Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Atlantic Humpback Dolphin as an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act, 20829-20846 [2023-07286]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20829-20846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 224

[Docket No. 230403-0090; RTID 0648-XR118]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Atlantic Humpback Dolphin as an Endangered Species Under the Endangered 
Species Act

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Atlantic humpback dolphin 
(Sousa teuszii) in response to a petition from the Animal Welfare 
Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and VIVA Vaquita to 
list the species. Based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including the draft status review report, and 
taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, we have 
determined that the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a high risk of 
extinction throughout its range and warrants listing as an endangered 
species. This species occurs only in coastal Atlantic waters of western 
Africa. We are authorized to designate critical habitat within U.S. 
jurisdiction only, and we are not aware of any areas within U.S 
jurisdiction that may meet the definition of critical habitat under the 
ESA. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat. We 
are soliciting public comments on our draft status review report and 
proposal to list this species.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 6, 2023. 
Public hearing requests must be made by May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0110, by the following method:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0110 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 
or attach your comments.
    Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
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. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    The petition, status review report, Federal Register notices, and 
the list of references can be accessed electronically online at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-humpback-dolphin#conservation-management.

[[Page 20830]]

The peer review report is available online at: https://www.noaa.gov/information-technology/endangered-species-act-status-review-report-atlantic-humpback-dolphin-sousa-teuszii-id447.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Austin, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, 301-427-8422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 8, 2021, we received a petition from the Animal 
Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and VIVA 
Vaquita to list the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszii) as a 
threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The petition asserted 
that the Atlantic humpback dolphin is threatened by four of the ESA 
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the present destruction or modification of 
its habitat; (2) overutilization for commercial purposes; (3) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    On December 2, 2021, we published a 90-day finding for the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin with our determination that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted (86 FR 68452). We also announced the 
initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's 
decision on whether this species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA. We received information from the public in 
response to the 90-day finding and incorporated the information into 
both the draft status review report (Austin 2023) and this proposed 
rule.

Listing Determinations Under the ESA

    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 first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species,'' which is defined in section 3 of the ESA 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 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 (``DPS 
Policy,'' 61 FR 4722). The joint DPS Policy identifies two elements 
that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of 
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to 
which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to 
the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
    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 (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), 16 U.S.C. 
1532(20)). Thus, we interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that 
is presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the 
other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become so 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 not presently but within 
the foreseeable future (threatened).
    Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we must determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a 
combination of any of the following factors: (A) the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). 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, if any, 
being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to 
protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).

Status Review

    To determine whether the Atlantic humpback dolphin warrants listing 
under the ESA, we completed a draft status review report, which 
summarizes information on the species' taxonomy, distribution, 
abundance, life history, ecology, and biology; identifies threats or 
stressors affecting the status of the species; and assesses the 
species' current and future extinction risk. We appointed a biologist 
in the Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Conservation 
Division to compile and complete a scientific review of the best 
available information on the Atlantic humpback dolphin, including 
information received in response to our request for information (86 FR 
68452, December 2, 2021). Next, we conducted an Extinction Risk 
Analysis (ERA) to assess the threats affecting the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin, as well as demographic risk factors (abundance, productivity, 
spatial distribution, and diversity), using the information in the 
scientific review. The draft status review report presents our 
professional judgment of the extinction risk facing the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin but makes no recommendation as to the listing status 
of the species. The draft status review report (Austin 2023) is 
available electronically (see ADDRESSES). Information from the draft 
status review report is summarized below in the Biological Review 
section, and the results of the ERA from the draft status review report 
are discussed below.
    The draft status review report was subject to independent peer 
review pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget Final 
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 
2004). The draft status review report was peer reviewed by four 
independent scientists selected from the academic and scientific 
community with expertise in cetacean biology, conservation, and 
management, and specific knowledge of Atlantic humpback dolphins. The 
peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness, 
and application of data used in the draft status review report, as well 
as the findings made in the ``Extinction Risk Analysis'' section of the 
report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to finalizing 
the draft status review report.
    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited 
references, and peer review comments, and conclude the status review 
report, upon which this proposed rule is based, provides the best 
available scientific and commercial information on the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin. Much of the information discussed below on the 
species' biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk 
is attributable to the status review report. We have applied the 
statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors 
set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations regarding listing 
determinations,\1\ and relevant policies

[[Page 20831]]

identified herein in making the listing determination. In the sections 
below, we provide information from the report regarding threats to and 
the status of the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California issued an order vacating the ESA section 4 
implementing regulations that were revised or added to 50 CFR part 
424 in 2019 (``2019 regulations,'' see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019) 
without making a finding on the merits. On September 21, 2022, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay 
of the district court's July 5 order. As a result, the 2019 
regulations are once again in effect, and we are applying the 2019 
regulations here. For purposes of this determination, we considered 
whether the analysis or its conclusions would be any different under 
the pre-2019 regulations. We have determined that our analysis and 
conclusions presented here would not be any different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biological Review

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The Atlantic humpback dolphin, S. teuszii, belongs to the family 
Delphinidae in the order Artiodactyla, and is one of four currently 
recognized species of humpback dolphins in the genus Sousa: S. plumbea 
(Indian Ocean humpback dolphin), S. chinensis (Indo-Pacific humpback 
dolphin), and S. sahulensis (Australian humpback dolphin) (Jefferson 
and Van Waerebeek 2004; Mendez et al. 2013; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 
2014). Available data indicate that there is genetic and morphological 
differentiation between S. teuszii and other species of humpback 
dolphins (Mendez et al. 2013). Additionally, a comprehensive study of 
Sousa cranial morphometrics conducted by Jefferson and Van Waerebeek 
(2004), found that S. teuszii have significantly shorter rostra, wider 
skulls, and lower tooth counts when compared with 222 Southeast 
African, Arabian/Persian Gulf, and Indian Sousa specimens (Jefferson 
and Van Waerebeek 2004; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023).
    The Atlantic humpback dolphin does not share mitochondrial DNA 
(mtDNA) haplotypes with other species in the genus Sousa. A 
phylogenetic assessment of combined nuclear and mtDNA datasets 
indicates that S. teuszii is most closely related to the Indian Ocean 
humpback dolphin (S. plumbea) from Southeast Africa (Mendez et al. 
2013). The most plausible mechanism for their isolation is the Benguela 
upwelling system, an area dominated by cold upwelling that is located 
within the ~2,000 kilometer (km) distribution gap between S. teuszii 
and S. plumbea (Jefferson and Van Waerebeek 2004; Mendez et al. 2013; 
Collins 2015). The complete mitochondrial genome of S. teuszii was 
recently mapped by McGowen et al. (2020), and was found to be 98.1 
percent similar to its closest relative with a sequenced mitogenome, 
the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (S. chinensis).
    The Atlantic humpback dolphin holotype (a skull) was discovered in 
1892 in ``Bucht des Kameruner Kriegsshiffhafens,'' (``Bay of Warships'' 
or ``Man O'War Bay''), in Cameroon by the German agronomist Eduard 
T[euml]usz (Collins et al. 2017). The holotype was sent to Germany, 
where it was examined and first described by the German zoologist Dr. 
Willy K[uuml]kenthal, who based his description primarily on 
differences in the skull compared to other humpback dolphins known at 
the time (K[uuml]kenthal 1891; Collins 2015). The species was 
originally placed in the genus Sotalia; the genus named Sousa came into 
general use in the 1960s (K[uuml]kenthal 1891; Van Waerebeek et al. 
2004; Collins 2015).
    In terms of distinctive physical characteristics, the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin is characterized by a prominent dorsal hump, ranging 
from about 26-32 percent of body length, giving the species its common 
name (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023). A small dorsal fin 
with a rounded tip is situated at the top of the hump (Jefferson and 
Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023). The species has a well-defined long and 
slender beak; the lower jaw is paler gray in coloration than the upper 
jaw (Austin 2023). Individuals are generally uniform dark gray in color 
with a lighter ventral surface and broad flippers, with a straight 
trailing edge and rounded tips (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 
2023). Some larger adults are known to have a white margin to the 
dorsal hump and fin, apparently caused by scarring, and there may be 
some white or dark oval flecking on the tail stock (Austin 2023). 
Atlantic humpback dolphins reach maximum body lengths of approximately 
2.8 meters (m) (Austin 2023). While sexual dimorphism has not been 
studied in detail (largely due to small sample sizes of specimens), it 
is suspected that adult males are larger, heavier, and have a more 
pronounced dorsal hump, than females. The hump and dorsal fin of some 
larger adults may be bordered by white pigmentation (Jefferson and Van 
Waerebeek 2004; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014).

Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use

    The Atlantic humpback dolphin is considered an obligate shallow 
water dolphin that is endemic to the tropical and subtropical eastern 
Atlantic nearshore waters (<30 m) of the west coast of Africa, ranging 
discontinuously for approximately 7,000 km from Dakhla Bay (Rio de Oro) 
in Western Sahara (23[deg]52' N, 15[deg]47' W) to T[ocirc]mbwa (Namibe 
Province) in Angola (15[deg]46' S, 11[deg]46' E) (International Whaling 
Commission 2011; Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; International 
Whaling Commission 2017; International Whaling Commission 2020b; Austin 
2023).
    This species is the only member of the genus that occurs outside of 
the Indo-Pacific region (Mendez et al. 2013; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 
2014; Collins 2015). Although each of the 19 countries between (and 
including) Western Sahara and Angola are presumed to be part of the 
species' natural range, the current distribution is uncertain due to 
incomplete research coverage, including an absence of survey effort in 
many areas. Currently, there are confirmed records of occurrence 
(confirmed via sightings, strandings, and bycatch data) in the 
following 13 countries: Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, The 
Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, 
Republic of the Congo, and Angola (Ayissi et al. 2014; Weir and Collins 
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; CCAHD 2020; Bamy et al. 2021, Austin 
2023). The six countries with no confirmed records (Sierra Leone, 
Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana, mainland Equatorial Guinea, and 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo) have received little or no 
systematic cetacean or coastal research (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 
2017, Austin 2023). It remains uncertain whether the absence or 
scarcity of records in many countries is due to lack of observation 
effort and reporting, scarcity of the species, or a discontinuous 
distribution (caused by suboptimal habitat and/or local extirpation) 
(Weir et al. 2021, Austin 2023). Additionally, the species is not known 
to occur around any of the larger offshore islands of the Gulf of 
Guinea, including Sao Tome and Principe or Bioko (Fernando P[oacute]o) 
and Annabon (Pagalu) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004).
    Eleven putative ``management stocks'' (i.e., subpopulations) of S. 
teuszii were identified by Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) based on 
localities or countries where the species has been recorded and 
evidence of gaps in the species' range (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; 
Austin 2023). These management stocks are meant to serve practical 
management purposes amongst range countries until intraspecific genetic 
variation data become available (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). However, 
Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) proposed that the currently recognized 
management stocks of Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago 
(Guinea-Bissau) and South Guinea be combined into a single

[[Page 20832]]

