Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Florida Manatee and Endangered Status for the Antillean Manatee, 3131-3160 [2025-00467]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3131-3160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH60


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status 
for the Florida Manatee and Endangered Status for the Antillean Manatee

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the two subspecies of the West Indian manatee, the Florida manatee 
(Trichechus manatus latirostris) and the Antillean manatee (Trichechus 
manatus manatus), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). We have conducted status reviews for the two subspecies, and, as 
a result, we are proposing to list the Florida manatee as a threatened 
species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 
(``4(d) rule''), and the Antillean manatee as an endangered species, 
under the Act. These two listings would replace the current threatened 
species listing of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). This 
determination also serves as our 12-month findings on two petitions and 
as our completed 5-year review of the West Indian manatee. If we 
finalize this rule as proposed, it would remove the West Indian manatee 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List), add 
the Florida manatee and Antillean manatee to the List, and extend the 
Act's protections to the Florida manatee and Antillean manatee.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
March 17, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for an 
additional public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by February 28, 2025.
    Public informational meeting and public hearing: On February 26, 
2025, we will hold a public informational meeting followed by a public 
hearing from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Eastern-Standard time (6 p.m. to 8 p.m., 
Atlantic-Standard time). For more information, see Public Hearing, 
below.

[[Page 3132]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/species/manatee-trichechus-manatus, at 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050, or both.
    Public hearing: We will hold a virtual public informational meeting 
followed by a public hearing on this proposed rule using the Zoom 
online video platform and teleconference. For more information, see 
Public Hearing, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gian Basili, Deputy State Supervisor, 
Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone 904-731-3079; or Lourdes Mena, 
Field Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. Box 
491, Boqueron, PR 00622; telephone 352-749-2462. Individuals in the 
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States. 
Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
defines the term ``species'' as including 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. Under the 
Act, a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an 
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a 
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and 
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. We have determined that the Florida manatee meets the 
Act's definition of a threatened species, and the Antillean manatee 
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are 
proposing to list them as such. We proposed to revise and/or designate 
critical habitat for the Florida manatee and Antillean manatee in a 
recent Federal Register publication (89 FR 78134). Listing a species as 
an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by issuing a 
rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the two accepted 
subspecies of the West Indian manatee, the Florida manatee (Trichechus 
manatus latirostris) and the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus 
manatus), under the Act. We would list the Florida manatee as a 
threatened species covered by the ``blanket'' protective regulation at 
50 CFR 17.31(a) (``blanket 4(d) rule''), and the Antillean manatee as 
an endangered species. These two separate listings would replace the 
current threatened species listing of the West Indian manatee 
(Trichechus manatus). Therefore, if we finalize this action as 
proposed, we would list both of the accepted subspecies of the West 
Indian manatee, and therefore all of Trichechus manatus, but with a 
different listing status for each subspecies (threatened species status 
for the Florida manatee with the blanket 4(d) rule, and endangered 
species status for the Antillean manatee).
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
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. We have determined that the Florida manatee is 
threatened throughout its range due to the following primary threats: 
watercraft collisions, habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 
modification from coastal development, unusual mortality events, 
natural processes (including cold weather events and harmful algal 
blooms), human interactions, loss of warm-water refugia, and climate 
change. We have also determined that the Antillean manatee is 
endangered throughout its range due to the following primary threats: 
watercraft collisions, habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 
modification from coastal development, natural processes like harmful 
algal blooms, human interactions, poaching, low genetic diversity, and 
climate change.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of either subspecies, 
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of either subspecies;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for either subspecies, 
their habitats, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting either subspecies, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of either 
subspecies, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory

