the water in these
caves discouraged coelacanth habitation, as nearby canyons not affected
by turbidity were occupied by coelacanths (Hissmann et al., 2006;
Roberts et al., 2006).
Coelacanths are considered ovoviviparous, meaning the embryos are
provided a yolk sac and develop inside the adult female until they are
delivered as live births; coelacanth embryos are not surrounded by a
solid shell. Embryos remain in gestation for 3 years; this period of
embryogenesis has been determined by scale rings of embryo and newborn
coelacanth specimens (Froese et al., 2000). The coelacanth gestation
period is considered the longest of any vertebrate (Froese et al.,
2000). It has been hypothesized that the coelacanth may live upwards of
40 or 50 years, and even up to 100 years (Bruton et al., 1991a, Fricke
et al., 2011, Hissman per. com.). Coelacanth generation times are long.
In fact, they are expected to reach reproductive maturity between 16
and 19 years of age (Froese et al., 2000). Coelacanth fecundity is not
well known; 26 embryos were found within one female caught in 2001 from
off of Mozambique, and other known fecundities are 5, 19, and 23 pups
(Fricke et al., 1992).
Coelacanths are extremely slow drift-hunters. They descend at least
50 to 100 m below their daytime habitat to feed at night on the bottom
or near-bottom, and are thought to consume deep-water prey, or prey
found at the bottom of the ocean (Uyeno et al., 1991; Fricke et al.,
1994). Stomach content analysis has revealed a variety of prey items
including deepwater fishes ranging from cephalopods (including
cuttlefish) to eels such as conger eels (Uyeno et al., 1991). The fish
exhibits low-energy drift feeding behavior, which is thought to
conserve energy and oxygen for the fish. Metabolic demands have been
studied in the coelacanth, and demonstrate that they have one of the
lowest resting metabolisms of all vertebrates (Hughes et al., 1972;
Fricke et al., 2000a). The coelacanth's gill surface area is much
smaller than other fishes of similar size; this morphological feature
is a factor thought to heavily limit their growth rate and productivity
due to its control over oxygen utilization (Froese et al., 2000).
Studies of the fish's blood physiology have demonstrated that the
oxygen dissociation curve is temperature dependent, and shows an
affinity for oxygen at lower temperatures (15 [deg]C). Small gill
surface area and blood physiology are thought to influence the
coelacanth's restriction to cold deep water habitat, and may correlate
with their low metabolic rates, meager food consumption and generally
slow growth and maturation (Froese et al., 2000).
Population Abundance, Distribution, and Structure
It was once thought that coelacanths were restricted to the Comoro
Island Archipelago, and that individuals caught in other locations in
the Western Indian Ocean were strays. However, growing evidence
suggests that L. chalumnae consists of several established populations
throughout the Western Indian Ocean (Schartl et al., 2005). Two
resident and scientifically surveyed coelacanth populations exist in
waters off South Africa and the Comoro Islands (Hissmann et al., 2006;
Fricke et al., 2011). Increases in coelacanth catch off the coast of
Tanzania during the last decade and genetic analysis of individuals
caught there demonstrated that an established population exists there
as well, as confirmed by the observance of 9 coelacanth individuals
during a 2007 survey off the Tanzanian coast (Nikaido et al., 2011).
Additional coelacanth catches have been recorded off Madagascar,
Mozambique, and Kenya, but these regions have not yet been surveyed
(Nulens et al., 2011) so their status is unclear. What is known of the
coelacanth's distribution is largely based on bycatch data. Thus, the
true number of established coelacanth populations, and the extent of
the species' range across the Western Indian Ocean remain uncertain.
Insufficient data exist to quantitatively estimate coelacanth
population abundance or trends over time for the majority of its range.
Population abundance estimates are greatly challenged by sampling and
survey conditions wherein deep technical scuba or submersibles are
necessary to reach and document the coelacanth in its natural habitat.
Quantitative estimates of coelacanth abundance have been made only
for the Comoro Islands. Coelacanth population abundance estimates for
the western coastline of Grand Comoro were initially made in the late
1980s by Fricke et al. (1991a) and updated to include survey data from
1991 (Fricke et al., 1994). The survey area during this time covered 9
percent of the projected coelacanth habitat along the western coast of
Grand Comoro (Hissmann et al., 1998). These estimates showed a
relatively stable population ranging between 230-650 individuals
(Fricke et al., 1994). Surveys conducted in 1994 across the
southwestern coast of Grand Comoro (the same sample area as in earlier
surveys) revealed a 68 percent decrease in cave inhabitants and a 32
percent decrease in the total number of coelacanths encountered as
compared to a 1991 survey that covered the same area at the same time
of year (Hissmann et al., 1998). Three additional surveys of the
western coast of Grand Comoro occurred in the 2000s, and are summarized
in Fricke et al. (2011). These survey methods and area were consistent
with earlier surveys occurring in the late 1980s and 1990s. During
surveys between 2000 and 2009, several marked individuals not sighted
in 1994 re-appeared, and cave occupancy rates in these later surveys
were similar to surveys of the early 1990s (Fricke et al., 2011). In
total, nine dedicated coelacanth surveys have occurred in this area
since 1986 (Fricke et al., 2011). Estimates of population abundance
along the western coast of Grand Comoro, based on repeated surveys over
almost 2 decades, are between 300 and 400 individuals, with 145
individuals identifiable via unique markings (Fricke et al., 2011). The
1994 survey showing population declines is thought to be an anomaly
driven by higher water temperature, as later surveys demonstrate that
the local population of western Grand Comoro has remained stable since
the 1980s (Fricke et al., 2011). Some local Comoran fishermen have
suggested that seasonal abundance patterns may exist for the coelacanth
as they do for the locally-targeted oilfish, but there are insufficient
data to address this phenomenon (Stobbs et al., 1991).
Across the coelacanth's range, juveniles (<100 cm) are largely
absent from survey and catch data, suggesting that earlier life stages
may exhibit differences in distribution and habitat use (Fricke et al.,
2011). Length at birth is assumed to be 40 cm (Bruton et al., 1991a).
Size classes between 40 and 100 cm are largely absent from surveys of
the Comoros, South Africa, and Tanzania; these smaller sizes are also
absent from shallower water, suggesting that they inhabit deeper water
than older individuals (Fricke et al., 2011). In general, the
distribution and relative
[[Page 11367]]
abundance of juveniles across the coelacanth's range remains unknown.
Population estimates have not been conducted in other parts of the
coelacanth's range, and it is possible that undiscovered populations
exist across the Western Indian Ocean because coelacanths have been
caught (in low numbers) off the coast of Madagascar, Kenya and
Mozambique. Based on current understanding, coelacanth habitat and
distribution is determined by the species' need for cool water and
structurally complex caves and shelf overhangs for refuge. Using these
requirements, Green et al. (2009) conducted a bathymetric survey using
data coverage of the Western Indian Ocean in order to identify
potential habitat for coelacanth populations, beyond occupied habitat
already identified. The authors identified several locations off
Mozambique and South Africa that met characteristics of coelacanth
habitat. Lack of adequate data coverage for Tanzania and Madagascar
precluded thorough analyses of these regions, so the authors did not
rule out these locations as suitable coelacanth habitat. Although this
bathymetric study did not lead to any additional surveys to confirm its
findings, the analysis demonstrates the presence of suitable habitat
throughout the Western Indian Ocean, and thus the potential for yet-
undiscovered coelacanth populations. Based on the data presented,
populations that have been surveyed appear to be stable with unknown
abundance and trends elsewhere.
Genetic data on coelacanth population structure are limited and
known distribution of coelacanth populations is potentially biased by
targeted survey efforts and fishery catch data. However, recent whole-
genome sequencing and genetic data available for multiple coelacanth
specimens can be used to cautiously infer some patterns of population
structure and connectivity across the coelacanth's known range (Nikaido
et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et al., 2013). Currently,
whole-genome sequences exist for multiple individuals from Tanzania,
the Comoros, and from the Indonesian coelacanth L. menadoensis.
Significant genetic divergence at the species level has been
demonstrated to exist between L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis (Inoue et
al. 2005) as described above.
Intraspecific population structure has been examined using L.
chalumnae specimens from Tanzania, the Comoros, and southern Africa
(Nikaido et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et al., 2013).