``Guineas'' stock due to multiple records reported from the Tristao 
Islands and the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary (Weir 2015) in northern 
Guinea.
    Throughout its range, the Atlantic humpback dolphin predominantly 
occurs shoreward of the 20 m depth isobaths, and often in the 
shallowest (<=5 m depth) part of that range, in nearshore waters 
(average sea surface temperatures ranging from 15.8[deg] to 31.8[deg] 
Celsius), and in a diverse array of dynamic habitats strongly 
influenced by tidal patterns (e.g., sandbanks, deltas, estuaries, and 
mangrove systems) (Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; Taylor et al. 
2020). In this context, ``nearshore'' is defined as areas in which the 
sea floor is affected by wave motion, resulting in dynamic, tide-
influenced, habitats (Weir 2015; Weir and Collins 2015). Documented 
habitats include: large estuarine systems (including mangrove channels, 
upstream waters with tidal influence, and the estuary-influenced waters 
further offshore); exposed marine coasts (often within, or just beyond, 
the surf zone); coastal archipelagos; tidal mud-flats, sandbanks and 
seagrass expanses; and large, sheltered enclosed shallow bays (Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; Austin 
2023).
    Even though recorded sightings are typically coastal, the species 
may also occur up to at least 13 km from shore when suitable shallow 
habitat is present (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir and Collins 2015). 
It has been recorded some distance upriver but there is no evidence 
that it travels beyond the influence of marine waters, and is not known 
to enter the coastal lagoons that are a prevalent feature of equatorial 
Atlantic African coasts (Maigret 1980a; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 
and Collins 2015).
    Areas of known occurrence of S. teuszii may reflect availability of 
suitable shallow habitat for the species. The Dakhla Bay, Banc 
d'Arguin, and Saloum-Niumi stocks are separated from each other by 
distances exceeding 350 km, and few observations have been recorded 
between them despite fieldwork over several decades (Collins 2015). 
This suggests that these stocks may currently be reproductively 
isolated from each other and from more southern stocks, and that the 
distribution of S. teuszii may be naturally discontinuous in some 
areas, with highest densities in optimal habitats and reduced 
occurrence on intervening coasts (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). However, Collins (2015) notes that 
gaps in the species' range may be a relatively recent phenomenon, due 
to increased human pressures in once pristine regions (Van Waerebeek 
and Perrin 2007; Weir et al. 2011). Available data demonstrate that 
even where dedicated cetacean surveys are conducted, sightings in most 
areas of known occurrence can be low, and a general absence of records 
from gap areas may indicate occurrence in extremely low densities 
rather than absence. For instance, in southern Gabon, where S. teuszii 
occurs in the surf zone on open coastlines, boat-based survey work 
demonstrates that sightings rates can be very low, even with dedicated 
effort (Collins 2015; Austin 2023).
    Atlantic humpback dolphin migrations and movements are poorly 
understood largely because the necessary work (e.g., comparison of 
identification catalogues, genetic sampling and tagging) has not been 
conducted (Collins et al. 2017). Because Atlantic humpback dolphins 
feed primarily on coastal, estuarine, and reef-associated fishes, 
localized movements have been linked to feeding opportunities 
facilitated by tides (Busnel 1973; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). 
Movements on larger scales have never been documented, but have been 
inferred using local accounts and sightings from fishers, suggesting 
movement north of the Banc d'Arguin (Maigret 1980a) and sightings 
between Nouamghar and Nouakchott (Mauritania) may indicate occasional 
movements south (Robineau and Vely 1998). More recent observations of 
S. teuszii groups passing between Barra and Buniada Points, indicate 
routine movement between Senegal and Gambia (Collins 2015). 
Additionally, swim speeds of 1-7 km/hour (hr) (mean of 4 km/hr) were 
recorded during travel along a linear coastline in Angola, indicating 
that Atlantic humpback dolphins might be capable of undertaking 
considerable spatial movements with the potential for relatively large 
home ranges (Weir 2009). Records suggest transboundary movements 
between some range countries, such as between Saloum-Niumi (Senegal-The 
Gambia) and Bijagos (Guinea-Bissau) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 
2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017). Sightings in the Rio 
Nu[ntilde]ez region suggest this connectivity extends into Guinea (Weir 
and Collins 2015). Additionally, beach-based observations indicate 
routine movements of S. teuszii across the Gabon/Republic of the Congo 
border within the Mayumba-Conkouati transboundary protected area; 
however, it remains unclear if these individuals range farther afield 
(Collins 2015).

Diet and Feeding

    Information on the Atlantic humpback dolphin's diet and feeding 
ecology is limited, as few stomach samples have been examined and 
direct observations of feeding are rare (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; 
Collins 2015). Additionally, there have not been any targeted studies 
of its diet or interactions with prey species. However, based on 
stomach contents of bycaught S. teuszii specimens and direct 
observations of feeding, it is thought that S. teuszii diet consists 
predominantly of coastal, estuarine, and reef-associated fish (Cadenat 
and Paraiso 1957; Cadenat 1959; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009; 
Austin 2023).
    There are few accounts of observed Atlantic humpback dolphin 
predation. In Mauritania, a single Atlantic humpback dolphin was 
observed twice among bottlenose dolphin pods (Tursiops truncatus) 
fishing for mullet (Mugil cephalus and Liza aurata) (Busnel 1973; 
Collins et al. 2017). Additionally, S. teuszii have been observed 
chasing mullet in channels between the Tidra and Nair islets (Banc 
d'Arguin) (Duguy 1976) and feeding on the South African mullet (Liza 
richardsonii) and Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) off the coast of the 
Flamingos area of Angola (Weir 2009).
    Foraging has been linked to rising (flood) tides (Van Waerebeek et 
al. 2004; Weir 2009). In the Saloum Delta, tides were thought to 
provide access to inner reaches of mangrove channels and mangrove edges 
(Maigret 1980a; Collins 2015). Daily movements of individual Atlantic 
humpback dolphins into channels inshore were coupled with flood tides 
in Banc d'Arguin (Maigret 1980a), and (Duguy 1976) reported S. teuszii 
at the Banc d'Arguin chasing mullet in the channels between the Tidra 
and Nair islets. In other areas, feeding activity also coincides with 
observations of larger group sizes (e.g., 20-40 individuals) (Maigret 
1980a; Collins et al. 2004; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004).
    Atlantic humpback dolphins observed off the coast of the Flamingos 
area of Angola have been observed spending approximately half of the 
daylight hours engaged in travel and foraging activities and were 
observed foraging preferentially around rocks and reefs, as well as at 
the mouths of rivers, including the typically dry Flamingo River (Weir 
2009). Off the coast of Guinea, limited observations suggest that S. 
teuszii individuals observed in

[[Page 20833]]

the shallow waters west of the [Icirc]le de Ta[iuml]di spent relatively 
more time foraging than those individuals in deeper waters of the outer 
R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez estuary (Weir 2015).

Reproduction and Growth

    Data and information regarding life history and reproductive 
parameters are almost nonexistent for this species. An estimated 
generation length of 18.4 years is given for the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin by Taylor et al. (2007), although Moore (2015) provided a 
figure closer to 25 years for the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (S. 
chinensis) and Indian Ocean humpback dolphin (S. plumbea) (Collins 
2015; Collins et al. 2017). Available data for other species in the 
genus can be used to infer that S. teuszii likely has a low 
reproductive rate and low intrinsic potential for population increase 
(Taylor et al. 2007; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Moore 2015).
    In the Saloum Delta (Senegal), births are thought to occur in March 
and April, based upon observations of juveniles (Maigret 1980b; Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015). This pattern was also suggested 
for Guinea Bissau (Collins 2015). No neonates have been examined, but 
lengths at birth may be similar to the 100 cm cited for S. plumbea from 
South Africa (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). The species is suspected to 
be sexually dimorphic (males larger at maturity and with a more 
prominent dorsal hump (Austin 2023)), but the sample size of carcasses 
used to formally assess this trait (~20 individuals) is too small to 
assess this statistically (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014). The data 
required to estimate other S. teuszii vital rates remain unavailable.

Social Behavior

    Atlantic humpback dolphins have a surfacing behavior that usually 
comprises calm rolls, during which the beak is often lifted above the 
water and the body is arched, accentuating its characteristic hump. 
Overall, the species is naturally unobtrusive, preferring to maintain a 
distance from boats and engines; however, individuals have been 
observed occasionally leaping, breaching, spyhopping and tail-slapping 
(Weir 2015; Austin 2023). Traveling and foraging are the dominant 
behaviors reported during targeted focal follows of Atlantic humpback 
dolphins (Weir 2009; Weir 2015; Weir 2016).
    Atlantic humpback dolphins typically travel in small groups; 65 
percent of reviewed sightings comprised 10 or fewer animals, although 
larger groups of up to 45 individuals have been reported (Weir and 
Collins 2015). Mixed-species associations between Atlantic humpback 
dolphins and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have been 
observed in Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, 
the Republic of the Congo, and Angola (Weir 2009; Weir 2011; Leeney et 
al. 2016).

Population Structure and Genetics

    No analyses of Atlantic humpback dolphin population structure have 
been conducted. Thus, the only information currently available comes 
from known distribution records and evidence of range gaps, which was 
the approach initially used by Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) to identify 
Atlantic humpback dolphin management stocks (see Range, Distribution, 
and Habitat Use and Austin 2023). Additionally, while the complete 
mitochondrial genome of S. teuszii has been mapped by McGowen et al. 
(2020), genetic data have been collected for only a few individuals 
(Mendez et al. 2013; Austin 2023). As a result, estimates of genetic 
diversity across and within populations are currently not available for 
this species.

Population Abundance and Trends

    Atlantic humpback dolphin abundance data are limited and robust 
abundance estimates are lacking for most putative stocks. However, the 
available information for the eleven recognized management stocks 
suggests stocks range from the tens to low hundreds of individuals 
(Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023).
    Atlantic humpback dolphin populations at the northern (Dakhla Bay, 
Western Sahara) and southern (Namibe, Angola) extremes of the range 
appear to be very small (Weir 2009; Collins 2015; Austin 2023). 
Observations by Beaubrun (1990) described this stock as ``miniscule'', 
and additional sightings in the same area between January 20 and 
February 14, 1996, by Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. (1998) reported 
only 4 sightings with a mean group size of 6.9 individuals. 
Furthermore, Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) noted that the Dakhla Bay 
stock is likely limited to a few tens of individuals.
    The Banc d'Arguin and Saloum-Niumu stocks have been estimated 
repeatedly at ~100 animals since the mid-1970s (Maigret 1980a; Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). Incidental sightings 
from the southern Banc d'Arguin suggest that the species is sighted 
relatively frequently (Collins 2015). However, this stock has never 
been considered large by those who have completed assessments (Maigret 
1980a, b; Robineau and Vely 1998). For the Saloum-Niumi stock, 
encounter rates and group sizes recorded during surveys since 1997 
indicate a small population ``unlikely [to] exceed low hundreds, and 
may be less'' (Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; 
Austin 2023). However, between October and November 2015, a systematic 
survey conducted by Weir (2016) in the Saloum Delta of Senegal produced 
a minimum population size estimate of 103 animals, which is the highest 
population estimation recorded for S. teuszii within the species' range 
(Austin 2023).
    Data and sightings records for the Canal do G[ecirc]ba-
Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago stock within Guinea-Bissau suggest the 
continued occurrence of a population of S. teuszii into at least the 
late 1990s (Spaans 1990; Jefferson et al. 1997; Van Waerebeek et al. 
2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). A more recent review of sightings 
records indicates that S. teuszii is still relatively widely 
distributed in the Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago stock 
within Guinea-Bissau (Leeney et al. 2016), but sightings appear to be 
declining in regularity (Collins 2015). Within the Guinea stock, six S. 
teuszii sightings were recorded by Weir (2015) during 817.6 kms of 
boat-based survey effort in the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary. Photo-
identification resulting from this survey resulted in a minimum 
population estimate of 47 individuals (Weir 2015; Austin 2023).
    Recently, observations of S. teuszii in Togolese waters were 
recorded for the first time by Van Waerebeek et al. (2017), providing 
evidence confirming Togo as a newly documented range country. Van 
Waerebeek et al. (2017) described five sightings recorded from shore in 
Togo between 2008 and 2015. However, small group sizes suggest that the 
species is not very abundant in Togolese waters (Van Waerebeek et al. 
2017; Austin 2023).
    In Benin, a single small group (n=4) of Atlantic humpback dolphins 
was sighted and photographed west of Cotonou, Benin, making it the 
first S. teuszii record for the Benin stock (Zwart and Weir 2014; 
Austin 2023). Additionally, Collins (2015) noted that 27 individuals 
were also observed in Beninese waters. In Nigeria, two dolphins killed 
in artisanal gillnets off Brass Island in 2011 and 2012 were the first 
authenticated records of S. teuszii for this range country. Recently, 
however, five additional S. teuszii sightings have been documented 
between 2017 and 2021 off the coast of western Nigeria near Lagos 
(Austin 2023).
    Surveys of the Cameroon Estuary stock between May and June 2011,