[[Page 3133]]

mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to either subspecies; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to either subspecies.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of either subspecies.
    (4) Information to assist with applying or issuing protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the Florida manatee. In 
particular, we seek information concerning:
    (a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section 
9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the Florida manatee; and
    (b) Whether we should consider any additional or different 
exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the Florida 
manatee.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based 
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude the Florida manatee is 
endangered instead of threatened, that the Antillean manatee is 
threatened instead of endangered, or that either subspecies does not 
warrant listing as an endangered species or a threatened species. In 
addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the 
exceptions to those prohibitions in the protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act for the Florida manatee if we conclude it is 
appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For 
example, we may expand the prohibitions if we conclude that the 
protective regulation as a whole, including those additional 
prohibitions, is necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the subspecies. Conversely, we may establish additional 
or different exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we 
conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible with 
the conservation and recovery of the subspecies. In our final rule, we 
will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final 
decisions, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. At this time, we have preemptively scheduled a 
public informational meeting and public hearing on this proposed rule. 
We will hold the public informational meeting and public hearing on the 
date and at the time listed above under Public informational meeting 
and public hearing in DATES. We are holding the public informational 
meeting and public hearing via the Zoom online video platform and via 
teleconference so that participants can attend remotely. The use of a 
virtual public hearing is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).
    For security purposes, anyone intending to listen to and view the 
hearing via Zoom, listen to the hearing by telephone, or provide oral 
public comments at the hearing by Zoom or telephone must register in 
advance. For information on how to register, or if you encounter 
problems joining Zoom on the day of the hearing, visit https://www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtual-public-hearing. Registrants will 
receive the Zoom link and the telephone number for the public hearing. 
Interested members of the public who are not familiar with the Zoom 
platform should view the Zoom video tutorials (https://learnzoom.us/show-me) prior to the public hearing.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity 
to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding this 
proposed rule. The public hearing will not be an opportunity for 
dialogue with the Service, but rather a forum for accepting formal 
verbal testimony. In the event there is a large attendance, the time 
allotted for oral statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing 
to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is 
encouraged to provide a prepared written copy of that statement to us 
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, 
above). There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted 
to us.

Reasonable Accommodation

    The Service is committed to providing access to the public hearing 
for all participants. Closed captioning will be available during the 
public hearing. Participants will also have access to live audio during 
the public hearing via their telephone or computer speakers. Persons 
with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in 
the hearing should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days prior to the date of the 
hearing to help ensure availability. An accessible version of the 
Service's presentation will also be posted online at https://www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtual-public-hearing prior to the hearing 
(see DATES, above). See https://www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtual-public-hearing for more information about reasonable accommodation. 
Finally, a full audio and video recording and transcript of the public 
hearing will be posted online at https://www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtual-public-hearing after the hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), a subspecies 
of the West Indian manatee, was listed as endangered in 1967 (see 32 FR 
4001, March 11, 1967) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 
1966 (Pub. L. 89-669; 80 Stat. 926). After adoption of the Endangered 
Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135; 83 Stat. 275), the 
Florida manatee listing was amended in 1970 to include the West Indian 
manatee (Trichechus manatus)

[[Page 3134]]

throughout its range, including in northern South America (see 35 FR 
8491, June 2, 1970). A December 2, 1970, amendment then added the 
Caribbean Sea to the ``Where found'' information in the listing entry 
for the West Indian (Florida) manatee, which added the Antillean 
manatee to the listing (see 35 FR 18319). The West Indian manatee was 
subsequently grandfathered into the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife under the Act in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In 2017, the 
West Indian manatee, including both subspecies, was reclassified from 
endangered to threatened (see 82 FR 16668, April 5, 2017).
    On October 21, 2021, we received a petition from Julio C. 
Col[oacute]n requesting that we list the Puerto Rico population of the 
Antillean manatee as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) 
and that we designate critical habitat for this entity under the Act. 
The petition provided substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned entity may qualify as a DPS, and we 
found that the petition provided substantial information regarding low 
genetic diversity and isolation (Factor E) and boat collisions (Factor 
E) that may be potential threats to the Puerto Rico manatee population 
(see 88 FR 70634, October 12, 2023).
    On November 21, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) and others requesting that we reclassify 
(uplist) the West Indian manatee, including its subspecies the 
Antillean manatee and Florida manatee, as endangered species under the 
Act. The petition presented substantial information on the loss of 
seagrass (Factor A) within the range of the Florida manatee, as well as 
the negative impacts of this factor to the West Indian manatee's 
viability (see 88 FR 70634, October 12, 2023).
    In response to the October 21, 2021, and November 21, 2022, 
petitions, we initiated a status review. To ensure that status review 
was complete, we requested new scientific and commercial data and other 
information regarding the West Indian manatee throughout its range, 
including information specific to the Puerto Rico population of 
Antillean manatee, and factors that may affect their status (88 FR 
70634, October 12, 2023). This document serves as our 12-month findings 
for those two petitions.