These studies suggest that L. chalumnae comprises multiple independent
populations distributed across the Western Indian Ocean. However, based
on limited samples, the geographic patterns and relatedness among
coelacanth populations are not well understood. Using mitochondrial DNA
analyses, Nikaido et al. (2011) demonstrated that individuals from
northern Tanzania differ from those from southern Tanzania and the
Comoros. In fact, this study estimated that a northern Tanzanian
population diverged from the rest of the species an estimated 200,000
years ago. Nikaido et al. (2011) hypothesized that differentiation of
individuals from northern Tanzania may relate to divergence of currents
in this region, where hydrography limits gene flow and reduces the
potential for drifting migrants. More recent data reflecting a greater
number of samples and higher-resolution population analyses do not
support a genetic break between individuals from north and south
Tanzania. Instead, this more robust population-genetics approach
reveals significant divergence among individuals from South Africa,
Tanzania, and two populations which diverged but are co-existing within
the Comoros; the mechanism of divergence between the two co-existing
populations of the Comoros remains unclear (Lampert et al., 2012). All
studies are consistent in that they demonstrate low absolute divergence
among populations, which either relates to extremely low evolutionary
rates in L. chalumnae, or recent divergence of populations after going
through a bottleneck (such as a founding effect) (Lampert et al.,
2012). Information derived from unique sequences of mitochondrial DNA
support the Comoros as an ancestral population to other populations
distributed throughout the Western Indian Ocean, because this
population appears to have a greater number of ancestral haplotypes
(Nikaido et al., 2011).
All coelacanth populations demonstrate the common characteristic of
low diversity, but the Comoros population is the least diverse (Nikaido
et al., 2011, Nikaido et al., 2013). Genetic evidence for inbreeding
has been observed in investigations of coelacanth mitochondrial DNA and
DNA fingerprinting, where high band-sharing coefficients showed
significant inbreeding effects (Schartl et al., 2005). The species L.
chalumnae exhibits significantly lower levels of genetic divergence
than its sister species L. menadoensis (Nikaido et al., 2013). Because
rates of molecular substitution and evolution are thought to be similar
for these two species, the significantly lower diversity measures for
L. chalumnae points to smaller populations (as compared to L.
menadoensis) or the occurrence of repeated genetic bottlenecks, rather
than slow evolution rate alone (Inoue et al., 2005, Nikaido et al.,
2013). Low diversity within populations and evidence for inbreeding
suggest that populations are independent and small.
While population structure is not clearly resolved across the
region, available genetic data suggest the following: (1) Oceanographic
and environmental conditions may cause uneven gene flow among
coelacanth populations across the region; (2) populations across the
Western Indian Ocean are independent, and do not represent strays from
the Comoros, or a panmictic population (or a population in which all
individuals are potential mates); (3) Evolutionary rates of coelacanths
are extremely slow, and lower diversity in L. chalumnae as compared
with L. menadoensis points to smaller population sizes and/or genetic
bottleneck effects.
Summary of Factors Affecting the African Coelacanth
Available information regarding current, historical, and potential
threats to the coelacanth was thoroughly reviewed (Whittaker, 2014).
Across the species' range, we found the threats to the species to be
generally low, with isolated threats of overutilization through bycatch
and habitat loss in portions of its range. Other possible threats
include climate change, overutilization via the curio trade, and
habitat degradation in the form of pollution; however, across the
species' full range we classify these threats as low. We summarize
information regarding each of these threats below according to the
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available information
does not indicate that neither disease nor predation is operative
threats on this species; therefore, we do not discuss those further
here. See Whittaker (2014) for additional discussion of all ESA section
4(a)(1) threat categories.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
There is no evidence curtailment of the historical range of L.
chalumnae has occurred throughout its evolutionary history, either due
to human interactions or natural forces. Genetic data and geological
history suggest that
[[Page 11368]]
the split between L. chalumnae and its Indonesian sister species L.
menadoensis occurred 40-30 Mya, and that the genus was previously
distributed throughout the coasts of Africa and Eurasia (Springer,
1999; Inoue et al., 2005). However, no data are available to inform an
understanding of historical changes in the range of the species L.
chalumnae. Although the order Coelacanthiformes was deemed to have
become extinct 65 million years before the 1938 discovery in South
Africa, this surprising encounter cannot be used as evidence for a
curtailment of the species' range from historical levels given lack of
any historical data on the species prior to its discovery. The species
is naturally hidden from human observation, and therefore, highly
technical diving, deep water survey equipment, or unique fishing
techniques (such as hand lines) are required to reach the fish's
cavernous, structurally complex, and deep habitat; thus, the
contemporary and historical extent of its range remains unclear.
Due to its occurrence in deep water (>100 meters), the coelacanth
may be particularly buffered from human disturbance (Heemstra et al.,
2006). Nonetheless, increases in human population and development along
the coastline of the Western Indian Ocean could impart long-term
effects on the fish throughout its range. World human population
forecasts predict that the largest percentage increase by 2050 will be
in Africa, where the population is expected to at least double to 2.1
billion (Kincaid, 2010). The result of increased population density on
coastal ecosystems of East Africa may include increased pollution and
siltation, which may impact the coelacanth despite its use of a deep
and relatively stable environment.
Human population growth will likely lead to increases in
agricultural production, industrial development, and water use along
the coast of the Western Indian Ocean; these land use changes may
increase near shore sedimentation, possibly affecting coelacanth
habitat. As described earlier, sedimentation is theorized to negatively
impact coelacanth distribution (Springer, 1999). The coelacanth has
been shown to avoid caves with turbid water, even if other preferred
conditions of shelter and food are present (Hissmann et al., 2006).
Many East African countries are still developing, and the population is
growing. Increased food demand may lead to changes in land and water
use, and an increase in agriculture and thus run-off and siltation to
the coast. It is possible that, if increases in siltation occur,
coelacanth habitat may be affected, and range reduced. However, the
nature of these economic and land use changes, as well as their direct
effect on sedimentation and subsequent impact on coelacanth habitat,
remain highly uncertain.
Pollution of coastal African waters does not currently pose a
direct threat to the coelacanth. A review of heavy metals in aquatic
ecosystems of Africa showed generally low concentrations, close to
background levels, and much lower than more industrial regions of the
world (Biney et al., 1994). Yet, surprisingly, a toxicological study of
two coelacanth specimens detected lipophilic organochlorine pollutants
such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (Hale et al., 1991). Levels
ranged from 89 to 510 pg kg-\l\ for PCB and 210 to 840 pg
kg-\l\ for DDT concentration, and were highest in lipid-rich
tissues such as the swim bladder and liver (Hale et al., 1991). The
coelacanth has high lipid content, and its trophic position may
increase the probability of toxic bioaccumulation. Insufficient data
are available to determine the impact of these toxins on coelacanth
health and productivity.
Direct habitat destruction is likely to impact coelacanths off the
coast of Tanga, Tanzania. Plans are in place to build a new deep-sea
port in Mwambani Bay, 8 km south of the original Tanga Port. The
construction of the Mwambani port is part of a large project to develop
an alternative sea route for Uganda and other land-locked countries
that have been depending on the port of Mombasa. Development of the
port would include submarine blasting and channel dredging and
destruction of known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity of Yambe and
Karange islands--the site of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth
catches (Hamlin, 2014). The new port is scheduled to be built in the
middle of a newly-implemented Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park. The plans
for Mwambani Bay's deep-sea port construction appear to be ongoing,
despite conservation concerns. If built, the port would likely disrupt
coelacanth habitat by direct elimination of deep-water shelters, or by
a large influx of siltation that would likely result in coelacanth
displacement.
Habitat destruction in the form of nearshore dynamite fishing on
coral reefs may indirectly impact the coelacanth due to a reduction in
prey availability, but these impacts are highly uncertain. As a
restricted shallow-water activity, this destructive fishing would not
impact the coelacanth's deep (+100 m) habitat directly. However, coral
reefs in this region provide essential fish nursery habitat and are hot
spots for biodiversity (Salm, 1983). Loss of nearshore coral habitat
may negatively impact pelagic fish species due to loss of nursery
habitat; it is highly uncertain how these impacts may affect the prey
availability for the coelacanth. Dynamite fishing in the Comoros was
observed recently by researchers (Fricke et al., 2011). While this
method is not widespread throughout the Comoros, reduction in the
sustainability of nearshore or pelagic fish populations may encourage
fishermen to increase use of these new methods. Dynamite fishing in
Tanzania is widespread, and has led to destruction of nearshore coral
reefs and disruption of essential fish habitat (Wells, 2009).
Destructive fishing practices occur throughout coral reefs along the
coast of the Western Indian Ocean (Salm, 1983). The true extent to
which the destruction of near shore coral habitat may affect the
coelacanth remains uncertain, especially as the fish is thought to
consume primarily deep-water prey (Uyeno, 1991; Uyeno et al., 1991).