[[Page 20834]]

yielded a single S. teuszii sighting on May 17, 2011, despite extensive 
beach and boat-based survey effort (Ayissi et al. 2014). Additionally, 
in May 2011, a recorded encounter rate of 0.386 sightings per 100 km 
(or 3.86 individuals per 100 km) suggests that abundance there may be 
very low (Ayissi et al. 2014; Austin 2023). Boat-based surveys, 
conducted in Gabon within the Gabon Estuary stock, between 2003 and 
2006 yielded five sightings (Collins et al. 2010; Collins 2015). Boat 
surveys conducted off the coast of Gamba region of Gabon between 2013 
and 2015, documented S. teuszii in Gabonese waters during the survey's 
first year in 2013 (Minton et al. 2017; Austin 2023). However, 
sightings rates during shore-based work in 2012 in the Republic of the 
Congo within the Congo stock were much higher (though not directly 
comparable), and suggest that the coasts of southern Gabon and a 
limited area in the adjacent Republic of the Congo may harbor a total 
population in the low hundreds (Collins 2013; Collins 2015; Austin 
2023). While most of the Angolan coast is unsurveyed, intensive survey 
effort in 2008 along a 35 km stretch of coastline off Angola found a 
small group of 10 resident individuals in the Flamingos area (Weir 
2009; Austin 2023).
    It is important to note that, while photo-identification work has 
yielded minimum estimates of the number of Atlantic humpback dolphins 
in a number of the study areas discussed above (i.e., Saloum Delta 
region of Senegal, R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary of Guinea, and the 
Flamingos area of Angola), each of these studies had limited temporal 
and spatial extents, and (with the possible exception of the Angola 
study conducted by Weir (2009)) are unlikely to have photographed all 
S. teuszii individuals using those areas. Additionally, while encounter 
rates are available for a number of other studies noted above, they are 
not directly comparable due to differing sampling methodologies (e.g., 
platforms, extent of study area, and seasons).
    Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information 
indicates that the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a small total 
population size (Austin 2023). Comprehensive reviews conducted by 
Collins (2015) and Collins et al. (2017) conclude that the species 
probably includes fewer than 3,000 individuals (Collins 2015; Collins 
et al. 2017; Austin 2023). If it is assumed that 50 percent of these 
are mature individuals, then the number of mature individuals in the 
total population would be no more than 1,500 (Taylor et al. 2007; 
Collins et al. 2017; Brownell et al. 2019; Austin 2023).
    Apart from the systematic surveys in Angola, Republic of the Congo, 
Gabon, Cameroon, Senegal, and Guinea, no quantitative assessments of 
population abundance exist in other range countries, thus precluding 
any quantitative assessments of trend for this species across its 
range. However, based on available evidence, and a review of published 
estimates of abundance in each range country, the best available data 
and information indicates that most S. teuszii stocks are small and 
that some stocks (i.e., Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago 
stock) may be experiencing population declines (Collins 2015; Collins 
et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Limited research effort for each putative S. 
teuszii management stock has either identified significant mortality or 
yielded strong evidence to infer it (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 
2015; Collins et al. 2017). According to Van Waerebeek et al. (2003), 
Van Waerebeek et al. (2004), Weir (2009), Collins (2015), Weir (2015), 
Collins et al. (2017), and Van Waerebeek et al. (2017), artisanal 
fishing bycatch and directed takes are the principal causes of these 
declines, although habitat loss is also likely a contributing factor as 
well (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023).

Extinction Risk Analysis

    In evaluating the level of risk faced by a species and determining 
whether the species is threatened or endangered, we must consider all 
relevant data and base our conclusions on the best scientific and 
commercial data available. In evaluating and interpreting the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we also apply professional 
judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in 
determining whether the species is threatened or endangered. We 
evaluate both the viability of the species based on its demographic 
characteristics (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial 
distribution/connectivity, and genetic diversity; see McElhany et al. 
(2000)), and the threats to the species as specified in ESA section 
4(a)(1)(A)-(E) (summarized in a separate Threats Assessment section 
below).
    For purposes of assessing the extinction risk for the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin, we reviewed the best available information on the 
species and evaluated the overall risk of extinction facing the 
Atlantic humpback dolphin, now and in the foreseeable future. The term 
``foreseeable future'' was discussed qualitatively in the status review 
report (Austin 2023) and defined as the period of time over which we 
can reasonably determine that both the specific threats facing the 
species and the species' response to those threats are likely. We note 
however, that the term foreseeable future is not limited to a period 
that a species' status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted 
within predetermined limits of statistical confidence. The foreseeable 
future also need not be identified as a specific period of time and may 
vary depending on the particular threat. See generally 50 CFR 
424.11(d).
    In considering an appropriate foreseeable future for this 
extinction risk analysis, we took into account the best available 
information regarding both the life history of the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin and threats to the species. Due to uncertainty regarding the 
species' life history parameters, we do not define a quantitative time 
frame for the foreseeable future in the risk assessment sections below. 
Thus, foreseeable future is stated qualitatively, in terms of the 
projected trend of each threat.

Demographic Risk Assessment

    In our status review, data and information about demographic risks 
to the Atlantic humpback dolphin were considered according to four 
categories--abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and genetic diversity. Each of these demographic threat 
categories was then rated according to the following qualitative scale:
    Unknown: The current level of information is either unavailable or 
unknown for this particular factor, such that the contribution of this 
factor to the species' risk of extinction cannot be determined.
    Low risk: It is unlikely that the particular factor directly 
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of 
extinction.
    Moderate risk: It is likely that the particular factor directly 
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of 
extinction.
    High risk: It is highly likely that the particular factor directly 
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of 
extinction.

(Note: the term ``significantly'' is used here as it is commonly 
understood--i.e., in a sufficiently great or important way as to be 
worthy of attention.)
    In the sections below, we present information from Austin (2023) to 
summarize the demographic risks facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin.

Abundance

    There are no historical abundance estimates for the Atlantic 
humpback

[[Page 20835]]

dolphin. While historical and robust range-wide abundance estimates are 
lacking, and there are no robust estimates available for most of the 
recognized management stocks, the available information suggests stocks 
range from the tens to low hundreds of individuals (Austin 2023). Most 
stocks for which data are available are extremely small and several 
appear to be isolated and at risk of local extirpation (e.g., Dakhla 
Bay, Banc d'Arguin, and Angola) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009; Weir et al. 2011; Collins 2015; Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Considering the relatively small 
numbers observed, and taking into account the many areas of the 
species' range where there has been little or no assessment, available 
published estimates suggest that the species' total abundance consists 
of no more than 3,000 individuals (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017), 
and indicate that the number of mature individuals is likely less than 
1,500 (following Taylor et al. 2007). Additionally, declines in 
abundance have been observed or are suspected, and continued declines 
are expected due to the ongoing and projected expansion of identified 
threats throughout the species' range (Austin 2023). Bycatch in 
fisheries, which is considered the main cause of these declines, has 
not ceased and may be increasing as new fishing areas are targeted and 
fishery pressures increase, thus placing additional pressure on already 
low and declining Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks.
    With fewer than 3,000 individuals likely remaining and available 
information indicating that the species consists of small, fragmented 
stocks (with some stocks numbering in the tens of individuals), coupled 
by observed or suspected declines throughout the species' range, single 
mortality events could impact some of the smaller stocks' continued 
viability. Furthermore, the species' low abundance and fragmented and 
narrow distribution greatly increases the impact of anthropogenic 
perturbations (e.g., coastal development and anthropogenic underwater 
noise) on the species as a whole, and decreases the species' resilience 
to environmental change (e.g., climate change) (Davidson et al. 2012; 
Collins 2015; Weir et al. 2021; Austin 2023). Overall, the available 
information indicates that the Atlantic humpback dolphin's low 
abundance poses a high risk (Austin 2023).

Growth Rate and Productivity

    Although information on Atlantic humpback dolphin reproduction is 
almost completely absent, some data regarding reproductive parameters 
for other species in the genus, (e.g., S. chinensis and S. plumbea), 
are available. For example, S. chinensis has an annual estimated birth 
rate of 0.053  0.025, with an annual recruitment rate of 
0.028  0.024, and a calf rate of survival to the age of 1 
year of 0.600  0.392, with females experiencing a long 
inter-birth interval (4.27  1.06 y) (Zeng et al. 2021). S. 
plumbea has a reported ovulation rate of 0.2 with a 5-year calving 
interval (Plon et al. 2015). This can be used to infer that S. teuszii 
likely has a low reproductive rate as well. S. teuszii's likely low 
reproductive rate coupled with a population growth rate (r) of 0.00, 
calculated by Taylor et al. (2007), indicates a low intrinsic potential 
for population increase (Taylor et al. 2007; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 
2014; Collins 2015; Moore 2015). However, it should be noted that the 
calculation by Taylor et al. (2007) was based on several reproductive 
parameters that are lacking for this species. Thus, this calculation 
may not be indicative of the actual population growth rate for this 
species (due to data deficiencies) (Austin 2023). Nevertheless, taking 
into consideration the information available for closely related 
species, a long estimated generation length of about 18 years (Taylor 
et al. 2007), as well as ongoing and projected increases of identified 
range-wide threats, this species is likely experiencing a low 
population growth rate.
    Because Atlantic humpback dolphins are thought to consist of small, 
fragmented stocks, any mortality over and above natural rates is likely 
to lead to appreciable declines in abundance (Pimm et al. 1988). Moore 
(2015) estimated that, given an inferred generation time of 25 years 
(as estimated for S. chinensis and S. plumbea), an average annual adult 
mortality rate of approximately 4 percent across the species' range 
would lead to a 50 percent decline over 75 years (i.e., three 
generations) (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). The International 
Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) assessment for this species 
uses Moore's estimate and further notes that a slightly higher adult 
mortality rate of 5.3 percent per year (equal to one or two additional 
deaths per year per 100 mature individuals) would lead to an 80 percent 
decline over 75 years (i.e., three generations) (Moore 2015; Collins et 
al. 2017). Data for some areas (e.g., The Republic of the Congo) 
indicate that human-caused mortality (particularly via bycatch) is 
high, and when those data are considered alongside the scale of other 
anthropogenic pressures (e.g., coastal development), a population 
decline of 50 percent over three generations is highly likely (Moore 
2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023). While the actual rate of 
decline is unknown, the available abundance and bycatch data (see 
Population Abundance and Trends and Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes) suggest the species 
is declining throughout its range, and there is no information to 
suggest such a trend would likely reverse. Additionally, given the 
available information and likely low population growth rate (see Growth 
Rate and Productivity), it is likely that the low population growth 
rate poses a moderate risk to the species (Austin 2023).