Peer Review

    Species status assessment (SSA) teams prepared SSA reports for the 
Florida manatee (Service 2024a, entire) and Antillean manatee (Service 
2024b, entire). The SSA teams were composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA reports each represent 
a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of each subspecies, including the impacts of 
past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting each subspecies.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act, we will solicit independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the Florida manatee 
and Antillean manatee SSA reports during the comment period for this 
proposed rule.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is available in its 
SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2024a, pp. 17-33) and of the Antillean 
manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) in its SSA report (version 1.1; 
Service 2024b, pp. 15-34).
    West Indian manatees (manatees) are large, herbivorous marine 
mammals with short, paired flippers and a distinct paddle-shaped tail. 
Adults average about 3.0 meters (m) (9.8 feet (ft)) in length and 400 
kilograms (kg) (900 pounds (lb)) in weight, but they may reach lengths 
of up to 4 m (13 ft) (Husar 1978, p. 1; Reynolds and Odell 1991, p. 38) 
and weigh as much as 1,620 kg (3,570 lb) (Rathbun et al. 1990, p. 23). 
The two subspecies appear similar, share most common morphological 
characteristics, and can typically only be distinguished through 
skeletal measurements or genetic analysis. A difference commonly 
reported between the two subspecies is size, with the Florida manatee 
larger and heavier than the Antillean manatee; however, sizes do 
overlap (Converse et al. 1994, p. 427; Wong et al. 2012, p. 5; 
Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2021, p. 7).
    Manatees use a wide variety of freshwater, estuarine, and marine 
habitats for their survival as well as life-history needs (i.e., 
feeding and drinking, traveling, resting, thermoregulation, cavorting, 
mating, calving, and nursing). Manatees feed on a variety of freshwater 
and marine vegetation, as well as seek out sources of fresh drinking 
water when in marine and estuarine habitats. Manatees tend to travel 
along the waterward edges of beds of vegetation in or near channels, 
and sometimes along coastal beaches. Manatees often use secluded 
canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons, particularly near the mouths 
of rivers and sloughs, for feeding, resting, cavorting, mating, and 
calving.

[[Page 3135]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.038

    Florida manatees are found in coastal and inland waters in Florida 
year-round, regularly in Georgia and the Carolinas, and in coastal 
Alabama and Louisiana during warmer months; vagrants can be found as 
far north as Massachusetts and as far west as Texas (see figure 1, 
above; Gunter 1941, p. 64; Lowery 1974, p. 481; Domning and Hayek 1986, 
p. 136; Fertl et al. 2005, p. 74; Beck 2015, unpubl. data). Florida 
manatees are also known to travel to and from the Bahamas, Cuba, and 
Mexico (Odell et al. 1978, p. 289; Alvarez-Alem[aacute]n et al. 2010, 
p. 148; Melillo-Sweeting et al. 2011, p. 505). Antillean manatees are 
found in the coastal waters of the Greater Antilles (i.e., Cuba, 
Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico) and discontinuously along the 
Gulf coast of Mexico, Caribbean coast of Central and South America, and 
Atlantic coast of South America as far south as Bahia, Brazil (see 
figure 1, above; Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 36). 
Except for rare sightings, manatees are no longer found in the Lesser 
Antilles (i.e., Caribbean islands extending from the U.S. and British 
Virgin Islands to Grenada) (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 425). The few 
individuals that have been reported for the U.S. and British Virgin 
Islands, Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands, St. Maarten, Curacao, and 
Bonaire are considered vagrant from nearby populations (Service 2007, 
p. 27; Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 40).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because 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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.