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Bycatch
Since its discovery in 1938, all known coelacanth catches are
considered to have been the result of bycatch. Particularly in the
Comoro Islands, where the highest number of coelacanth catches has
occurred, researchers have found no evidence of a targeted coelacanth
fishery given that methods do not exist to directly catch the deep-
dwelling fish (Bruton et al., 1991c). The coelacanth meat is
undesirable, and thus the fish is not consumed by humans (Fricke,
1998).
Out of 294 coelacanth catches since its 1939 discovery, the
majority of catches (n = 215 as of 2011) have been a result of bycatch
in the oilfish, or Revettus, artisanal fishery occurring only in the
Comoro Island archipelago (Stobbs et al. 1991; Nulens et al. 2011). The
Comoros oilfish fishery uses unmotorized outrigger canoes (locally
called galawas). The fish are caught using handlines and hooks close to
shore at depths as great as 800m (Stobbs et al., 1991). This
traditional fishery is known locally as maz[eacute] fishing, and
coelacanth catches have only occurred on Grand Comoro and Anjouan
Islands (Stobbs et al., 1991). Oilfish are traditionally caught at
night, an act considered locally to be very dangerous (Stobbs et al.,
1991). Often, this artisanal fishing is performed only on dark
[[Page 11369]]
moonless calm nights. In general, subsistence fishing in the region is
limited by weather conditions, and often disrupted by monsoon or
tropical storms. This fishery is also limited by a tradition of social
pressure which restricts fishing to offshore waters adjacent to each
fisherman's village (Stobbs et al., 1991).
Since its discovery in the Comoros (in 1938), coelacanth catch rate
has been very low, between 2-4 individuals per year. Coelacanth catch
rate in the Comoros shows no significant trend over time; however, it
has fluctuated historically with changes in fishing technology and
shifts in the ratio between artisanal and more modern pelagic fishing
methods (Stobbs et al., 1991; Plante et al., 1998). From a broader
temporal perspective, there was an increasing but insignificant change
in coelacanth catch from the Comoros from 1954 to 1995 (Plante et al.,
1998). However, between 1995 and 2008, the number of galawas in the
Comoros has declined steadily, corresponding with a steady increase in
motorized boats (Fricke et al., 2011). The most recent update of
coelacanth catch inventory indicates that catch rates in the Comoro
archipelago have declined and stabilized over the past decade (Nulens
et al., 2011). In fact, between 2000 and 2008, catch rates were the
lowest ever observed, likely due to the increase in motorized boats and
decreased artisanal handline fishing over the past decade (Fricke et
al., 2011). Today, maz[eacute] fishing is going out of favor in the
Comoros (Plante et al., 1998; Fricke et al., 2011); this trend is
expected to continue into the future, and reduces fishing pressure on
the coelacanth in this region, most likely explaining the reduction in
coelacanth catch over the past decade (Stobbs et al., 1991; Plante et
al., 1998; Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens et al., 2011). Fishing mortality
has been determined to be negligible in the Comoros population, likely
relating to its population stability over time (Bruton et al., 1991a;
Fricke et al., 2011).
Outside of the Comoros, coelacanths have been caught in Tanzania,
Madagascar, Mozambique, Kenya, and South Africa (Nulens et al., 2011).
Historically, far fewer coelacanth catches have occurred outside of the
Comoros Islands. However, over the past decade, the trend in coelacanth
catches shows a drastic increase in catch rate off Tanzania via shark
gillnets (Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens et al., 2011). Hand line
maz[eacute] fisheries are absent outside of the Comoros, thus catches
across the rest of the Western Indian Ocean have occurred using
different gear--deep-set shark gillnets and trawls. Trawls have been
the mechanism for only 3 total coelacanth catches; minimal catch
through trawling is thought to relate to the coelacanth's preferred
rocky steep cavernous habitat, substrate not suitable for trawling
activity (Benno et al., 2006). The first confirmed coelacanth catches
using shark gillnets occurred in Madagascar in 1995 and in Tanzania in
2003, although a few earlier unconfirmed catches in these locations may
have occurred as early as 1953 (Benno et al., 2006). The first
Tanzanian catch in 2003 followed the introduction of shark gillnets in
the region in 2001 (Benno et al., 2006). As of September 2003, the
capture of coelacanths has been dominated by those caught in Tanzania
(Nulens et al., 2011). Since the first 2003 catch in Tanzania, over 60
catches via deep water gillnets have been reported, with over 12 fish
caught/year between 2003 and 2008 (Benno et al., 2006; Nulens et al.,
2011). These shark gillnets are set at depths between 50 and 150m, and
it is thought that accidental coelacanth catches in Tanzania occur when
coelacanths leave their caves for nighttime hunting (Nyandwi, 2009).
Expansion of the shark gillnet fishery across the Western Indian
Ocean may result in increased bycatch of the coelacanth, as has been
observed off the coast of Tanzania, but the potential for such an
increase is uncertain. Available information suggests that shark
fishing effort has been increasing off the coast of east Africa,
including the coelacanth range countries of Mozambique, Madagascar,
Kenya, and South Africa (Smale, 2008). Techniques for catching sharks
in this region include deep-set shark gillnets, such as those
responsible for the commencement of coelacanth bycatch in Tanzania in
2003 (Nulins et al., 2011). Shark gillnet fishing is used in other East
African countries, such as Mozambique, where these fisheries are highly
profitable, and are driven by the demand for fin exports, with evidence
for frequent illegal export occurring (Pierce et al., 2008). Despite
the use of gillnet fishing practices elsewhere in East Africa, other
areas have not shown a similar spike in coelacanth bycatch as has been
observed in Tanzania. Quantification of effort from the shark gill net
fishery in South Africa has been challenging due to high levels of
illegal or unreported fishing occurring; for example, as little as 21
percent of the actual catch for shark gillnet and seine fisheries may
be reported in South Africa (Hutchings et al., 2002). Nonetheless,
shark fisheries in this region are thought to be overexploited, which
may lead to an increase in future effort due to sustained global demand
(Hutchings et al., 2002). It is reasonable to conclude that the use of
shark gillnets will continue or increase in Tanzania and will continue
to expand throughout the Western Indian Ocean; however, whether this
trend will result in an increased threat of coelacanth bycatch is
uncertain, especially given the uncertainty over the fish's range and
habitat use throughout the coast of East Africa.
Commercial Interest
The coelacanth is not desirable commercially as a traditional food
source or for artisanal handicrafts. Targeted methods of fishing the
coelacanth have never been developed, and local cultures do not value
the coelacanth commercially or for subsistence purposes (Fricke, 1998).
In the Comoros, the coelacanth has become a source of pride and
national heritage (Fricke, 1998). However, cultural interest in the
coelacanth does not put the fish at risk, and on the contrary, may
encourage its conservation. Commercial interest through tourism to the
coelacanth's habitat is not a realistic threat either, as the deepwater
habitat is largely inaccessible. In the 1980s there was a rumor that
Japanese scientists were attempting to develop a new anti-aging serum
using the coelacanth notochord oil. Although these claims made
international headlines, the rumor has since been rejected. As Fricke
pointed out (Fricke, 1998), the unsubstantiated rumor of the `fountain
of youth' serum had an unexpected result of stirring publicity and
conservation interest in the fish. Interest in the coelacanth notochord
oil for medicinal purposes does not pose a threat to the species, as
claims of its life extending properties are unsubstantiated.
Interest in coelacanth specimens on the black market is a possible
threat to the species. The concern mostly surrounds a curio trade
rather than a potential aquarium trade. Because the fish is deep-water
dependent, it survives for only a short period of time at the surface,
and thus far, is not maintained in aquariums. Several attempts have
been made to keep the coelacanth alive in captivity, but these attempts
have demonstrated that the deep water fish is fragile and that it has
been shown to survive at the surface for less than 10 hours (Hughes et
al., 1972); the cause of death is thought to be a combination of
capture stress and overheating resulting in asphyxiation. Comment
threads found on the popular Web site Monster Fish Keepers, a forum for
private aquarium and fish hobbyists, reveal
[[Page 11370]]
widespread knowledge of the coelacanth's fragility; these hobbyists
express general understanding that the coelacanth's life can be
sustained at surface depth no longer than a few hours (Hamlin, 1992;
Monsterfish, 2007). Thus, black market trade of the coelacanth for
private aquaria is not a realistic threat. However, the black-market
curio trade may be a source of exploitation. The same fish hobbyist
forums reveal general interest in the fish as a curio specimen, and
willingness to pay large sums relative to the typical Comoran income
for a dead specimen (Monsterfish, 2009). Thus, black market curio trade
may provide an economic incentive for capture of the fish. However, we
did not find data suggesting that a black market curio trade is
currently active.