Spatial Structure and Connectivity

    The Atlantic humpback dolphin has a restricted range and fragmented 
distribution, being a shallow water dolphin endemic to (sub)tropical 
nearshore waters along the Atlantic coast of Africa, ranging 
discontinuously for approximately 7,000 km from Western Sahara in the 
north to Angola in the south (Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; 
Collins et al. 2017). Within that range, the species' habitat 
preferences appear to limit it to habitats shoreward of the 20 m depth 
isobaths (Weir and Collins 2015; Weir et al. 2021), and thus they are 
often in the immediate vicinity of the coast. Use of nearshore habitat 
increases the species' vulnerability to incidental capture (i.e., 
bycatch) in non-selective fishing gears and to habitat-related threats 
from human activities (i.e., coastal development). Additionally, the 
species' fragmented distribution makes stocks more vulnerable to local 
extirpation.
    Direct data on connectivity among Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks 
are sparse. Although the mitogenome of S. teuszii (n = 1) has been 
sequenced, genetic data to assess population structure and connectivity 
are not available. Thus, the genetic connectivity across and within 
stocks cannot be directly assessed. However, work investigating the 
genetic substructure for the Indian Ocean humpback dolphin, S. plumbea 
(the species that is geographically and morphologically most similar to 
S. teuszii), indicated appreciable genetic divergence between 
populations in neighboring regions, and finer scale comparisons have 
found less diversity among neighboring populations and low overall 
mtDNA diversity (Mendez et al. 2011; Lampert

[[Page 20836]]

et al. 2021). This suggests that similar structuring is possible within 
S. teuszii (Collins 2015; Austin 2023).
    Research suggests that individuals occur in a series of localized 
communities with little interchange identified between them (Maigret 
1980a; Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009; 
Collins 2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Movements 
on larger scales are rarely documented, but have been inferred (Collins 
2015; Austin 2023). While records suggest transboundary movements 
between some range countries, such as between Saloum-Niumi (Senegal-The 
Gambia), Bijagos (Guinea-Bissau), and across the Gabon/Congo border, it 
remains unclear if these individuals range farther afield (Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017). 
The threat of habitat loss due to coastal development projects (i.e., 
port development), is widespread and increasing, and frequently 
overlaps with the species' preferred habitat (Collins 2015; Austin 
2023). Habitat loss due to ongoing and expanding coastal development 
projects could also cause additional fragmentation of stocks, thus 
increasing the risk of extirpation of stocks in the near future.
    Overall, based on the Atlantic humpback dolphin's restricted range 
and fragmented distribution, coupled with evidence for the species' 
tendency for localized residency, connectivity of S. teuszii is likely 
limited. Limited exchange between stocks would reduce the recovery 
potential for resident stocks that have experienced severe declines. 
Thus, given the available information, we conclude that this 
demographic factor poses a moderate risk to the species. However, 
additional research on this topic is needed for the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin to further elucidate this species' population structure and 
genetic diversity (Austin 2023).

Genetic Diversity

    As discussed in Austin 2023 and in the above section (see Spatial 
Structure and Connectivity), data do not exist to address the genetic 
diversity of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. Additionally, most of the 
genetic data that have been collected to date for this species were 
generated to investigate the overall phylogenetic relationships within 
the Sousa genus, and no study has examined S. teuszii population 
structure or genetic diversity (CCAHD 2020; Austin 2023). Thus, it is 
unclear how much genetic diversity exists within the species as a 
whole, whether it occurs as genetically-distinct populations (with 
limited inter-population breeding, due to geographic isolation), or if 
any connectivity in gene flow exists between those populations (either 
at present, or in the past) (CCAHD 2020; Weir et al. 2021). 
Consequently, without any genetic analyses to determine diversity or 
effective population size for S. teuszii, it is unknown at this time 
whether this demographic factor is a threat contributing to the 
species' risk of extinction (Austin 2023).

Summary and Analysis of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting the Atlantic 
Humpback Dolphin

    As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must 
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any 
one or a combination of the following 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. We evaluated whether and the extent to which 
each of the foregoing factors contributes to the overall extinction 
risk of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. In short, we found that the best 
scientific and commercial data available indicate that overutilization 
of the species (e.g., fisheries bycatch) and the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range (e.g., coastal development) contribute significantly to the 
species' risk of extinction. We also determined that the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms to address these threats is also 
contributing significantly to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's 
extinction risk. We determined that the other factors, including 
disease and predation, and other natural or manmade factors affecting 
the species' continued existence, are not contributing significantly to 
the species' risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. See 
Austin (2023) for additional discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1) 
threat categories. Additional information regarding each of these 
threats is summarized below according to the factors specified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.

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

    We assessed three potential threats that fall under the factor 
category, present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. These threats include coastal 
development, contaminants and pollutants, and climate change. Among 
these threats, coastal development was the only threat which poses a 
high risk (Austin 2023). We discuss this threat in detail below. We 
also considered the potential effects of contaminants and pollutants on 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's habitat as well as potential habitat-
related impacts stemming from climate change, such as food 
availability. However, due to the paucity of data, the degree to which 
these threats contribute to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's extinction 
risk, now or in the foreseeable future, is unknown (Austin 2023). 
Additional information on the other threats (i.e., contaminants and 
pollutants and climate change) can be found in the draft status review 
report (Austin 2023).
    As previously discussed in the Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use 
section of this proposed rule, the Atlantic humpback dolphin is 
considered an obligate coastal and shallow water nearshore species 
preferring dynamic habitats strongly influenced by tidal patterns 
(International Whaling Commission 2011; 2017; Taylor et al. 2020; 
Austin 2023). Additionally, the species has a restricted geographic 
range, being endemic to the tropical and subtropical nearshore waters 
along the Atlantic African coast from Western Sahara in the north to 
the southern region of Angola (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; 
Weir and Collins 2015). Within that range, the species' habitat 
preferences restrict it to a relatively narrow ecological niche (Austin 
2023). Thus, the nearshore habitat requirements increase the 
vulnerability of Atlantic humpback dolphins to a range of human 
activities and anthropogenic disturbances (Collins et al. 2017).
    The destruction, deterioration, or fragmentation of the nearshore 
habitats relied upon by Atlantic humpback dolphins is likely to be a 
range-wide issue (Li 2020; Weir et al. 2021). A variety of 
anthropogenic activities may adversely impact the capacity of nearshore 
habitats to support the dolphins, including direct habitat loss to 
coastal development projects (e.g., construction and expansion of 
ports, liquefied natural gas plants, and mining), damage to benthic

[[Page 20837]]

environments from trawling and dredging, alterations to water flow and 
quality from upstream activities such as deforestation and damming, 
reduction of available prey due to destruction of mangroves, and marine 
pollution originating from terrestrial, atmospheric, and shipping 
sources (International Whaling Commission 2011, 2017; PWC 2018; 
International Whaling Commission 2020a, b; Li 2020; Weir et al. 2021). 
The latter potentially includes runoff of agricultural contaminants, 
discarding of mining aggregates and other industrial wastes, oil 
spills, and lack of adequate waste disposal for sewage (introducing 
bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens into the Atlantic humpback 
dolphins' habitat).
    As noted above, habitat loss can result from a variety of coastal 
development activities within the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range. 
Increasing coastal development is a potential concern within the 
eastern tropical Atlantic (ETA), a biogeographic realm that extends 
from Mauritania to southern Angola, overlapping with much of this 
species' range (Weir and Pierce 2013). Approximately 40 percent of the 
human population inhabiting the ETA region is concentrated in coastal 
areas (Ukwe 2003; Ukwe and Ibe 2010). For example, 42 percent of 
Ghana's population lives within 100 km off the coast, while 20 percent 
of Nigeria's population lives in large coastal cities (Ukwe and Ibe 
2010; Weir and Pierce 2013). The human population of most ETA countries 
is expanding by 2-3 percent annually (Weir and Pierce 2013), and 
populations in coastal areas are set to double within 20-25 years (Ukwe 
and Ibe 2010). Additionally, the coastal zone is the site of all ports 
and most airports along the Atlantic coast of Africa, as well as 
factories for processing food and raw materials (e.g., petroleum and 
metals), industrial production of fertilizer, pesticides, 
pharmaceuticals, paper and plastic, and the agriculture, mining, 
forestry, and tourism industries (Weir and Pierce 2013).
    A number of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are also 
major oil producers, specifically, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, 
Cameroon, Nigeria, and the Republic of the Congo (Ukwe and Ibe 2010; 
Minton et al. 2017; PWC 2018). Additionally, smaller oil fields exist 
in several other countries such as Senegal, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana, 
and S[atilde]o Tom[eacute] and Pr[iacute]ncipe (Weir and Pierce 2013). 
Thus habitat loss as a result of coastal construction (due to 
development of platforms, ports, pipelines, liquefied natural gas 
plants) and degradation (e.g., due to discharges, accidental oil 
spills, gas flaring, seismic exploration and explosives used during 
installation and decommissioning, and high-amplitude sound associated 
with shipping) can all negatively impact S. teuszii habitat. Impacts on 
marine environments are already evident in some areas. For example, in 
the Niger Delta, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) 
indicates that approximately 300 oil spills occurred annually from 1975 
to 1995 causing pollution in the marine environment and fish mortality 
(Osuagwu and Olaifa 2018). It has been suggested by Van Waerebeek et 
al. (2004) that S. teuszii most likely inhabited the Niger Delta before 
large-scale oil exploration and extraction altered the coastal 
environment (International Whaling Commission 2011). Oil-producing 
companies from Guinea-Bissau to Angola are estimated to discharge 710 
tons of oil annually into the coastal and marine environment; a further 
2,100 tons originates from oil spills (Ukwe and Ibe 2010). Impacts on 
small cetaceans, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin, potentially 
include ingestion of contaminated prey, irritation of skin and eyes, 
inhalation of toxic fumes causing lung congestion, neurological damage 
and liver disorders, and displacement from habitat essential to the 
species (Geraci 1990; Reeves et al. 2003; Takeshita et al. 2017).
    Port developments and other urban construction projects are 
particularly widespread throughout the Atlantic humpback dolphin's 
range (Austin 2023), and preferred sites for such developments and 
projects frequently overlap with S. teuszii habitat (Collins 2015). 
With economic growth of sub-Saharan Africa increasing from 2.6 percent 
in 2017 to 3.9 percent in 2022 (PWC 2018; IMF 2022), port developments 
have increased over the years with the potential for continued 
expansion. At least three ports that have recently undergone or are 
undergoing expansion are close to the locations of recent sightings of 
Atlantic humpback dolphins (Rogers 2017). These include Badagry 
(Nigeria) which is close to the location of recent sightings of S. 
teuszii near Lagos (CCAHD unpublished data), Kamsar Port (Guinea) 
within the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary (Weir 2015), and the deep-
sea port of Kribi (Cameroon) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). The scale of 
some ports suggests that they present effective physical barriers and 
thus have potential for disrupting Atlantic humpback dolphin longshore 
movements (Austin 2023). Indirect or ``non-lethal'' disturbances are 
likely during port construction, and may become more permanent if 
maintenance (e.g. dredging) and urban development occurs at port sites 
(Jefferson et al. 2009; Collins 2015).
    Habitat loss resulting from mangrove destruction and altered river 
sediment loads have also been documented in Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. 
For example, mangrove habitat loss (i.e. 29 percent in one protected 
area) occurred in Guinea-Bissau due to agricultural practices and 
firewood collection (Vasconcelos et al. 2002; Weir and Pierce 2013). 
Additionally, the completion of the Diama dam on the Senegal River in 
1985 resulted in topographical and hydrological changes to the Senegal 
Delta, with associated ecological changes (e.g. in zooplankton 
communities) (Champalbert et al. 2007). These activities may directly 
and indirectly (via changes in prey) affect Atlantic humpback dolphins, 
which regularly inhabit estuarine areas (Collins 2015).
    Overall, widespread coastal development results in extensive damage 
to benthic environments and alterations to water flow and quality, all 
of which degrade or eliminate the already restricted nearshore habitat 
of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. Oil and gas development and 
extraction activities occur in the central and southern portions of the 
species' range, resulting in an increase in port facilities and other 
coastal development projects (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). 
Additionally, habitat fragmentation resulting from these activities, 
has serious implications for a species already restricted to narrow 
geographic and ecological niches consisting of small, fragmented 
stocks. Coastal development activities have increased over the past 
decade, with little indication that these activities will decline or 
cease in the foreseeable future. Additionally, port developments are 
widespread throughout the species' range and preferred port sites often 
overlap with the habitats of these coastal dolphins (Austin 2023). It 
has also been noted in the Niger Delta that populations of S. teuszii 
may have been displaced due to altered coastal environments from large 
scale oil exploration and extraction activities, suggesting a link 
between coastal oil and gas activities and the species' decline in this 
area (International Whaling Commission 2011; Austin 2023). Thus, the 
impacts of coastal development activities on the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin will likely continue and may intensify in the foreseeable 
future. Because of the possible species' displacement in the Niger 
Delta coupled by habitat fragmentation resulting from