[[Page 3136]]

    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of each of the subspecies, including an assessment of the 
potential threats to each subspecies. The SSA reports do not represent 
our decision on whether the subspecies should be proposed for listing 
as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, they do 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess the Florida manatee's and Antillean manatee's viability, 
we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). 
Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to 
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological 
environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, 
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 
principles, we identified each subspecies' ecological requirements for 
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies 
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the 
subspecies' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual subspecies' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the subspecies' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the subspecies arrived 
at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the subspecies' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of the subspecies to sustain populations in 
the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA reports; each SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2024-0050 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of each 
subspecies and their resources, and the threats that influence each 
subspecies' current and future condition, in order to assess each 
subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

    As mentioned above, manatees use a wide variety of freshwater, 
estuarine, and marine habitats for their life-history needs (i.e., 
feeding and drinking, traveling, resting, thermoregulation, cavorting, 
mating, calving, and nursing). For all life stages, manatees require 
access to fresh water for drinking, travel corridors during migration 
to reach habitats needed for survival and reproduction, and calm waters 
for resting (Ortiz et al. 1999, p. 33; Deutsch et al. 2003, entire; 
Flamm et al. 2005, entire; Drew et al. 2012, p. 24; Favero et al. 2020, 
p. 1670; Ross et al. 2020, entire). For pregnant females, sheltered 
backwaters with little disturbance are required for parturition 
(Hartman 1979, p. 110; Reynolds and Odell 1991, p. 51).
    All manatee life stages require appropriate forage and water 
temperatures (Best 1981, p. 7; Irvine et al. 1983, p. 323; Smith 1993, 
entire; Rommel et al. 2001, p. 339; Rommel and Caplan 2003, p. 343; 
Reich and Worthy 2006, p. 304; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC) 2007, p. 2; United Nations Environment Programme 
(UNEP) 2010, p. 8; Allen et al. 2018, p. 1931). Because seagrass is one 
of the largest components of the manatee's diet in coastal areas, 
healthy seagrass ecosystems are critical for the species' survival. 
Manatees predominantly feed on seagrass in near-shore, shallow waters 
averaging 1 to 3 meters (3.3 to 9.8 ft) in depth (Smith 1993, p. 11). 
Salt marsh vegetation, specifically smooth cordgrass (Spartina 
alterniflora), is an important food source for manatees in northeastern 
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (Zoodsma 1991, pp. 54-61).
    The Antillean manatee inhabits the southern limits of the manatee's 
distribution; therefore, the subspecies is tropical and does not face 
cold stress risk. Florida manatees may exhibit major shifts in 
distribution during different times of the year largely due to the 
subspecies being subtropical and cold-intolerant. Because the Florida

[[Page 3137]]

subspecies occurs in the northern limits of the manatee's range, it 
requires stable, long-term sources of warm water, such as natural 
springs, during colder months in order to survive. These warm-water 
sites buffer the lethal effects of cold temperatures. Over half of 
Florida manatees are known to use warm-water discharges from power 
plants rather than natural springs, thermal basins, or other sites 
(Laist et al. 2013, p. 4; Valade et al. 2020, p. 3). Florida manatees 
in the southernmost parts of the range depend primarily on industrial 
warm-water outfalls, while Florida manatees in the northernmost parts 
of the range rely almost exclusively on natural springs (Laist et al. 
2013, p. 4). An ambient temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) 
(20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) has been identified as the threshold when 
many Florida manatees seek out warm-water refugia, although there is 
considerable variability for individual tolerance to cold and when 
individual manatees begin to move toward warmer waters (Deutsch et al. 
2003, pp. 22-25).