Scientific Interest
Since discovery of the species in 1938, international scientists
and researchers have cherished the coelacanth as the only
representative of an important evolutionary branch in the tree of life.
This has led to a long history of surveys to better understand the
fish's ecology, habitat, distribution, and evolution. A tissue library
from bycaught specimens is maintained at the Max Planck Institute in
Germany, which provides the opportunity for scientific use of samples
derived from these accidental coelacanth catches (Fricke, 1998).
Coelacanth specimens have been used by more than 30 laboratories. In
earlier years of coelacanth research, a reward of US$300-400 was
offered to fishermen for each coelacanth caught (Fricke, 1998).
However, those rewards have not been offered for decades. Prior to
strict regulations on coelacanth trade, the global museum trade offered
between US$400 and US$2000 for each specimen caught. Today, trade of
the coelacanth is prohibited by the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species (CITES) because the coelacanth is listed as an
Appendix I species; however, some transfer of specimens for scientific
study is permitted. We did not find any evidence that targeted
coelacanth catch for scientific purposes is occurring. Thus, the demand
for specimens for scientific research is not considered a threat.
In the future, scientific interest and study may be used as a basis
for the public display of the coelacanth. The public display of the
fish would be of high commercial value, and efforts to keep the
coelacanth in captivity have already been made. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, American and Japanese aquariums attempted to directly
capture and bring the coelacanth into captivity (Suzuki et al., 1985;
Hamlin, 1992). These attempts were not successful; it was determined
that coelacanth cannot be directly caught, and that they only survive
for a few hours outside of their deep water environments (Hamlin,
1992). In the future, larger aquariums may pursue the use of
pressurized tanks to keep the coelacanth alive in captivity, but their
success is uncertain given the challenge of transporting a fish from
its native habitat, and then maintaining it in an aquarium environment.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence
Climate Change
Coelacanth habitat preference and distribution is dictated by
specialized requirements for appropriate shelter (caves, caverns, and
shelves), prey availability, and a combination of depth and temperature
that meets the fish's need for oxygen (relating to optimal blood
saturation at 15 [deg]C) (Hughes, 1972). Evidence from coelacanth
habitation in South Africa is particularly useful in demonstrating the
trade-offs among these important characteristics: There, coelacanths
occupy depths of 100-140 m. The optimal temperature for the uptake of
oxygen (15 [deg]C) occurs at lower depths of 200 m, where fewer caves
exist. It is thought that the occupation of shallower depths is a
trade-off between the need for shelter and optimal oxygen uptake;
increases in oceanic temperature as is expected in connection with
climate change may disrupt the tight balance between coelacanths'
metabolic needs and the need for refuge (Roberts et al., 2006).
Across the globe, ocean temperature is increasing at an accelerated
rate (IPCC, 2013). The extent of this warming is reaching deeper and
deeper waters (Abraham et al. 2013). Increase of global mean surface
temperatures for 2081-2100 relative to 1986-2005 is projected to likely
be in the ranges derived from the concentration-driven CMIP5 model
simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
that is, 0.3 [deg]C to 1.7 [deg]C (RCP2.6), 1.1 [deg]C to 2.6 [deg]C
(RCP4.5), 1.4 [deg]C to 3.1 [deg]C (RCP6.0), or 2.6 [deg]C to 4.8
[deg]C (RCP8.5) (IPCC, 2013). While these predictions relate to surface
ocean temperatures, evidence from deep-water ocean measurements and
models suggest that heat flux to the deep ocean has accelerated over
the last decade (Abraham et al., 2013). If deep-water warming continues
to keep pace with (or exceed the pace of) surface warming, even the
most conservative IPCC scenarios may mean a warming of current
coelacanth habitat.
The coelacanth is typically observed at 15-20 [deg]C, with upper
thermal preferences of 22-23 [deg]C (Hughes et al., 1972). The effect
of these thermal boundaries on the coelacanth's distribution has been
demonstrated by a 1994 survey of the Comoro Islands, which revealed a
68 percent decrease in cave inhabitants and a 32 percent decrease in
the total number of coelacanths encountered as compared to a 1991
survey (Hissmann et al., 1998). Temperature is thought to have directly
led to this decline in coelacanth observations; in 1994, temperature of
the survey region was 25.1 [deg]C, the warmest ever recorded by
researchers there (Hissmann et al., 1998). However, it is important to
note that individually-identifiable coelacanths had returned to their
previous habitat in subsequent surveys (Fricke et al., 2011); this
suggests that the warm conditions in 1994 led to a displacement of
coelacanth habitat, but did not lead to extirpation of that population,
or a reduction in the population abundance. This information suggests
that warming may impact coelacanth distribution, but there may be
suitable habitat to accommodate a displacement of populations, where
warming may not lead to decreases in population sizes or extirpation of
populations. Despite deep water warming that has occurred over the last
decade, the surveyed coelacanth population in the Comoros is described
as stable, and not declining (Fricke et al., 2011).
Based on the majority of climate model predictions, it is likely
that current coelacanth habitat will reach temperatures exceeding the
fish's thermal preferences by 2100 (IPCC, 2013). It is unlikely that
the low-diversity fish with long generation times will physiologically
adapt to withstand the metabolic stress of a warming ocean. However,
the fish may be able to move to suitable habitat outside of its current
range, thus adapting its range to avoid the warming deep water
conditions. If the fish is displaced based on its need for cooler
waters, but complex cave shelters are not available, local extirpation
or range restriction may occur. However, currently, these impacts and
responses are highly uncertain. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that
a warming ocean may impact the fish's distribution, but the impact of
warming on the future viability of the species is uncertain. Due to the
coelacanth's temperature-dependent oxygen demand, coupled with a highly
specific need for deep structurally complex cave shelter, warming
oceanic waters may pose a
[[Page 11371]]
threat to the coelacanth and displacement of populations, but the
impact of this threat on the future viability of the species is highly
uncertain, and climate change threats have not been clearly or
mechanistically linked to any decline in coelacanth populations.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
CITES Appendix I regulates trade in species in order to reduce the
threat international trade poses to those species. The coelacanth is
included in CITES-Appendix I. Appendix I addresses those species deemed
threatened with extinction by international trade. CITES prohibits
international trade in specimens of these species except when the
purpose of the import is not commercial, meets criteria for other types
of permits, and can otherwise be legally done without affecting the
sustainability of the population, for instance, for scientific
research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it
is authorized by the granting of both an import permit and an export
permit (or re-export certificate). We found no evidence of illegal
trade of the coelacanth. Trade is limited to the transfer of specimens
for scientific purposes. There is no evidence that CITES regulations
are inadequate to address known threats such that they are contributing
to the extinction risk of the species.
The coelacanth is also listed as Critically Endangered on the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List.
The IUCN is not a regulatory body, and thus the critically endangered
listing does not impart any regulatory authority to conserve the
species.
The threat to the coelacanth stemming from anthropogenic climate
change includes elevated ocean temperature reaching its deep-water
habitat and resulting in decreased fitness or relocation of populations
based on elimination of suitable habitat, which may become restricted
due to the tight interaction between the coelacanth's thermal
requirements and need for highly complex cave shelter and prey. Impacts
of climate change on the marine environment are already being observed
in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere (Hoerling et al., 2004; Melillo et
al., 2014) and the most recent IPCC assessment provides a high degree
of certainty that human sources of greenhouse gases are contributing to
global climate change (IPCC, 2013). Countries have responded to climate
change through various international and national mechanisms, including
the Kyoto Protocol of 2007. Because climate change-related threats have
not been clearly or mechanistically linked to decline of coelacanths,
the adequacy of existing or developing measures to control climate
change threats is not possible to fully assess, nor are sufficient data
available to determine what regulatory measures would be needed to
adequately protect this species from the effects of climate change.
While it is not possible to conclude that the current efforts have been
inadequate such that they have contributed to the decline of this
species, we consider it likely that coelacanth will be negatively
impacted by climate change given the predictions of widespread ocean
warming (IPCC, 2013).