[[Page 20838]]

coastal development activities (which has serious implications for a 
species already restricted to narrow geographic and ecological niches), 
the destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat in the form 
of coastal development contribute to a high risk of extinction (Austin 
2023), and this risk will be exacerbated in the foreseeable future.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We assessed four potential threats that may contribute to the 
overutilization of the species: fisheries bycatch, use and trade, 
depletion of prey resources, and ecotourism. Of these four threats, the 
primary threat facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin is fisheries 
bycatch, specifically in artisanal gillnets. This type of 
overutilization is considered widespread throughout the species' range, 
and is considered to be causing population declines. Thus, fisheries 
bycatch was determined to pose a high risk (Austin 2023). The use of 
stranded or bycaught Atlantic humpback dolphins for human consumption 
or fishing bait, which has been documented throughout the species' 
range (Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Weir and Pierce 2013; Collins 
2015), was also determined to pose a high risk (Austin 2023). Depletion 
of prey resources resulting from intensive and unsustainable commercial 
and artisanal exploitation of fish stocks is another factor 
contributing to declining Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks (Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011), and was determined to pose a 
moderate risk. We discuss these three threats in detail below. While 
ecotourism is increasing in some countries within the species' range, 
and the activities associated with ecotourism may affect the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin and its habitat, it is currently unknown if ecotourism 
is a threat that contributes to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's 
extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future (Austin 2023).
    The best scientific and commercial data indicate that the primary 
threat facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin is bycatch in artisanal 
gillnets. Bycatch in artisanal gillnets is considered widespread 
throughout the species' range and has been documented in Mauritania, 
Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Cameroon, and the Republic of 
the Congo (Campredon and Cuq 2001; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 
2015; Collins et al. 2017; Brownell et al. 2019; Jefferson 2019; Weir 
et al. 2021).
    A study by Weir and Pierce (2013) summarizing historical accounts 
of bycaught and hunted cetaceans in the ETA, noted that the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin was one of four most frequently documented bycaught 
species within the ETA (the other three species being the harbor 
porpoise, common dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin). Specifically, 
Atlantic humpback dolphins were noted to be particularly vulnerable to 
bycatch in artisanal gillnets: out of 16 reported bycatch events for 
this species, 13 animals died in artisanal gillnets in Mauritania, 
Senegal, and the Republic of the Congo, one died in a fish trap in 
Guinea-Bissau, and two were taken in unspecified fishing gear (possibly 
also gillnets) in Senegal and Guinea (Weir and Pierce 2013; 
International Whaling Commission 2020a; Austin 2023). Weir et al. 
(2011) notes that gillnet density is high in parts of the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin's range (e.g. in Angola). Furthermore, Leeney et al. 
(2015) reports that there are at least 4,700 artisanal fishers in The 
Gambia, 59,500 in Senegal, and 4,141 in Guinea-Bissau, and potentially 
a lot more in other countries along the Atlantic Coast of Africa within 
the species' range. However, Notarbartolo di Sciara (1998) notes that 
the species has also been ``fatally entangled in octopus line'', and 
observations of foraging individuals taken near the stern wake of 
trawlers indicate potential for bycatch in other fisheries.
    Work in Conkouati-Douli National Park (Republic of the Congo) 
provides some indication of the potential scale of S. teuszii bycatch 
and substantial bycatch risk for the species (Collins 2015). An 
intensive monitoring, enforcement, and cooperative (incentivized) 
reporting program identified 19 dolphins that were caught as bycatch 
over 5 years across all artisanal landing sites (n = 14) along a 60-km 
stretch of protected beach (Collins 2015). Out of the 19 dolphins 
caught as bycatch, 10 were identified as S. teuszii, and the testimony 
of fishers showed that all were caught in gillnets less than 1 km from 
shore (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). More recently, CCAHD 
partners in Renatura, Congo documented two adult S. teuszii caught in 
fishing gear in May, 2021 in the village of Bellelo just south of 
Conkouati-Douli National Park, Congo (CCAHD).
    In northern Guinea, bycatch (mostly gillnet entanglements) of 
Atlantic humpback dolphins has also occurred in small-scale local 
fisheries surrounding the Marine Protected Area of the Tristao Islands 
until at least 2017 (Bamy et al. 2010; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Bamy 
et al. 2021) with documented S. teuszii specimens bycaught in low 
frequency in 2002 (n=1) and in slightly higher frequency from 2011-2012 
(n=5) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin 2023).
    In Cameroon, a capture of an Atlantic humpback dolphin was reported 
(supported by photographs), landed by small-scale fishers at Campo in 
southern Cameroon on an unspecified date in 2012 (Ayissi et al. 2014). 
Additionally, Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) reported an adult specimen 
landed at Londji fish landing site (near Kribi) that became 
accidentally entangled in an artisanal gillnet in Douala-Edea Fauna 
Reserve on March 22, 2014 (Austin 2023). In the neighboring country of 
Nigeria, there have been reports of Atlantic humpback dolphins killed 
in artisanal gillnets off Brass Island (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; 
Austin 2023). Both individuals were killed for human consumption. Even 
though mortality figures have also been reported for other areas, 
including Banc d'Arguin and the Saloum Delta (Campredon and Cuq 2001), 
these mortality figures are based on single studies, and there are no 
formal ongoing monitoring programs for cetacean bycatch in these 
aforementioned areas or anywhere else in the species' range (Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). Thus, the 
reported bycatch figures are likely to be underestimates of the true 
level of mortality.
    There is some evidence that beach seines may also contribute to 
dolphin mortality. The first S. teuszii specimen records for Togo were 
two incidentally bycaught individuals found killed in a beach seine at 
Agbodrafo along Togo's eastern coast (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin 
2023). Additionally, in December 2021, eight S. teuszii individuals 
were trapped in a beach seine near Port Gentil, Gabon, and subsequently 
were released through the collaborative efforts of local fishers, 
National Parks Agency staff, and a local non-government organization 
(NGO) (CCAHD; Austin 2023).
    Although there is no evidence of any organized, directed fisheries 
for S. teuszii, there is a concern that bycatch can develop into what 
is known as ``directed entanglement'' or ``non-target-deliberate 
acquisition'', where fishers may intentionally try to catch Atlantic 
humpback dolphins in gillnets originally intended for other species 
(especially if there is a market for such catches) (Clapham and Van 
Waerebeek 2007; Collins 2015). While the scale of this practice is 
unknown, the use of cetaceans for human consumption has been documented 
in 15 (71 percent) of the 21 countries bordering the ETA (Weir and 
Pierce 2013). These countries

[[Page 20839]]

provide a potential market for cetacean products (Van Waerebeek et al. 
2004; Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Collins 2015; Leeney et al. 2015; 
Brownell et al. 2019; Jefferson 2019; Ingram D.J. et al. 2022). 
Throughout the ETA, declining fisheries resources and rising human 
populations have accelerated the displacement of a number of 
communities from their traditional food sources, resulting in new forms 
of aquatic meat consumption, as well as the rise of illegal local and 
international trade to generate revenue (Balinga and Dyc 2018). 
Consequently, this aquatic harvest is impacting large aquatic mammal, 
reptile, and avian fauna in the region, including S. teuszii (Balinga 
and Dyc 2018; Ingram D.J. et al. 2022). Furthermore, some of the main 
factors contributing to declines in fish biomass are inadequate 
policies and institutional frameworks and inadequate enforcement of 
existing laws and regulations to address illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing, bycatch, and harvesting activities 
throughout much of the species' range countries (Balinga and Dyc 2018; 
Weir et al. 2021). The sale of dolphin meat (from various species) for 
either human consumption or bait has been documented or suspected from 
a number of S. teuszii range countries. Evidence for use of S. teuszii 
for bait, consumption, and sale has been reported from Ghana, 
Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Cameroon, and the 
Republic of the Congo (Cadenat 1956; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Van Waerebeek et 
al. 2017; International Whaling Commission 2020a; Weir et al. 2021). 
Furthermore, the use of Atlantic humpback dolphins as bait in some of 
the aforementioned countries has been documented in longline fisheries 
targeting sharks (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). Stranded or bycaught 
Atlantic humpback dolphin carcasses are routinely utilized by local 
communities for fishing bait, primarily targeting sharks (Van Waerebeek 
et al. 2017; Weir et al. 2021). Individual dolphin carcasses are those 
from either stranded individuals found dead on the shore (primarily 
having been bycaught in beach seines), or individuals that are found 
dead after being bycaught in artisanal gillnets offshore and then 
subsequently brought to shore for use (Weir and Pierce 2013; CCAHD 
2020; Weir et al. 2021).
    Weir and Pierce (2013) documented instances of human consumption of 
cetaceans, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin, in 15 of the 21 
countries bordering the ETA (Mauritania to Angola). In The Gambia, an 
unidentified dolphin (either bottlenose or Atlantic humpback) found 
alive in a fishing net in 1996 was killed and butchered (Weir and 
Pierce 2013). Off the coast of Fadiouth, Senegal, the meat of an 
Atlantic humpback dolphin caught (capture method unknown) in June 1997 
was sold and the remains dumped (Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004). In Guinea, an Atlantic humpback dolphin was 
found for sale at the Dixinn fish landing site on March 13, 2002 (Bamy 
et al. 2010). Additionally, Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) noted that when 
locals in Guinea, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Togo were queried, they 
typically admitted that dolphins were butchered and fully utilized (and 
many of these instances involve the incidental use of stranded or 
bycaught dolphins) (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Weir et al. 
2021).
    In the Republic of the Congo, there have been 30 cases of small 
cetacean carcasses being used for human consumption (30 of 34 
bycatches, or 88.2 percent of cases), most of which were identified as 
Atlantic humpback dolphins (n=18) and bottlenose dolphins (n=7) 
(Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). In the Tristao Islands region of 
northern Guinea, Bamy et al. (2021) noted the use of cetaceans for 
human consumption is synchronous with and thought to be related to 
declining fish stocks.
    In The Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau, a survey conducted by 
Leeney et al. (2015) between 2007 and 2012, reported that at least a 
quarter of respondents in each country stated they had accidentally 
caught a dolphin at least once, and greater proportions of interviewees 
stated that other fishers sometimes caught dolphins. Furthermore, while 
bycaught animals in The Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau were usually 
distributed within the community as food, Leeney et al. (2015) found 
that the meat and oil of dolphins were also used to treat various 
illnesses. Overall, this survey's results suggested that although 
dolphin meat was not a major source of income for communities in 
Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, and the Saloum Delta, it did provide a 
supplementary source of food.
    Clapham and Van Waerebeek (2007) noted that market surveys 
conducted in ETA coastal nations indicated that the sale and 
consumption of cetacean products is common. Additionally, these sales 
contribute to the economic viability of gillnet fisheries in Ghana, 
which includes the killing of live entangled animals, and using dolphin 
meat as bait (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Clapham and Van Waerebeek 
2007; Collins 2015). However, it is important to note that captures may 
be concealed because of legal prohibitions, and, therefore, acquiring 
reliable data from surveys remains a challenge in some areas (Van 
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017).
    The depletion of prey resulting from intensive and unsustainable 
commercial and artisanal exploitation of fish stocks is also considered 
a potential contributing factor to declining Atlantic humpback dolphin 
populations (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011). As noted in the 
Diet and Feeding section of this proposed rule, knowledge of the 
species' diet is limited. However, some fish consumed by Atlantic 
humpback dolphins (e.g. mullet, Mugil spp.) are also targeted by 
coastal fisheries (Cadenat 1956; Maigret 1980b; Weir 2016). 
Additionally, within Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries, there 
is a high level of reliance on artisanal fishing for the protein intake 
and livelihoods of impoverished coastal communities (Weir et al. 2021). 
Senegal, Mauritania, Liberia, Ghana, and Sierra Leone are among the 
countries most affected by IUU fishing (Balinga and Dyc 2018), and the 
presence of S. teuszii has been documented in Senegal and Mauritania. 
Generally, IUU fishing is widespread throughout the species range 
(Brashares et al. 2004), including within protected marine areas such 
as Conkouati-Douli National Park in the Republic of the Congo (Collins 
2015). Fish biomass in nearshore and offshore waters off the Gulf of 
Guinea has declined by at least 50 percent since 1977 due to 
unsustainable fishing by foreign and domestic fleets (Brashares et al. 
2004). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, 68 percent of the main 
fisheries are considered to be either at full capacity or in decline 
(Weir and Pierce 2013). Overall, fish biomass in the northwest region 
of Africa declined by a factor of 13 between 1960 and 2001 (Christensen 
et al. 2004). Consequently, declines in fish biomass may affect 
Atlantic humpback dolphin populations by increasing artisanal fishing 
effort and pressure, leading not only to increased bycatch risk but 
also potentially reduced prey availability for the species (Collins 
2015; Collins et al. 2017).
    Overall, as noted in the Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use 
section of this proposed rule, the habitat preferences of the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin increases its susceptibility and exposure to inshore 
artisanal and commercial fisheries and associated gears, such as 
artisanal gillnets, beach seines, and octopus line (Austin 2023).