Threats Analysis

    There are many factors affecting the viability of manatees; these 
factors include habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and modification 
from coastal development, overutilization from recreational disturbance 
by humans, disease and predation, pollution and harmful algal blooms, 
collisions from boating, entrapment in water control structures, loss 
of warm-water refugia, poaching, entanglement in fishing gear and 
marine debris, low genetic diversity, and climate change. The current 
and future primary influences on the Florida manatee are watercraft 
collisions, habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and modification 
from coastal development, unusual mortality events (UME), natural 
processes (including cold weather events and harmful algal blooms), 
human interactions, loss of warm-water refugia, and climate change. The 
current primary influences on the Antillean manatee are watercraft 
collisions, habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and modification 
from coastal development, natural processes like harmful algal blooms, 
human interactions, poaching, low genetic diversity, and climate 
change.
Watercraft Collisions
    Collisions with watercraft are a primary threat to both subspecies 
of the manatee. Watercraft-related collisions result in direct impacts 
to manatees in the form of lethal and sublethal injuries, can lead to 
orphaning dependent calves of mothers that succumb to injuries, and can 
result in additional impacts to reproduction. Collisions with 
watercraft can occur rangewide anywhere watercraft usage overlaps with 
waterways accessible to manatees, and manatees are particularly 
vulnerable to collisions in shallow-water habitats (Edwards et al. 
2016, p. 8).
    Within the United States, collisions with watercraft have been 
identified as the most significant anthropogenic threat to Florida 
manatees (Runge et al. 2017, p. 37; Service 2023, p. 10), causing 
fatalities, sublethal injuries, and the orphaning of dependent calves 
(Service 2023, p. 11). Ninety-six percent of Florida manatees have 
scars from at least one watercraft collision, and 25 percent of adults 
have scars from 10 or more watercraft collisions (Bassett et al. 2020, 
entire). From 1990 through 2021, watercraft-related collisions were the 
most prevalent cause of death for Florida manatees; during that time, 
2,503 Florida manatee deaths (or 19.1 percent of all documented 
carcasses) were attributed to watercraft-related collisions. Both a 
potential increase in the number of manatees and boaters would lead to 
a greater number of expected collisions (Martin et al. 2016, pp. 43-
44). There were 1,029,993 boats registered in Florida as of 2022, and 
an unknown number of out-of-State boats were brought in by seasonal 
residents and visitors. Florida has the highest number of registered 
boats of any U.S. State (FWC 2022, entire), and since 1990, the number 
of boats registered in Florida has increased by more than 33 percent, 
even with the reduced registrations accompanying the economic recession 
that began in 2008. The human population in Florida is expected to grow 
by millions in the next few decades (approximately 3 to 9 million more 
people by 2045; Rayer and Wang 2020, entire). With an increasing human 
population, the number of boats in Florida waters is also expected to 
increase, resulting in more opportunities for watercraft-related 
manatee injuries and deaths.
    Watercraft collisions that kill or injure manatees are a threat for 
the Antillean manatee as well. However, current information on 
watercraft collisions is limited and variable for most of the countries 
within the subspecies' range. This threat is likely widespread in 
portions of the range near human populations and has likely been 
increasing in magnitude over the last few decades and will continue to 
increase into the future as motorboats become more abundant.
    In Puerto Rico, 43 years of manatee mortality data from 1980 to 
2022 indicate that a total of 54 manatees are known to have died due to 
watercraft collisions (Mignucci-Giannoni et al. 2000, p. 192; Mignucci-
Giannoni 2006, p. 2; Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 
Environmental Resources (PRDNER) and Caribbean Manatee Conservation 
Center (CMCC) 2022, unpubl. data). This number represents approximately 
18 percent of the total known mortality cases during that time (54 out 
of 308), with a maximum of seven manatees in 2021 and usually at least 
one manatee per year. Unfortunately, there appears to be a recent 
increasing trend of watercraft-related mortalities with three cases in 
2020, seven in 2021 (highest on record), and three in 2022. In Belize, 
watercraft collisions are the predominant cause of death, and 
strandings due to watercraft collisions have been increasing over 
recent decades (UNEP 2010, p. 22; Galves et al. 2023, entire; Specially 
Protected Areas and Wildlife Regional Activity Center (SPAW-RAC) 2021, 
p. 20). In Mexico, watercraft-related mortalities do not seem to be a 
significant cause of manatee mortality, and there was a recent (March 
2020) documentation of the first case in 20 years of a watercraft 
collision with a healthy juvenile female manatee (Castelblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2020, p. 14). In Brazil, increased boating 
activities have resulted in both lethal collisions with manatees and 
disruption of manatee behavior (Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 
2012, p. 43).
Habitat Loss and Modification
    Human activities have caused the loss and alteration of manatee 
habitat used for breeding, feeding, sheltering, and seasonal migration. 
Seagrass, macro-algae, salt marsh, and freshwater vegetation have been 
affected, leading to significant losses of foraging habitat. Human 
activities that can result in the loss of aquatic vegetation as food 
resources include dredging, filling, boating, eutrophication, and 
coastal development (Zieman and Zieman 1989, pp. 88-96; Duarte 2002, p. 
194; Orth et al. 2006, p. 991; PRDNER 2008, entire; PRDNER 2012, 
entire). Dredging directly removes submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), 
and sediments suspended in the water column during dredge and fill 
activities cover adjacent SAV beds (Zieman and Zieman 1989, pp. 88-89; 
Auil 1998, p. 9). Boat groundings and boat propellers scar seagrass 
beds when boats navigate through seagrass beds in water that is too 
shallow for the draft (deepest point) of their boats, and even if the 
areas can eventually recover, the process can take many years (Sargent 
et al. 1995, pp. 6, 28; Hallac et al. 2012, entire). Additionally, 
excess nitrogen