Extinction Risk
In general, demographic characteristics of the coelacanth make it
particularly vulnerable to exploitation. While coelacanth abundance
across its entire range is not well understood, it is likely that
population sizes across the Western Indian Ocean are small, as
described in Whittaker (2014). The likelihood of low abundance makes
coelacanth populations more vulnerable to extinction by elevating the
impact of stochastic events or chronic threats resulting in coelacanth
mortality. Their growth rate and productivity is extremely limited. The
coelacanth has one of the slowest metabolisms of any vertebrate, and
this relates to their meager demand for food, slow swim speed and
passive foraging, need for refuge to rest, and small gill surface area
which limits their absorption of oxygen. In addition, their gestation
period is longer than any vertebrate (3 years), although their
fecundity is moderate. They are long-lived species, with long
generation times. The extremely long gestation period and late maturity
makes the coelacanth particularly vulnerable to external threats such
as bycatch, possibly impeding recovery from mortality events (Froese et
al., 2000). Genetic data suggest that the coelacanth comprises
independent and isolated populations, originating in the Comoros, but
fully established around the Western Indian Ocean. The small and
isolated nature of coelacanth populations, only three of which are
confirmed to exist, increases vulnerability by preventing their
replacement and recovery from external threats and mortality events,
and increases the potential for local extirpations. Finally, the
species exhibits extremely low levels of diversity (Schartl et al.,
2005). Low levels of diversity reflect low adaptive and evolutionary
potential, making the coelacanth particularly vulnerable to
environmental change and episodic events. These events may reduce
diversity further, and result in a significant change or loss of
variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness
and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other adaptive
characteristics. Due to their low diversity, coelacanth populations may
be at an increased risk of random genetic drift and could experience
the fixing of recessive detrimental genes that could further contribute
to the species' extinction risk (Musick, 2011).
While demographic factors increase the coelacanth's vulnerability,
the status review classified the risk of threats across its range as
low or very low (Whittaker, 2014). We found that, in general, the
coelacanth is largely buffered from habitat impacts due to its
occurrence in deep water. Thus, the threats of dynamite fishing,
pollution, land-use changes, and sedimentation are considered low-risk.
The direct loss of coelacanth habitat may occur if the deep port of
Mwambami Bay is developed off the coast of Tanzania. However, whether
plans to build this port will come to fruition remains uncertain, and
the effects will impact a small portion of the coelacanth's range. The
threat of port development does not represent a widespread threat to
the species, and the port of Mwambami Bay is the only large coastal
development project (that we found) that would directly impact the
fish.
As for impacts from overutilization, bycatch has historically been
thought to pose the greatest threat to the coelacanth, but survey data
show there is no observed link between coelacanth bycatch and
population decline. A decade ago, the Comoros oilfish fishery was
responsible for the highest rate of coelacanth bycatch. Historically,
the Comoran fishery was responsible for catch rates of about 3 fish per
year, and is not thought to have contributed to declines in population
abundance. While the Comoran oilfish fishery has seen recent declines
in effort and has never contributed to population decline of the
coelacanth, a greater threat of bycatch has emerged in Tanzania over
the last decade. As evidenced by high rates of coelacanth bycatch via
the shark gillnet fishery, which began in 2001 in Tanzania, this
fishing method has the potential to impact the coelacanth. Since 2003
in Tanzania, coelacanth catch rates have been more than 3 times greater
than ever observed in the Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is
unclear whether this catch rate is
[[Page 11372]]
unsustainable due to limited information on trends and abundance of the
Tanzanian population. While traditional Comoran handline fishing is no
longer the most pressing bycatch threat to the fish, data suggest that
the expansion of a shark gill net fishery throughout the Western Indian
Ocean could result in additional coelacanth bycatch. The reduction of
sustainable fisheries throughout the east African and South African
coastline may encourage shifts to alternative fishing methods, such as
gillnets, or trawling closer to shore, both of which could increase the
probability of coelacanth bycatch. Bycatch in Tanzania is an ongoing
threat, and potential for additional coelacanth bycatch across the
fish's range poses a potential but uncertain threat to the fish's
persistence into the foreseeable future. Coelacanth population
abundance in Tanzania, and whether current bycatch rates are
sustainable, is unknown. Thus, the risk of bycatch across the species'
entire range is generally low. There is no real indication that
overutilization for scientific purposes, public display, or the curio
trade is occurring; thus we do not consider these factors as
contributing a risk to the future persistence of the species across its
range.
Because threats are low across the species' range, we have no
reason to consider regulatory measures inadequate in protecting the
species.
Regarding other natural or manmade factors, the threat of climate
change via ocean warming may work synergistically to enhance all other
threats to the coelacanth across its range, but the nature of these
impacts is highly uncertain as described in Whittaker (2014). The
extent of this impact on the coelacanth remains uncertain, and there
has been no clear or mechanistic link between climate change or
temperature warming and coelacanth population declines. Thus, the
threat of climate change poses a low risk to the coelacanth.
Overall, the fish's demographic factors make it particularly
vulnerable to ongoing and future threats, but existing threats pose a
generally low risk. Thus, we find that the coelacanth is at a low risk
of extinction due to current and projected threats to the species.
Protective Efforts
Since its discovery, much debate has surrounded the need to
conserve the coelacanth, as an evolutionary relic and for its value to
science. The long history of this debate was summarized by Bruton
(1991). The international organization the Coelacanth Conservation
Council (CCC) has been the primary body advocating for coelacanth
conservation over the years since 1987.
The CCC has its headquarters in Moroni, Comoros, and the
Secretariat is currently in Grahamstown, South Africa with branches in
Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Japan. The
CCC has set forth general objectives of promoting coelacanth research
and conservation, along with establishing an international registry of
coelacanth researchers and the compilation of a coelacanth inventory
and bibliography, which were published for the first time in 1991 and
recently updated in 2011 (Bruton et al., 1991b; Nulens et al., 2011).
Several conservation initiatives were implemented in the Comoros in
the 1990s to reduce coelacanth bycatch. For instance, fishing
aggregation devices were installed to encourage pelagic fishing and
reduce pressure on the coelacanth from nearshore handline fishing.
During this time, the use of motorized boats was encouraged for the
same purpose, in order to direct fishing off-shore and reduce the use
of artisanal handlines. Initially, there were some challenges,
including lack of infrastructure preventing the repair of motors.
However, the fishing trend today in the Comoros shows a clear shift to
motorized pelagic fishing, and reduced interest in traditional handline
fishing; this trend is occurring due to a natural shift in social
perspectives and local economic trends.
A supporter of coelacanth conservation and member of the U.S.
Explorer Club, Jerome Hamlin, author and curator of the Web site
DINOFISH.com, has encouraged the use of a `Deep Release Kit' for
coelacanth conservation when bycaught. The Deep Release Kit was created
in response to the `Save the Coelacanth Contest' sponsored by
DINOFISH.com (Hamlin, 2014). The kit consists of a barbless hook
attached to a sack. The fisherman puts some of his sinker stones in the
sack, places the hook in the lower jaw of the fish he has just caught
with the shank pointing down to the sack, and releases the fish to the
bottom where it frees itself. The purpose of the Deep Release procedure
is to get the fish quickly to the cold bottom water with no further
exertion on its part. A surface release (in theory) leaves the fish
without the strength to get back down to depth. Hundreds of these
devices have been distributed in the Comoros and Tanzania. These kits
are some of the only direct coelacanth conservation measures in the
Comoros or Tanzania. Yet, it is unclear whether these have been used at
sea, their success is unproven, and it is unknown whether the method
has been adopted by local fishermen.
Ongoing scientific research on the coelacanth may play a role in
coelacanth conservation, as management of the species can improve with
a more complete understanding of its biology and natural history. In
2002, South Africa instituted its African Coelacanth Ecosystem
Programme, which has coordinated an extensive array of research
including bathymetric surveys, taxonomic studies, and observational
expeditions. This program is funded by the Global Environment Facility
of the World Bank and it is in its third phase, taking an ecosystem-
based approach to understanding coelacanth distribution and habitat
utilization across the Western Indian Ocean, and providing deep-water
research tools and resources for this research.
Local efforts for marine conservation exist in the Comoros. For
example, the Moh[eacute]li Marine Park takes a co-management approach
to stop some destructive fishing and conserve marine habitat using a
series of no-take reserves. The park encompasses 212 km\2\, and was set
up during a 5-year biodiversity conservation project which began in
1998, funded by the World Bank's Global Environment Facility; the goals
of the project were to address the loss of biodiversity in Comoros and
develop local capacity for natural resource management (Granek et al.,
2005). However, no alternative revenue-generating activities have been
provided, making life difficult for some fishermen. The World Bank's
Global Environment Facility biodiversity management project in the Park
ended in 2003, and there has been no source of additional financing to
continue the resource co-management. The Moheli Park has brought
together some key institutions to encourage sustainable management and
monitoring of marine habitat of the Comoros; however, specific laws
have not been enacted, and existing legislation has not been enforced
(Ahamada et al., 2002). No coelacanths have ever been caught off the
island of Moheli, so the park's impact on bycatch of the species is not
applicable.