[[Page 20840]]

As discussed in depth in the draft status review report (Austin 2023), 
bycatch in fisheries has not ceased and may intensify in the 
foreseeable future as new fishing areas are targeted and fishing 
pressure increases. The use of stranded or bycaught Atlantic humpback 
dolphins for human consumption or fishing bait has also been documented 
throughout the species' range (Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Weir and 
Pierce 2013; Collins 2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Ingram D.J. et 
al. 2022). While there is some indication of secondary (i.e. non-
targeted) use of dolphin bycatch, it is evident that the species has 
been, and is directly and increasingly being targeted for food in many 
areas across its range (Weir and Pierce 2013; Collins 2015; Leeney et 
al. 2015). In addition, effective bycatch monitoring and mitigation has 
not been documented in most S. teuszii range countries (Austin 2023; 
see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms), and the lack of 
effective monitoring and enforcement to protect the species from 
targeted hunting throughout much of the species' range places 
additional pressure on already small, likely fragmented, and declining 
Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; 
Minton et al. 2022). Furthermore, the depletion of prey resulting from 
intensive and unsustainable commercial and artisanal exploitation of 
fish stocks (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011) is likely to 
increase in the foreseeable future, as some fish predated by Atlantic 
humpback dolphins are also targets of coastal fisheries. Resource 
competition between dolphin and human communities will continue for the 
foreseeable future due to a high reliance on artisanal fishing for the 
protein intake and livelihoods of impoverished coastal communities 
within the range countries (Weir et al. 2021). Thus, we determined that 
overutilization of the species in the form of fisheries bycatch and 
human use contributes to a high risk of extinction, and depletion of 
prey resources contributes to a moderate risk of extinction (Austin 
2023). These risks will be exacerbated in the foreseeable future 
(Austin 2023).

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    We assessed existing regulatory mechanisms to determine whether 
they may be inadequate to address threats to the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin from bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries as well as 
coastal development. We determined that inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, particularly due to lack of enforcement, 
resources, implementation, and/or effectiveness within each range 
country, contributes to a high risk of extinction (Austin 2023). Below 
is a description and evaluation of current and relevant international, 
regional, and domestic regulatory mechanisms that currently apply to 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin. More detailed information on these 
regulatory mechanisms can be found in the draft status review report 
(Austin 2023).
International Regulatory Mechanisms
    A majority of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are members 
or signatories to a diverse array of international conventions and 
agreements. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of 
Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) is an environmental treaty of the 
United Nations that aims to conserve migratory species, their habitats, 
and their migration routes. CMS establishes obligations for each state 
joining the convention, promotes collaboration among range states, and 
provides the legal foundation for coordinating international 
conservation measures throughout a migratory range. Early recognition 
of the vulnerability of the Sousa species was indicated by their 
inclusion on the CMS Appendix II in 1991 (Weir et al. 2021) and on 
Appendix I in 2009, thereby obligating parties to work regionally to 
promote their conservation. Parties include all countries that are in 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range except for Sierra Leone and 
Western Sahara (Austin 2023). The CMS defines Appendix I species as 
those ``that have been assessed as being in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.'' The listing 
under Appendix I is the highest level of protection under CMS and is 
for species threatened with extinction. The listing obligates the 
parties to strive towards protecting these animals (including the 
Atlantic humpback dolphin), conserving and restoring their habitats, 
mitigating obstacles to migration, and controlling other factors that 
might endanger them. However, while 17 out of the 19 range countries of 
S. teuszii are parties to CMS, conservation of the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin is often not a high priority for governments of range 
countries, despite the efforts of the CMS's National Focal Points to 
promote the issue. Additionally, relevant government agencies in many 
range countries currently lack the resources to monitor and enforce CMS 
provisions (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
    The CMS has been closely involved with efforts to conserve the 
Atlantic humpback dolphin since the early 1990s and has funded two West 
African Cetacean Research and Conservation Programme (WAFCET) projects 
during the late 1990s to collect information on this (and other) 
species, and to stimulate regional involvement in conservation efforts 
(Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et 
al. 2004; Weir et al. 2021). A series of CMS meetings was held on West 
African cetaceans and culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MoU) Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and 
Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia in 2008 (CMS 2008). 
This MoU came into effect on October 3, 2008, and will remain open for 
signature indefinitely. It aims to achieve and maintain a favorable 
conservation status for manatees and small cetaceans of West Africa and 
Macaronesia (including the Atlantic humpback dolphin) and their 
habitats to help safeguard the associated values of these species for 
the people of the region. Thus far, 17 West African and Macaronesian 
range states and 6 collaborating organizations have signed the MoU. 
This includes 12 of the countries within the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin's range (Austin 2023), thereby obligating the signatories to 
conserve manatees and small cetaceans in West Africa (including the 
Atlantic humpback dolphin). In 2017, a CMS Concerted Action was adopted 
specifically for the Atlantic humpback dolphin; the CMS Concerted 
Action required a meeting of delegates from countries within the 
species range and the formulation of an action plan covering the years 
2018-2023 (Austin 2023). However, progress on its implementation was 
substantially delayed, and another CMS Concerted Action was adopted in 
2020 to revise the action plan's timeline to 2021-2025 (Weir et al. 
2021). As such, very little progress has been made in applied 
conservation of the Atlantic humpback dolphin across its range. 
Additionally, as part of the work on the Atlantic humpback dolphin 
action plan required by the 2020 Concerted Action, a formal review of 
the legal status and protections for the species in each range country 
is also underway (CMS 2022). Based on currently available information, 
it seems that the species is legally protected under general categories 
such as ``marine mammals,'' ``aquatic animals,'' or ``Family 
Delphinidae'' in most range countries, but species-specific protections 
are

[[Page 20841]]

lacking (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). However, many range countries lack 
resources to effectively monitor and mitigate bycatch, design and 
implement other research and conservation measures, or enforce laws 
relating to retention and use of bycaught individuals (CMS 2022; Minton 
et al. 2022; Austin 2023).
    In 2002, the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Small 
Cetacean Sub-Committee identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as a 
priority for research, spurring a genus-wide review, and in 2010, it 
identified a range of specific research and conservation objectives for 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin (IWC 2011). In 2015, the Small Cetaceans 
Sub-Committee identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as one of the 
cetacean species with high priority for designation of task teams for 
the potential development of Conservation Management Plans (Genov et 
al. 2015). These objectives incorporated expert scientific opinion and 
considered earlier conservation agreements and strategies, including 
the Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Small Cetaceans 
of Western African and Macaronesia (Van Waerebeek and Perrin 2007; CMS 
2008; Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, the IWC's Bycatch Mitigation 
Initiative (BMI) is focused on raising awareness of the issue of 
cetacean bycatch and available approaches and solutions for assessing, 
monitoring, and reducing bycatch (Austin 2023). Specifically, the IWC's 
BMI is focused on bycatch in gillnets, particularly in small-scale 
fishing fleets, which include the fleets of Atlantic humpback dolphin 
range countries (CCAHD 2020). While a number of S. teuszii range 
countries are IWC member nations and thus are party to the conservation 
initiatives set forth under the IWC, effective bycatch mitigation and 
monitoring programs have not been documented in most S. teuszii range 
countries. Additionally, the objectives set forth under the IWC's BMI 
are either at the planning or pilot project stage, and full 
implementation of this initiative (and subsequent results) has not been 
completed within S. teuszii range countries (CCAHD 2020; Austin 2023).
    The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an 
intergovernmental treaty, which provides the framework for national 
action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use 
of wetlands and their resources. As of October 2021, there are 172 
parties, which includes 18 out of 19 range countries of S. teuszii and 
2,347 designated sites (Austin 2023). One of these is the Saloum Delta, 
Senegal, which is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under 
the Convention on Wetlands, and is known to host possibly the largest 
known population of S. teuszii. While the Convention on Wetlands 
provides indirect benefits to the species by providing protection of 
key habitat areas along the west coast of Africa, the level of 
protection varies at each site (Collins 2013; Weir and Pierce 2013; 
Taylor et al. 2020).
Regional Regulatory Mechanisms
    The Abidjan Convention covers the marine environment, coastal 
zones, and related inland waters from Mauritania to Namibia, which 
covers much of the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range. The Abidjan 
Convention is an agreement for the protection and management of the 
marine and coastal areas that highlights sources of pollution, 
including pollution from ships, dumping, land-based sources, 
exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed, and pollution from or 
through the atmosphere. The Abidjan Convention also identifies where 
co-operative environmental management efforts are needed. These areas 
of concern include coastal erosion, especially protected areas, 
combating pollution in cases of emergency, and environmental impact 
assessment. Additionally, the Abidjan Convention promotes scientific 
and technological collaboration (including exchanges of information and 
expertise) as a means of identifying and managing environmental issues. 
The action plan and the Abidjan Convention were adopted by the 
participating governments in March, 1981; the Abidjan Convention 
entered into force on August 5th, 1984 (Austin 2023). The contracting 
parties that have ratified the Abidjan Convention are: Benin, Cameroon, 
Republic of the Congo, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, 
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra 
Leone, South Africa and Togo, which includes 15 out of the 19 range 
countries of S. teuszii (Austin 2023). The remaining 4 range countries 
including Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Equatorial 
Guinea are located in the Abidjan Convention area but have not yet 
ratified the convention; and Western Sahara is not a signatory of the 
Abidjan Convention (Austin 2023). While the Abidjan Convention provides 
a framework within which broad conservation and environmental 
protection objectives may be pursued collaboratively among African 
countries on a regional scale, it does not specifically address 
Atlantic humpback dolphin conservation. Furthermore, relevant 
government agencies in many range countries lack the resources to 
effectively implement conservation measures resulting from the Abidjan 
Convention (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
    In 1998, the environmental ministers of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana, 
Togo, Benin, Nigeria, and Cameroon signed the Accra Declaration to 
strengthen regional capacity to prevent and correct pollution in the 
Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem (GOG-LME) and prevent and correct 
degradation of critical habitats. The ministers identified the living 
resources and management problems in the area. The countries decided to 
undertake a detailed survey of industries, defined regional effluent 
standards, instituted community based mangrove restoration activities, 
and created a campaign for the reduction, recovery, recycling, and re-
use of industrial wastes (Austin 2023). In 2006, the Guinea Current LME 
Project expanded the project scope to 10 neighboring countries (Guinea-
Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, 
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, and Angola) (Austin 2023). The Guinea Current LME Project 
includes 15 out of the 19 countries within the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin's range and is a regional effort to assess, monitor, and 
restore the ecosystem and enhance its sustainability, with the aim of 
conserving and preventing the degradation of the nearshore habitats 
along portions of the Atlantic Coast of Africa. However, government 
agencies in many range countries lack the resources to effectively 
implement conservation measures resulting from this declaration 
(Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
    The Revised African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (Revised African Convention) was adopted by the 
Assembly of the African Union on July 11, 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique 
and entered into force on July 23rd, 2016 (Austin 2023). The Revised 
African Convention is the result of a thorough revision of the original 
Algiers Convention (adopted in 1968) (Austin 2023). The Revised African 
Convention is a comprehensive regional treaty on environment and 
natural resources conservation, and the first to deal with an array of 
sustainable development matters, including quantitative and qualitative 
management of natural resources such as soil and land, air and water, 
and biological resources (Austin 2023). The contracting parties that 
are signatories to