[[Page 3138]]

and phosphorus that enters the aquatic system via septic systems, 
stormwater runoff or outfalls, or industrial and agricultural runoff 
can cause eutrophication, which reduces the amount of light available 
for photosynthesis, which subsequently may increase SAV mortality 
(Ralph et al. 2007, pp. 571-577; Lapointe et al. 2020, p. 2). Coastal 
development can have numerous negative impacts on manatee habitat, 
including impacts on tidal marsh and SAV. The most significant impact 
development has on tidal marsh is the direct conversion of marsh to 
development, resulting in a direct loss of habitat and forage.
    In Florida, seagrass resources have declined along the Atlantic 
coast since 2011, most notably in the 156-mile (mi) (251-kilometer 
(km)) Indian River Lagoon (IRL), which is considered an important area 
for manatees in Florida (Landsberg et al. 2022, p. 1). Loss of seagrass 
is expected to have contributed to the unusual mortality event in the 
winter of 2020-2021 that affected IRL populations (described below 
under ``Unusual Mortality Events''). Seagrass declines have also been 
observed in other locations in southeastern Florida estuarine systems, 
including northern and central Biscayne Bay. As of 2015, Statewide 
mapping effort estimated 2.48 million acres of seagrass coverage in the 
shallow coastal regions of Florida (Yarbro and Carlson 2016, p. 5). 
While there have been recent gains or stability in seagrass coverage in 
many areas due to improvements in water quality and restoration, the 
total acreage of seagrass in Florida today is less than half of what it 
was in the 1950s (Yarbro and Carlson 2016, p. 3). During the winter of 
2022-2023, manatees from the upper IRL were observed foraging in the 
central and southern Mosquito Lagoon where seagrass beds have been 
reported to be in healthier condition, but to access forage in that 
area, manatees are traveling more than 20 miles (32 kilometers) from 
warm-water sites each way. In addition, the St. Johns River Water 
Management District (Saint Johns River Water Management District 
(SJRWMD) 2023, entire) reports some improvement in the condition of the 
seagrass in the IRL in 2023.
    Anthropogenic activities that result in the loss of seagrass also 
occur in Puerto Rico. Although there are no estimates of how much 
seagrass is needed to sustain the manatee population in Puerto Rico, 
seagrass abundance is not currently considered a limiting factor for 
the Antillean manatee population there (Drew et al. 2012, p. 13). 
Within other areas of the Antillean manatee's range, effects of habitat 
fragmentation from agriculture, development, resource extraction, and 
boating contribute to habitat loss. In Panama, manatee distribution is 
apparently fragmented because of discontinuous and likely depleted 
habitat (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 442). In Colombia, Antillean manatees 
have been cut off from important habitat by highway construction 
activities since the 1970s (Montoya-Ospina et al. 2001, p. 127). 
Agriculture and development have impacted coastal and estuarine manatee 
habitat in Honduras (Cerrato 1993, in Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 440; 
UNEP 2010, p. 52), Costa Rica (UNEP 2010, p. 34), Jamaica (UNEP 2010, 
p. 55), Trinidad and Tobago (UNEP 2010, p. 76), and Mexico and Belize 
(UNEP 2010, pp. 23, 58-59). In Cuba, agricultural activities directly 
impacted manatees when residues from sugar processing killed eight 
manatees in 1981 and caused others to abandon Cuba's largest bay (UNEP 
2010, p. 37). Furthermore, resource extraction and seagrass scarring 
pose a threat to manatees in Guatemala (UNEP 2010, pp. 45-46), while in 
the northeastern estuaries of Brazil, habitat destruction and 
degradation of mangrove forests are the main influencing factors for 