Other conservation efforts in the form of marine parks distributed
throughout the Western Indian Ocean may benefit the coelacanth by
reducing habitat destruction and improving prey availability; however,
the direct impacts of these conservation efforts on the species is
difficult to evaluate. Efforts to
[[Page 11373]]
improve marine resource management and conservation in developing
nations of east Africa have increased in the past decade. Today, 8.7
percent of the continental shelf in Kenya, 8.1 percent in Tanzania, and
4.0 percent in Mozambique have been designated as marine protected
areas (Wells et al., 2007). Many of these parks intersect with known
coelacanth habitat, or are in range countries where coelacanths have
been caught and potential populations exist. However, in many areas,
ongoing socioeconomic challenges have precluded effective management of
these regions (Francis et al., 2002). Analysis of east African Marine
Protected Area (MPA) management has demonstrated that socio-economic
barriers make it more difficult to reach conservation goals (Tobey et
al., 2006). Because of this, much effort has gone into creating
community-based conservation planning in recent years (e.g., Harrison
(2010)). Management constraints still remain. First, there are large
gaps in ecosystem knowledge surrounding these marine parks; for
instance, many vital habitats and species are not yet fully represented
by MPAs in place today (Wells et al., 2007). Next, monitoring is not
widely implemented and data are not available to determine whether
biodiversity or socio-economic goals are being met (Wells et al.,
2007).
A new marine park in Tanga, Tanzania has been put in place, and was
prompted by increases in coelacanth catch in the region. The Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park is located on the northern coastline of
Tanzania, extending north of the Pangani River estuary 100 km along the
coastline towards Mafuriko village just north of Tanga city. The park
covers an area of 552 km\2\, of which 85 km\2\ are terrestrial and 467
km\2\ are marine. The plans for the park were announced in 2009, and a
general management plan published in 2011 (Parks; MPRU, 2011). The goal
of the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park is to conserve marine biodiversity,
resource abundance, and ecosystem functions of the Park, including the
coelacanth and its habitat; and enable sustainable livelihoods and full
participation of local community users and other key stakeholders. The
plans for the park, specific to the coelacanth, are to restrict fishing
within its boundaries, including fishing with deep-set shark gillnets,
the primary source of coelacanth bycatch in the area. Additional
restrictions against destructive fishing and development practices have
been set forth in the park's 2011 general management plan (MPRU, 2011).
Partnership and guidance from the IUCN has encouraged plans for
community-based and adaptive park management (Harrison, 2010).
Applying the considerations mandated by our PECE policy, we
determine that the implementation and enforcement of the park's
regulations and goals are unclear and untested; further, there are
several reasons to believe that infrastructure, funding, and park
management may not be adequate to fully prevent coelacanth bycatch
within the park's boundaries: For one, illegal fishing off the coast of
Tanzania is high (Tobey et al., 2006; Hempson, 2008; Wells, 2009).
Widespread poverty and other regional socio-economic challenges in the
region have reduced the effectiveness and implementation of other east
African marine parks, and it is likely that the Tanga Coelacanth Marine
Park will face similar challenges (Toby, 2006; Wells, 2012). Although
recommendations and goals are set in place to increase tourism to the
Park as an economic offset for stricter fishing regulations, the
economic infrastructure and incentives needed for this shift are not in
place or have not yet been proven to be effective. Next, there are
plans to build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani Bay, just 8 km south of
the original old Tanga Port, which would include submarine blasting and
channel dredging and destruction of known coelacanth habitat in the
vicinity of Yambe and Karange islands--the site of several of the
Tanzanian coelacanth catches. The new port is scheduled to be built in
the middle of the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park. The construction of
Mwambani port is part of a large project to develop an alternative sea
route for Uganda and other land-locked countries which have been
depending on the port of Mombasa. The plans for Mwambani Bay's deep-sea
port construction appear to be ongoing, despite conservation concerns.
It is unclear whether this port will be built, but its presence would
negate many of the benefits (even now, unproven) of the Park. The
general management plan for the park will be fully evaluated every 10
years, with a mid-term review every 5 years. The effectiveness of Tanga
Coelacanth Marine Park is not yet known, and for reasons described
above, we do not consider this park to provide certain conservation
measures that would alleviate extinction risk to the species.
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
As noted above, we find that the species is at a low risk of
extinction throughout its range. In other words, our range-wide
analysis for the species does not lead us to conclude that the species
meets the definition for either an endangered species or a threatened
species based on the rangewide analysis. Thus, under the final
Significant Portion of Its Range (SPR) policy announced in July 2014,
we must go on to consider whether the species may have a higher risk of
extinction in a significant portion of its range (79 FR 37577; July 1,
2014).
The final policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a
portion for potential listing under the ``significant portion of its
range'' authority only if information indicates that the members of the
species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for
biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in
that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for
further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually
meets these standards such that the species should be listed:
To identify only those portions that warrant further
consideration, we will determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination
that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is
required.
79 FR 37586.
Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both
significant and endangered or threatened merely requires NMFS to engage
in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are
actually met (Id. at 37587). Unless both are met, listing is not
warranted. The policy further explains that, depending on the
particular facts of each situation, NMFS may find it is more efficient
to address the significance issue first, but in other cases it will
make more sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially
significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an
affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id.
(``[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we will not need to determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to
determine if that portion was ``significant.''). Thus, if the answer to
the first question is negative--whether that regards the significance
question or the status
[[Page 11374]]
question--then the analysis concludes and listing is not warranted.
After a review of the best available information, we identified the
Tanzanian population of the African coelacanth as a population facing
concentrated threats because of increased catch rates in this region
since 2003, and the threat of a deep-water port directly impacting
coelacanth habitat in this region. Due to these concentrated threats,
we found that the species may be at risk of extinction in this area.
Under the policy, if we believe this population also may constitute a
``significant'' portion of the range of the African coelacanth, then we
must go on to a more definitive analysis. We may either evaluate the
extinction risk of this population first to determine whether it is
threatened or endangered in that portion or first determine if it is in
fact ``significant.'' Ultimately, of course, both tests have to be met
to qualify the species for listing.
We proceeded to evaluate whether this population represents a
significant portion of the range of the African coelacanth. The
Tanzanian population is one of only three confirmed populations of the
African coelacanth, all considered to be small and isolated. Because
all three populations are isolated, the loss of one would not directly
impact the other remaining populations. However, loss of any one of the
three known coelacanth populations would significantly increase the
extinction risk of the species as a whole, as only two small
populations would remain, making them more vulnerable to catastrophic
events such as storms, disease, or temperature anomalies. Tanzanian and
Comoran populations are approximately 1,000 km apart, ocean currents
are thought to have led to their divergence over 200,000 years ago, and
connectivity between them is not thought to be maintained (Nikiado et
al., 2011). The South African population is separated from the Comoran
and Tanzanian populations by hundreds of miles. The Tanzanian
population exhibits the greatest genetic divergence from the other
populations, suggesting that it may be the most reproductively isolated
among them (Lampert et al., 2012). Potential catastrophic events such
as storms or significant temperature changes may affect the Comoran and
Tanzanian populations simultaneously, due to their closer geographic
proximity. The South African population, while not as genetically
isolated, may experience isolated catastrophic events due to its
geographic isolation. This reasoning supports our conclusion that the
Tanzanian population comprises a significant portion of the range of
the species because this portion's contribution to the viability of the
African coelacanth is so important that, without the members in this
portion, the African coelacanth would be likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
Because the Tanzanian population of the coelacanth was determined
to represent a significant portion of the range of the species, we
performed an extinction risk assessment on the Tanzanian population by
evaluating how the demographic factors (abundance, productivity/growth
rate, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity) of the species
would be impacted by the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, considering only
those factors affecting the Tanzanian population.
Coelacanth abundance across its entire range is not well
understood, and no abundance estimates exist for the Tanzanian
population. Based on general knowledge of the African coelacanth, the
Tanzanian population is likely associated with very restricted and
specific habitat requirements and low growth rates. We conclude that it
is likely that the population size of the Tanzanian population is small
for the same reasons described above for the species as a whole: It
exhibits low levels of diversity (Nikaido et al., 2013), long
generation times, and restricted habitat (Hissmann et al., 2006; Fricke
et al., 2011). The likelihood of low abundance makes the Tanzanian
population more vulnerable to extinction by elevating the impact of
stochastic events or chronic threats resulting in coelacanth mortality.
Growth rate and productivity for the Tanzanian population is
thought to exhibit similar characteristics to other populations of the
species. The species as a whole has one of the slowest metabolisms of
any vertebrate. The extremely long gestation period and late maturity
makes the Tanzanian population particularly vulnerable to external
threats such as bycatch, possibly impeding recovery from mortality
events (Froese et al., 2000).