[[Page 20842]]

the Revised African Convention are: Angola, Mauritania, Senegal, 
Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, The Gambia, Guinea, Togo, Benin, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, 
Sierra Leone, Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Ghana; this includes 17 
out of the 19 range countries of S. teuszii (Austin 2023). As of 
February, 2022, 7 of these range countries (Angola, The Gambia, Benin, 
Republic of the Congo, Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Ghana) have 
officially ratified the Revised African Convention (Austin 2023). While 
the Revised African Convention provides a framework within which broad 
conservation and sustainable development objectives may be pursued to 
provide environmental regulation at the regional level, it does not 
specifically address Atlantic humpback dolphin conservation. 
Furthermore, financing the Revised African Convention has been a 
challenge and is crucial to implementation of its provisions as well as 
management of compliance of its parties. The provisions of the 2003 
Revised African Convention emphasize the need for its member states to 
mobilize financial resources individually or jointly from bilateral or 
multilateral funding sources (Erinosho 2013). While the financial 
provisions of the 2003 Revised African Convention are an improvement 
over the 1968 African Convention (which was silent on issues of 
funding), the funding provisions are largely generic (Erinosho 2013). 
The successful implementation of the Revised African Convention is 
dependent on its procedures for implementation and compliance which are 
only made possible with adequate financial backing from its parties. 
This remains a challenge for a number of African countries that are 
signatories to the Revised African Convention, as resources to fully 
implement the treaty are currently lacking (Erinosho 2013).
Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms
    Information on the existence of domestic laws or regulations of 
range countries that specifically apply to the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin is limited. However, two countries within the species' range, 
Senegal and Gabon, have laws and measures in place that are intended to 
reduce cetacean bycatch (CMS 2022; Austin 2023).
    In Senegal, monofilament nets are officially banned in coastal 
waters (Belhabib et al. 2014). However, this prohibition is not well 
enforced and gillnets are still widely used in Senegalese waters in 
nearshore areas (Belhabib et al. 2014; Thiao et al. 2017). This is 
largely because Senegal has neither the resources nor the capacity to 
enforce fishing regulations (Diedhiou and Yang 2018).
    In Gabon, there is a ban for setting gillnets in estuaries under 
Law No. 042/2018 of July 5, 2019, in the Penal Code in the Gabonese 
Republic and under the Gabonese Decree 0579/PR/MPE of November 30, 2015 
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023). However, this law and decree are not well 
enforced (Austin 2023). Additionally, although a local agreement on 
beach seine practices is intended to reduce bycatch in Gabon, limited 
progress is being made regarding bycatch mitigation (Austin 2023).
    While a majority of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are 
members or signatories to a diverse array of international and regional 
conventions and agreements that would require them to take concrete 
measures to protect the Atlantic humpback dolphin and mitigate threats 
(Austin 2023), such as protections afforded to CMS Appendix I species, 
few such countries have adopted specific protections for the species, 
and effective bycatch mitigation has not been documented in most S. 
teuszii range countries (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). This is a serious 
concern, given that bycatch is considered linked to the species' 
population decline and poses an immediate range-wide threat (Brashares 
et al. 2004; Van Waerebeek and Perrin 2007; Ayissi et al. 2014; 
Belhabib et al. 2014; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). Additionally, 
domestic, regional, and international regulatory mechanisms that 
currently exist are not adequately enforced or do not address the 
species' primary threats. Furthermore, government agencies in many 
range countries lack the resources to effectively monitor and mitigate 
threats and design and implement research and conservation measures 
specific to the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 
2022; Austin 2023). Thus, we determined that inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms to address the risks posed by bycatch and coastal 
development, due to lack of enforcement, resources, implementation, 
and/or effectiveness within each range country, contributes to a high 
risk of extinction (Austin 2023).

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

    Under this category, we assessed the potential threat posed by 
anthropogenic underwater noise on the Atlantic humpback dolphin. We 
determined that anthropogenic underwater noise poses a moderate risk 
(Austin 2023). We discuss this threat in detail below.
    Knowledge about this species indicates that sound is important to 
Atlantic humpback dolphin functioning and survival. Small odontocete 
cetaceans, which have a similar hearing range as that of the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin, rely upon a highly developed acoustic sensory system 
and rely on echolocation to navigate, feed, and communicate with 
conspecifics in the marine environment (Weilgart 2017; Stevens et al. 
2021). It is also widely recognized that anthropogenic sound sources 
and the resulting anthropogenic underwater noise can have potential 
impacts on cetaceans' welfare including stress/physiological effects 
(such as hearing loss, tissue damage, and respiration rates) as well as 
behavioral impacts (such as shifts in migration, reduced group 
cohesion, reduced foraging, changing dive patterns, masking of 
communication sounds, displacement from important habitats, and even 
cognition when the added noise exceeds the threshold levels of the 
species) (Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Whittaker and Young 2018; Erbe et 
al. 2019; Stevens et al. 2021). Additionally, anthropogenic underwater 
noise has been shown to elicit a variety of stress responses from other 
cetacean species, such as the bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale 
(Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop 1996; Richardson and Wursig 1997; 
Nowacek et al. 2007; Whittaker and Young 2018).
    Underwater noise from coastal development activities such as 
drilling, pile-driving, explosions, and dredging are likely to affect 
many of the coastal habitats relied upon by Atlantic humpback dolphins 
(Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, engine noise and sonar from different 
vessel types (e.g. pirogues, dredgers, trawlers and tankers) may reach 
sufficient amplitude and duration such that the health and/or behavior 
of coastal marine mammals in the area (including Atlantic humpback 
dolphins) are negatively affected (Whittaker 2018; Erbe et al. 2019; 
Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, there is a possible link between 
anthropogenic underwater noise and higher likelihood in occurrence of 
strandings of cetaceans (Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop 1996; 
Richardson and Wursig 1997; Nowacek et al. 2007; Whittaker and Young 
2018). Hydrocarbon exploration using high-amplitude impulsive sounds 
may also affect Atlantic humpback dolphins, as has been noted in other 
cetaceans (Cerchio et al. 2014; Weir et al. 2021).

[[Page 20843]]

    Small odontocete cetaceans use clicks and whistles to communicate 
with other individuals, and are strongly dependent on echolocation for 
navigation, foraging, and predator avoidance (Reeves et al. 2003; 
Stevens et al. 2021). Although studies in this species have been 
scarce, there are acoustic recordings of the species made in Namibe 
province, Angola (Weir 2010). The whistles of the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin were found to be comparable to S. chinensis, and are composed 
of generally low frequencies with a 92 percent occurrence of harmonics 
(Weir 2010). Given the increasing development activities within the 
dolphin's habitat along the west coast of Africa, particularly related 
to coastal construction activities (especially port construction and 
expansion) and the oil and gas industry (e.g. development of platforms, 
ports, pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants), anthropogenic 
underwater noise levels are likely to increase. Thus, potentially 
negative effects from noise to the Atlantic humpback dolphin are likely 
to increase in the future as well.
    Overall, anthropogenic underwater noise is a serious concern for 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin, because (like other odontocete species) 
it is strongly dependent on sound for critical life functions, such as 
maintaining social bonds, communicating, navigating, finding food, and 
avoiding predators (Reeves et al. 2003; Stevens et al. 2021). While 
there are no studies analyzing the impacts of anthropogenic underwater 
noise on Atlantic humpback dolphins, anthropogenic underwater noise has 
been found to disrupt the behavior and affect the functioning and 
survival of other dolphin species (Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop 
1996; Richardson and Wursig 1997; Nowacek et al. 2007; Weilgart 2017; 
Whittaker and Young 2018; Erbe et al. 2019). This threat is likely to 
increase in the foreseeable future due to the projected increase of 
activities within the Atlantic humpback dolphin's habitat that 
contribute to underwater noise, such as port construction, vessel 
traffic, and other coastal development. Thus, we determined that 
anthropogenic underwater noise contributes a moderate risk of 
extinction (Austin 2023).

Overall Extinction Risk Summary

    We identified several threats that are likely affect the continued 
survival of the Atlantic humpback dolphin, including destruction, 
modification, and curtailment of its habitat (e.g., coastal development 
projects), overutilization of the species via fisheries bycatch 
(particularly in artisanal gillnets), depletion of prey resources, 
human use, anthropogenic underwater noise, and the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms (the lack of enforcement, resources, and 
implementation, and the lack of effectiveness of such mechanisms to 
address the other identified threats). Of these threats, 
overutilization of the species in the form of fisheries bycatch and 
human use, as well as destruction, modification, and curtailment of 
habitat resulting from coastal development, and the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms to address the threat of overutilization 
and threats to the species' habitat, all contribute significantly to 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's risk of extinction. These threats are 
immediate and range-wide, and their intensity is likely to increase in 
the future throughout the species' range. Few countries within the 
species' range have specific protections for the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin, and effective bycatch mitigation has not been documented in 
most range countries.
    Analysis of demographic factors identified several characteristics 
that elevate the population's vulnerability to these threats. For 
example, observed or suspected population declines of already small, 
likely fragmented stocks throughout the species' range drastically 
elevates the impact of single mortality events. In addition, continued 
declines are highly likely given the projected increase of identified 
threats that affect most of the species' known range (e.g., coastal 
development and fisheries bycatch). Furthermore, the species' 
restricted geographic range along the Atlantic coast of Africa and 
reliance on nearshore habitat make it highly vulnerable to human 
activities. The limited, available evidence also suggests that there is 
limited connectivity between stocks within the species' range, which 
would reduce the recovery potential for resident stocks that have 
experienced severe declines (i.e. Dakhla Bay). Finally, it is likely 
that the Atlantic humpback dolphin exhibits a naturally low 
reproductive rate and thus a low intrinsic potential for population 
increase. Given the immediacy and prevalence of threats range-wide, and 
demographic characteristics increasing the species' vulnerability, we 
conclude that the Atlantic humpback dolphin currently faces an overall 
high risk of extinction throughout its range.