calf strandings (Dos Santos-Medeiros et al. 2021, entire). We 
anticipate many of these factors contributing to habitat fragmentation 
and loss will continue to act on both the Florida manatee and Antillean 
manatee into the future.
Unusual Mortality Events
    Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.), an ``unusual mortality event'' (UME) may be declared when 
there is a stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die off 
of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response (16 
U.S.C. 1421h(9)). When a UME is declared by the appropriate agency (for 
the manatee, this agency is the Service), the event will be 
investigated, and expertise shared through the MMPA-established Working 
Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events (WGMMUME) (16 U.S.C. 
1421c). In addition, funds may be made available for response and 
investigation through the UME Contingency Fund (16 U.S.C. 1421d).
    The first formally designated UME affecting Florida manatees 
occurred in 1996, with the loss of 149 manatees due to red tide 
toxicity (see ``Pollution and Red Tides,'' below) associated with 
brevetoxins (tasteless, odorless neurotoxic compounds) (Bossart et al. 
1998, p. 277). Since that time, there have been several red tide-
related UMEs or ``repeat mortality events'' (RMEs), as well as events 
in 2010 and 2011 (cold temperatures), 2013 (deaths associated with a 
dietary shift or change in gut flora), and an ongoing event that 
started in December 2020 (starvation due to loss of foraging habitat 
along the Atlantic Coast of Florida) (Barlas et al. 2011, pp. iii-vi; 
Hardy et al. 2019, p. 1).
    Two of the most recent UME events have occurred in the IRL area 
along Florida's Atlantic Coast. A ``superbloom'' event of phytoplankton 
in 2011, followed by successive blooms in 2016 and 2018, contributed to 
a significant loss of seagrass in this estuary (Martin et al. 2017, p. 
5; Runge et al. 2017, p. 21; Service 2023, p. 47). During the winter of 
2020-2021, the IRL experienced a more substantial collapse of almost 
all forage in Brevard County and neighboring counties along the IRL 
(Service 2023, p. 5; SJRWMD 2023, unpublished data). This latest UME 
was officially declared in March 2021, and encompasses the area of the 
east coast of Florida and the Lower St. Johns River north of Putnam 
County (referred to as the Atlantic Management Unit) (Service 2023, p. 
5). The current UME is marked by a significant increase in mortality 
and morbidity, with affected animals--of which an unusually large 
proportion has been adults--showing similar signs of malnutrition and 
starvation (Service 2023, p. 17). From December 1, 2020, to September 
27, 2024, a preliminary total of 1,693 carcasses (from all causes of 
death, including watercraft collisions, starvation, unknown causes, 
etc.) have been verified from the Atlantic Management Unit (FWC Manatee 
Mortality Database 2024, unpaginated). During this same period, more 
than 210 Florida manatees were rescued for a variety of causes, with 
UME-related manatees in need of rescue characterized by emaciation, 
sideways swimming, or impaired lung function. The long-term 
implications of this UME to the Florida manatee population are unknown 
and will take many years post-event to assess. There are no documented 
UMEs for the Antillean manatee.
Pollution and Harmful Algal Blooms
    Exposure to contaminants in the water may affect the immune 
response of manatees to environmental stressors. Pollution generated 
from agriculture, human wastewater, oil and gas production, and general 
urban runoff contribute contaminants that are discharged into waterways 
and become integrated into sediments. Some contaminants are 
concentrated near industry and human population centers, while others 
are distributed more broadly in water.