The Tanzanian population is thought to represent a single isolated
population of the species. It has been estimated that this population
diverged from the rest of the species 200,000 years ago (Nikaido et
al., 2011). Differentiation of individuals from the Tanzanian
population may relate to divergence of currents in this region, where
hydrography limits gene flow and reduces the potential for drifting
migrants. The isolated nature of the Tanzanian population lowers the
potential for its recovery from external threats; the population is not
thought to maintain connectivity with other populations, and thus has
no source for replacement of individuals lost outside of its own
reproductive processes. Fast-moving currents along the Eastern coast of
Africa are thought to prevent connectivity among populations in the
region (Nikaido et al., 2011). This may be particularly true for
Tanzania. We consider current evidence for the Tanzanian population's
high isolation from the rest of the species to contribute to a moderate
risk of extinction, as these are natural factors (relevant under
section 4(a)(1)(E)) that may increase vulnerability of this population
by preventing its replacement and recovery from external threats and
mortality events, and increase the potential for extinction.
Genomic analyses of individuals from the Tanzanian population and
other representatives of the species reveal that divergence and
diversity within and among populations is very low (Nikaido et al.,
2013). Low levels of diversity reflect low adaptive and evolutionary
potential, making the Tanzanian population particularly vulnerable to
environmental change and episodic events. These events may reduce
diversity further, and result in a significant change or loss of
variation in life history characteristics (such as reproductive fitness
and fecundity), morphology, behavior, or other adaptive
characteristics. Due to the Tanzanian population's low diversity, this
population may be at an increased risk of random genetic drift and
could experience the fixing of recessive detrimental genes that could
further contribute to the species' extinction risk (Musick, 2011).
Regarding habitat threats to the Tanzanian population, loss and
degradation of coelacanth habitat can take the form of pollution,
dynamite fishing, sedimentation, and direct loss through development.
Future human population growth and land use changes off the coast of
Tanzania increase these threats to the Tanzanian population, but their
trends and impacts are highly uncertain. In general, the coelacanth is
largely buffered from habitat impacts due to its occurrence in deep
water, and general effects of pollution and development are similar to
those described for the rest of the species. However, specifically
related to the Tanzanian population, direct loss of habitat is likely
to occur if the deep port of Mwambami Bay is developed. The port is
planned to be built just 8 km south of the original old Tanga Port, and
this would include submarine blasting and channel dredging and
destruction of
[[Page 11375]]
known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity of Yambe and Karange islands--
the site of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth catches. The new port
is scheduled to be built in the middle of the Tanga Coelacanth Marine
Park. The construction of Mwambani port is part of a large project to
develop an alternative sea route for Uganda and other land-locked
countries that have been depending on the port of Mombasa. The plans
for Mwambani Bay's deep-sea port construction appear to be ongoing,
despite conservation concerns, and thus it is reasonable to conclude
that it poses a likely threat to the species. Whether plans to build
this port will come to fruition remains uncertain, but if built, the
deep port could significantly impact the Tanzanian population of
coelacanths by destroying habitat directly. For the Tanzanian
population, the construction of this deep-water port could be
catastrophic, and it is clear that the boundaries of the new Tanga
Marine Park are insufficient in halting plans for the port's
development.
As for impacts from overutilization, bycatch has historically been
thought to pose the greatest threat to the coelacanth. While survey
data from the Comoros show there is no observed link between coelacanth
bycatch and population decline, since 2003 in Tanzania, coelacanth
catch rates have been more than 3 times greater than ever observed in
the Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is unclear whether this catch
rate is sustainable due to limited information on trends and abundance
of the Tanzanian population. The further expansion of a shark gill net
fishery in Tanzania, as has been observed over the last decade, could
result in additional coelacanth bycatch. Bycatch in Tanzania is an
ongoing threat. While direct data assessing Tanzanian coelacanth
population decline are not available, the relatively high and
persistent catch rate in this region has the potential to deplete this
small and isolated population, which has life history characteristics
that greatly impede its recovery and resiliency to mortality.
We consider the threat of overutilization for scientific purposes,
public display, or for the curio trade as low for reasons described
above, as they apply to the rest of the species.
We consider the threat of inadequate regulatory mechanisms as low
for the Tanzanian population for the same reasons described above for
the rest of the species. Additionally, we classify the risk of climate
change as low for the Tanzanian population for the same reasons
described above for the rest of the species.
Overall, the Tanzanian population's demographic factors make it
particularly vulnerable to ongoing and future threats, which pose a
moderate risk to the species. Based on the best available information,
threats of bycatch to the Tanzanian population appear to be persistent,
and the potential development of a deep port within this population's
habitat could be catastrophic to the population in the foreseeable
future. Thus, we find that the Tanzanian population is at a moderate
risk of extinction due to current and projected threats.
Therefore, we conclude that the Tanzanian population is at moderate
risk of extinction in a significant portion of the African coelacanth's
range of the species.
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
In accordance with the SPR policy, if a species is determined to be
threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, and the
population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. Because the
Tanzanian population represents a significant portion of the range of
the species, and this population is at a moderate risk of extinction,
we performed a DPS analysis on that population.
As defined in the ESA (Sec. 3(15)), a ``species'' includes any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature. The joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
policy on identifying distinct population segments (DPS) (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996) identifies two criteria for DPS designations: (1) The
population must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the taxon
(species or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the population
must be ``significant'' (as that term is used in the context of the DPS
policy, which is different from its usage under the SPR policy) to the
remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) ``It is markedly separated from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,
or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation'';
or (2) ``it is delimited by international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)'' of the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996).
Significance: If a population segment is found to be discrete under
one or both of the above conditions, then its biological and ecological
significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) ``Persistence of
the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a
taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics'' (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Discreteness
The Tanzanian population cannot be differentiated from other
populations based on its morphology. In fact, no coelacanth population
exhibits significant distinguishing morphological characteristics, and
morphological differences within the Latimeria genus as a whole have
been debated (Pouyad et al., 1999, Holder et al., 1999; Erdmann et al.,
1999). No unique behavioral, physical, or ecological characteristics
have been identified for the Tanzanian population to set it apart from
the rest of the taxon. Only a single dedicated survey of the Tanzanian
population is available; thus, future surveys may reveal distinguishing
ecological features of the population.
As stated above, genetic data on coelacanth population structure
are limited and known distribution of coelacanth populations is
potentially biased by targeted survey efforts and fishery catch data.
However, recent whole-genome sequencing and genetic data available for
multiple coelacanth specimens can be used to cautiously infer some
patterns of population structure and connectivity across the
coelacanth's known range (Nikaido et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012;
Nikaido et al., 2013). Intraspecific population structure has been
examined using L. chalumnae specimens from Tanzania, the Comoros, and
southern Africa (Nikaido et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et
al., 2013). These
[[Page 11376]]
studies suggest that L. chalumnae comprises multiple isolated and
reproductively independent populations distributed across the Western
Indian Ocean, only three which have been confirmed (inhabiting waters
off of Tanzania, the Comoros, and South Africa).
While population structure of the taxon, described earlier, is not
fully resolved, all genetic data available suggest that the Tanzanian
population represents a single isolated population of the species.
Multiple genetic studies corroborate a significant divergence between
Tanzanian individuals, and individuals from the South African and
Comoros populations (Nikaido et al.; 2011, Lampert et al., 2012). This
includes evidence from both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (Nikaido et
al., 2011, Lampert et al., 2012, Nikaido et al., 2013). The Tanzanian
population is the most diverged of all coelacanth populations (Lampert
et al., 2012). Differentiation of individuals from the Tanzanian
population may relate to divergence of currents in this region, where
hydrography limits gene flow and reduces the potential for drifting
migrants (Nikaido et al., 2011). All available data suggest that the
Tanzanian population does not likely maintain connectivity with other
populations, and likely has no source for replacement of individuals
outside of its own reproductive processes.
The Tanzanian population is geographically isolated from the
Comoran and South African populations. The Tanzanian population is
approximately 1,000 km away from the Comoran population and over 4,000
km away from the South African population, with oceanic currents
further reducing their potential for connectivity. While it is thought
that the Comoran population is the source of other populations along
the Western Indian Ocean, the Tanzanian and South African populations
may have been established as many as 200,000 years ago, as genetic data
suggest (Nikaido et al., 2011).
Based on genetic evidence, and the clear geographic isolation of
the Tanzanian population, we determined that the Tanzanian population
of L. chalumnae is discrete from other populations within the species.