Conservation Efforts

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a 
listing determination for a species, to take into account those 
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect 
the species. In addition to the regulatory measures discussed in the 
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section of this proposed 
rule, we considered whether such protective efforts, as summarized 
below, alter the extinction risk for the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
    Early recognition of the vulnerability of the Sousa species was 
indicated by their inclusion on Appendix I of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) \2\ in 1979, as a species threatened with extinction for which 
trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances (Austin 2023). 
Additionally, CMS has been closely involved with efforts to conserve 
Atlantic humpback dolphins since the 1990s. The species was also listed 
on CMS Appendix II in 1991 and on Appendix I in 2007, thus obligating 
parties to work regionally to promote Atlantic humpback dolphin 
conservation (which includes 17 out of 19 countries within the species 
range) (Austin 2023). The CMS funded two WAFCET projects during the 
late 1990s to collect information on this species and stimulate 
regional involvement in conservation efforts (Weir et al. 2021). This 
culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning 
the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa 
and Macaronesia in 2008 (Weir et al. 2021). In 2017, a CMS Concerted 
Action was adopted specifically for the Atlantic humpback dolphin and 
required a meeting of delegates from countries within the species range 
and the formulation of an action plan for 2018-2023. However, progress 
on its implementation was substantially delayed, and a Concerted Action 
was adopted in 2020 to change the action plan's timeline to 2021-2025 
(Weir et al. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 out of the 19 Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries 
are a party to CITES. However, since there is a lack of documented 
trade for this species, NMFS has no information to conclude that the 
CITES listing has lead to efforts to protect the species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IUCN's Cetacean Specialist Group (IUCN-CSG) has also expressed 
concern regarding the status of the Atlantic humpback dolphin, 
highlighting the species as a priority for research (Reeves et al. 
2003; Taylor et al. 2020). The IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species 
(the ``Red List'') global conservation assessments carried out for this 
species by the IUCN-CSG reveal a steady deterioration in status over 
time, from early assessments that underlined the

[[Page 20844]]

paucity of information (1994: Insufficiently Known; 1996: Data 
Deficient), to those reflecting growing concern about potential decline 
(2008 and 2012: Vulnerable), and culminating in the most recent 
assessment which classified this species into the Red List category of 
``Critically Endangered'' in 2017 (Collins et al. 2017; Weir et al. 
2021).
    The Atlantic humpback dolphin's concerning conservation status has 
been discussed and described in several reviews over the past two 
decades (Reeves et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir et al. 
2011; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). However, very little progress 
has been made in applied conservation of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. 
Recognition of this lack of progress led to a meeting in December 2019 
at the World Marine Mammal Conference in Barcelona, Spain, to discuss 
how research and conservation efforts for the species could be 
reinvigorated (Weir et al. 2021). Outputs from this meeting evolved 
into the formation of a new organization, the Consortium for the 
Conservation of the Atlantic Humpback Dolphin (CCAHD), in 2020. The 
CCAHD brings together national partner organizations and individuals 
from countries within the species range, and a number of international 
conservation management bodies and species experts, to work 
collaboratively towards the long-term sustainability of Atlantic 
humpback dolphin populations and their habitats (Weir et al. 2021). The 
CCAHD aims to work alongside the CMS to optimize the implementation of 
the draft Concerted Action plan for the Atlantic humpback dolphin. It 
also works alongside the IWC's bycatch and stranding initiatives 
following IWC meetings that identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as 
a priority for research, and worked with the IUCN-CSG, which 
highlighted the species as a priority in their ``Integrated 
Conservation Planning for Cetaceans'' initiative (Weir et al. 2021).
    On August 15, 2016, NMFS published the final rule on fish and fish 
product import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA 
import rule) (81 FR 54389), which establishes criteria and a formal 
process for evaluating foreign fisheries and their frequency of 
incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals. 
Specifically, the MMPA import rule requires that the Unites States ban 
imports of commercial fish or fish products caught in commercial 
fisheries resulting in the incidental killing or serious injury 
(bycatch) of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards. The rule also 
establishes criteria for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory 
program for reducing marine mammal bycatch. A number of Atlantic 
humpback dolphin range countries are included on the List of Foreign 
Fisheries as having fisheries that export to the United States, with 
particular fisheries that are associated with marine mammal bycatch 
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023). The Atlantic humpback dolphin is listed as a 
possible bycatch species for some of these fisheries in relation to 
their overlap with the dolphin's habitat (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). Thus, 
the MMPA import rule may help to provide external motivation for 
Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries with fisheries exports to the 
United States to invest more in the accurate assessment of marine 
mammal populations in their waters and the possible impacts of 
fisheries on these populations, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin 
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023).
    Significant conservation concerns for the Atlantic humpback dolphin 
have been raised for decades, and since 2020 international and regional 
collaboration to increase awareness and promote conservation efforts 
has intensified. However, there is no indication that these 
conservation efforts are ameliorating threats, particularly the threats 
of fisheries bycatch and coastal development, such that the extinction 
risk of the species is reduced. Therefore, we conclude that these 
conservation efforts do not alter the extinction risk for the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin. We are not aware of any other conservation measures 
for this species, and we are soliciting additional information on any 
relevant conservation efforts through the public comment process on 
this proposed rule (see Public Comments Solicited on Listing below).

Proposed Listing Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or 
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and 
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information, including the petition, public 
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (86 FR 68452; December 2, 
2021), the draft status review report (Austin 2023), and other 
published and unpublished information, and we have consulted with 
species experts and individuals familiar with the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine 
whether it contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the 
species on its own. We also considered the combination of those factors 
to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to the 
extinction risk of the species. Therefore, our determination set forth 
below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing 
information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the 
status of the species throughout its range.
    We conclude that the Atlantic humpback dolphin is presently in 
danger of extinction throughout its range. We summarize the factors 
supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) the best available 
information indicates that the species has a low abundance, with fewer 
than 3,000 dolphins likely remaining, with observed or suspected 
population declines increasing the risk of local extirpation for 
extremely small stocks (e.g. Dakhla Bay and Angola) in the near future; 
(2) continued declines in abundance are expected given the ongoing and 
projected increase of identified range-wide threats (specifically 
fisheries bycatch and coastal development), suggesting that the species 
will continue to decline in the absence of interventions; (3) the 
Atlantic humpback dolphin has a fragmented distribution with limited 
connectivity between stocks; (4) the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a 
restricted geographic range, being endemic to the tropical and 
subtropical waters along the Atlantic African coast where ongoing 
habitat destruction (including coastal development) contributes to a 
high risk of extinction; (5) the species' preference for nearshore 
habitat increases its vulnerability to incidental capture (i.e. 
fisheries bycatch) which also contributes to a high risk of extinction; 
and (6) existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for addressing 
the most important threats of fisheries bycatch and coastal 
development.
    As a result of the foregoing findings, which are based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Atlantic 
humpback dolphin is presently in danger of extinction throughout its 
range. Accordingly, the Atlantic humpback dolphin meets the definition 
of an endangered species, and thus we are proposing to list it as an 
endangered species.

Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or

[[Page 20845]]

threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of 
recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if 
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); a requirement that 
Federal agencies 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 designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 
1536); and, for endangered species, prohibitions on the import and 
export of any endangered species; the sale and offering for sale of 
such species in interstate or foreign commerce; the delivery, receipt, 
carriage, shipment, or transport of such species in interstate or 
foreign commerce and in the course of a commercial activity; and the 
``take'' of such species within the United States, within the U.S. 
territorial sea, or on the high seas (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of 
the species' imperiled status through listing may also promote 
conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, 
private groups, and individuals.

Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 
regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require Federal agencies to confer with 
NMFS on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species 
proposed for listing, or that are likely to result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of those species. 
If a proposed species is ultimately listed, under section 7(a)(2) (16 
U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and the NMFS/USFWS regulations (50 CFR 
part 402), Federal agencies must consult on any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or 
its critical habitat to ensure that such actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be 
designated. It is unlikely that the listing of this species under the 
ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because this 
species 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 extent 
prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently 
with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat cannot be 
designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. 
jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)). The Atlantic humpback dolphin is 
endemic to coastal Atlantic waters of western Africa and does not occur 
within areas under U.S. jurisdiction, which are in different 
biogeographic regions and well outside the natural range of this 
species. Therefore, we do not intend to propose any critical habitat 
designations for this species.

Public Comments Solicited on Listing

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be accurate and based on the best available data, we solicit 
comments from the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, environmental groups, and any other interested 
parties on the draft status review report and this proposed rule. See 
DATES and ADDRESSES for information on how to submit comments.
    Promulgation of any final regulation to list this species will take 
into consideration the comments and any additional data we receive 
during the comment period, and this process may lead to a final 
regulation that differs from this proposal. Specifically, we are 
interested in new or updated information regarding: (1) the range, 
distribution, and abundance of the Atlantic humpback dolphin; (2) the 
genetics and population structure of the Atlantic humpback dolphin; (3) 
habitat within the range of the Atlantic humpback dolphin that was 
present in the past, but may have been lost over time; (4) any threats 
to the Atlantic humpback dolphin (e.g., fisheries bycatch, coastal 
development, etc.); (5) current or planned activities within the range 
of the Atlantic humpback dolphin and their possible impact on the 
species; (6) recent observations or sampling of the Atlantic humpback 
dolphin; and (7) conservation efforts that are addressing threats to 
the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
    We request that all data and information be accompanied by 
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or 
reprints of pertinent publications. Please send any comments in 
accordance with the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section 
above.

Role of Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential scientific information or highly influential 
scientific assessments disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To 
satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we solicited peer 
review comments on the draft status review report (Austin 2023) from 
four independent scientists selected from the academic and scientific 
community. We received and reviewed comments from these scientists. All 
peer reviewer comments, which are publically available (see ADDRESSESS) 
were addressed prior to dissemination of the draft status review report 
and publication of this proposed rule.

References

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

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be 
considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon 
which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in 
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in Pacific Legal 
Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 
that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental 
assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA).

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

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA,

[[Page 20846]]

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. Given that this species occurs entirely 
outside of U.S. waters, there will be no federalism impacts because 
listing the species will not affect any state programs.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: April 3, 2023.
Kelly Denit,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50 
CFR part 224 as follows:

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  224.101, in the table in paragraph (h), add the entry, 
``Dolphin, Atlantic humpback'', in alphabetical order by common name 
under ``Marine Mammals'' to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Species \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for listing
                                                              Description of          determination(s)         Critical habitat          ESA rules
            Common name                Scientific name         listed entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Marine mammals:
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
    Dolphin, Atlantic humpback....  Sousa teuszii........  Entire species......  [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER   NA...................  NA.
                                                                                  page where the document
                                                                                  begins], [date of
                                                                                  publication when
                                                                                  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. 2023-07286 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P