Significance
The Tanzanian population does not persist in an ecological setting
unusual or unique for the taxon. Although the Tanzanian individuals are
thought to inhabit limestone ledges rather than volcanic caves where
Comoran and South African individuals are found, the depth, prey,
temperature, and shelter requirements are remarkably similar among the
known coelacanth populations (Hissman et al., 2006). We found no
evidence to suggest that differences in the ecological setting of the
Tanzanian population have led to any adaptive or behavioral
characteristics that set the population apart from the rest of the
taxon, or contribute significant adaptive diversity to the species.
The Tanzanian population is one of only three known populations
within the species. Although it is not the only surviving natural
occurrence of the taxon, we determined that loss of this population
segment would result in a significant gap in the taxon's range for the
following reasons: Although coelacanth populations are not thought to
maintain reproductive connectivity, loss of one population would make
the other two populations more vulnerable to catastrophic events, as
explained earlier. The extent of the Tanzanian population's range is
not known, but given the existence of only three known coelacanth
populations considered to be small and isolated, loss of the Tanzanian
population would constitute a significant gap in the range of the
taxon, and thus we consider this population to be significant to the
taxon as a whole.
We determined that the Tanzanian population is discrete based on
evidence for its genetic and geographic isolation from the rest of the
taxon. The population also meets the significance criterion set forth
by the DPS policy, as its loss would constitute a significant gap in
the taxon's range. Because it is both discrete and significant to the
taxon as a whole, we identify the Tanzanian population as a valid DPS.
Proposed Determination
We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that the
species, viewed across its entire range, experiences a low risk of
extinction. However, we determined that the Tanzanian population
constitutes a significant portion of the range of the species, as
defined by the SPR policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). The Tanzanian
population faces ongoing or future threats from overutilization and
habitat destruction, with the species' natural biological vulnerability
to overexploitation exacerbating the severity of the threats. The
Tanzanian population faces demographic risks, such as population
isolation with low productivity, which make it likely to be influenced
by stochastic or depensatory processes throughout its range, and place
the population at an increased risk of extinction from the
aforementioned threats within the foreseeable future. In our
consideration of the foreseeable future, we evaluated how far into the
future we could reliably predict the operation of the major threats to
this population, as well as the population's response to those threats.
We are confident in our ability to predict out several decades in
assessing the threats of overutilization and habitat destruction, and
their interaction with the life history of the coelacanth, with its
lifespan of 40 or more years. With regard to habitat destruction, we
evaluated the likelihood of the deep water port being constructed. If
the port is to be developed, the results could significantly impact the
Tanzanian coelacanth population. Evidence suggests that the plans for
its construction are moving forward; its construction is not certain,
but likely. If built, the construction of the port would likely occur
within the next decade. With bycatch, and its interaction with the
fish's demographic characteristics, we feel that defining the
foreseeable future out to several decades is appropriate. Based on this
information, we find that the Tanzanian population is at a moderate
risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
consider the Tanzanian population to be threatened.
In accordance with the our SPR policy, if a species is determined
to be threatened or endangered across a significant portion of its
range, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS,
we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or
subspecies. Based on the best available scientific and commercial
information as presented in the status report and this finding, we do
not find that the African coelacanth L. chalumnae is currently in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. However, because the Tanzanian
population represents a significant portion of the range of the
species, and this population is threatened, we conclude that the
African coelacanth is threatened in a significant portion of its range.
Because the population in the significant portion of the range is a
valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
Therefore, we propose to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth as threatened under the ESA.
Similarity of Appearance
The petition requested that, if the African coelacanth were listed
under the ESA, the Indonesian coelacanth also be listed due to its
``similarity of
[[Page 11377]]
appearance.'' The ESA provides for treating any species as an
endangered species or a threatened species even if it is not listed as
such under the ESA if: (1) Such species so closely resembles in
appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed
pursuant to section 4 of the ESA that enforcement personnel would have
substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the
listed and unlisted species; (2) the effect of this substantial
difficulty is an additional threat to the listed species; and (3) such
treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the
enforcement and further the policy of the ESA.
While the African and Indonesian species exhibit morphological
similarities, they are clearly geographically and genetically
separated. Enforcement personnel would have no difficulty in
differentiating between the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth and
the Indonesian coelacanth because of similarity of appearance because
their geographic separation (in the Western Indian Ocean and Indo-
Pacific, respectively) should facilitate regulation of taking. The
species experience no overlap in range and catch of both species is
relatively low, and well-documented. We do not deem ESA protection for
the Indonesian coelacanth to be advisable at this time, as the clear
genetic and geographic differences between the two species set them
apart in a way that allows for easy identification, regardless of their
similar appearance.
Because we are proposing to list the Tanzanian DPS as a threatened
species under the ESA, we also considered any potential similarity of
appearance issues that may arise in differentiating between the
proposed DPS and other populations of the species. No morphological
characteristics separate the Tanzanian DPS from other populations of
the species. However, we do not conclude that listing the South African
or Comoran populations based on similarity of appearance is warranted.
First, outside of Tanzania, coelacanth catches are infrequent, and well
documented. Second, the three known coelacanth populations do not
overlap geographically. Differentiation between the African and
Indonesian coelacanth, and likewise between the Tanzanian DPS and other
populations of the species, could potentially pose a problem for
enforcement of section 9 prohibitions on trade, should any be applied.
However, that issue is addressed, at least with respect to imports and
exports, by the inclusion of coelacanth in CITES Appendix I.
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f));
concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) and consistent with implementing regulations;
Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the
ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be
designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered species, prohibitions
on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through
listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies,
foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.
Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS
regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal
agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of
those species. It is unlikely that the listing of this DPS under the
ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because the
DPS occurs outside of the United States and is unlikely to be affected
by Federal actions.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated
concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat
shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The best available scientific data as discussed above identify the
geographical area occupied by the species as being entirely outside
U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate critical habitat for this
species. We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United
States currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are
determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the
species. Based on the best available information, we have not
identified unoccupied area(s) in U.S. water that are currently
essential to the species proposed for listing. Thus, as we discussed
above, we will not propose critical habitat for this species.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires NMFS to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the
time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA.
Because we are proposing to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African
coelacanth as threatened, no prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA
will apply to this species.
Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA
We are proposing to list Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth,
L. chalumnae as threatened under the ESA. In the case of threatened
species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion
whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) ``take''
prohibitions to the species, and authorizes us to issue regulations
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Thus, we
have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations,
taking into account the effectiveness of available conservation
measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to
threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the
ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. These 9(a)
prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies
subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We will consider potential protective
regulations
[[Page 11378]]
pursuant to section 4(d) for the proposed threatened coelacanth DPS. We
seek public comment on potential 4(d) protective regulations (see
below).
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
to list the Tanzanian DPS of the African coelacanth will be as accurate
and effective as possible, we are soliciting comments and information
from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties on information in
the status review and proposed rule. Comments are encouraged on this
proposal (See DATES and ADDRESSES). We must base our final
determination on the best available scientific and commercial
information. We cannot, for example, consider the economic effects of a
listing determination. Before finalizing this proposed rule, we will
consider the comments and any additional information we receive, and
such information may lead to a final regulation that differs from this
proposal or result in a withdrawal of this listing proposal. We
particularly seek:
(1) Information concerning the threats to the Tanzanian DPS of the
African coelacanth proposed for listing;
(2) Taxonomic information on the species;
(3) Biological information (life history, genetics, population
connectivity, etc.) on the species;
(4) Efforts being made to protect the species throughout its
current range;
(5) Information on the commercial trade of the species;
(6) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends
for the species; and
(7) Information relevant to potential ESA section 4(d) protective
regulations for the proposed threatened DPS, especially the
application, if any, of the ESA section 9 prohibitions on import, take,
possession, receipt, and sale of the African coelacanth.
We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting
documentation, such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that the person represents.
Role of Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a
minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review
from qualified specialists, in addition to a public comment period. The
intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based
on the best scientific and commercial data available. We solicited peer
review comments on the African coelacanth status review report,
including from: Five scientists with expertise on the African
coelacanth. We incorporated these comments into the status review
report for the African coelacanth and this 12-month finding.
References
A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed
rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed
rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the
countries in which the species occurs, and they will be invited to
comment. We will confer with the U.S. Department of State to ensure
appropriate notice is given to foreign nations within the range the DPS
(Tanzania). As the process continues, we intend to continue engaging in
informal and formal contacts with the U.S. State Department, giving
careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 223
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 223 as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding a new
entry for one species in alphabetical order under the ``Fishes'' table
subheading to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 11379]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules
Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coelacanth, African (Tanzanian DPS)... Latimeria chalumnae...... African coelacanth population [Insert Federal Register NA NA
inhabiting deep waters off citation and date when
the coast of Tanzania. published as a final rule].
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-04405 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P