[[Page 3139]]

    Florida manatees in areas with widespread use of copper as an 
aquatic herbicide have been found to have high concentrations of copper 
in liver tissues, which can lead to jaundice, and toxic levels can lead 
to death (O'Shea et al. 1984, pp. 741, 746). Even Florida manatees in 
less agricultural outfalls in Citrus, Brevard, and Charlotte Counties 
have demonstrated high copper concentrations (O'Shea et al. 1984, pp. 
742-743; Takeuchi et al. 2016, p. 447); however, because manatees cover 
such great distances in their routine migrations, it is challenging to 
link manatee bioaccumulation of copper to specific locations.
    Antillean manatees can be directly and indirectly exposed to 
harmful toxicants in waterways, which impacts individuals' overall body 
condition and behavior. Exposure to these toxicants can alter behavior, 
reduce immune function and reproductive ability, and, depending on the 
magnitude and frequency of exposure, result in death. Within the 
Antillean manatee's range, water pollution has been shown to occur due 
to agricultural practices (e.g., cane cultivation), development, and 
motorized boats (Corona-Figueroa et al. 2022, entire). These practices 
can increase runoff (heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, etc.), which 
is harmful to the subspecies and its primary food source (i.e., sea 
grass). Contaminants have been implicated in the death of one Antillean 
manatee calf in Puerto Rico (from a diesel spill), and mortality 
associated with residues from sugar processing may have also occurred 
in Cuba (UNEP 1995, p. 23). This contamination is considered a 
rationale for Antillean manatees' abandonment of Bah[iacute]a de Nipe, 
Cuba's largest bay (UNEP 1995, p. 23). One study from Mexico found 
metal concentrations (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, 
and zinc) within Antillean manatee bones higher than for most other 
marine mammals globally, and significantly different concentrations 
between the sample from the Gulf of Mexico versus the Mexican Caribbean 
samples (Romero-Calder[oacute]n et al. 2016, p. 9). Despite this 
knowledge, metal toxicity thresholds for the Antillean manatee are 
unknown.
    Increases in nutrient and chemical runoff may promote harmful algal 
blooms (such as red tides) or damage seagrass beds that manatees rely 
on for a food source. During red tide events, which occur primarily 
along Florida's Gulf Coast, phytoplankton (microalgae) blooms and high 
concentrations of the marine algae produce brevetoxins, which can have 
debilitating or lethal effects on manatees and other aquatic life. 
Observations of red tides and accompanying fish kills have been 
recorded in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico since at least the 1800s 
(note that fish kills plausibly caused by red tides in the Gulf of 
Mexico have been recorded since 1648), and have been documented 
spreading via ocean currents up the Atlantic Coast of the United States 
to the Carolinas (Steidinger 2009, p. 550; Fleming et al. 2011, p. 
225). Brevetoxins can sicken or kill animals, including humans, through 
direct exposure in water, aerosolized brevetoxins in the air, or 
bioaccumulation up the food web (Landsberg et al. 2009, p. 600; 
Steidinger 2009, p. 550). Brevetoxins can also be inhaled or ingested 
while manatees are foraging in seagrass communities, and brevetoxins 
may reside in the sediments for extended periods of time. Initiation of 
red tide algal blooms occurs in offshore areas, after which they are 
transported closer to shore by upwelling ocean currents (Weisberg et 
al. 2016, p. 116).
    These red tide events occur in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, and 
for the Florida manatee, these events have had the greatest impacts in 
southwest Florida (Lazensky et al. 2021, p. 1). While marine algae have 
been reported from Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica (Steidinger 
2009, pp. 550-551), red tide algal blooms are not known to be a 
significant threat to the Antillean manatee throughout its range. 
However, between 2018 and 2019 in Mexico, more than 50 Antillean 
manatee deaths were attributed to toxicity from algal blooms within the 
wetlands in the Tabasco region, but the algal species and cause of the 
bloom were not identified (N[uacute][ntilde]ez-Nogueira and Uribe-
L[oacute]pez 2020, p. 257). The magnitude, timing, and frequency of 
harmful algal blooms may change in the future with a changing climate.
Human Interactions
    The general threat from human interaction is widespread throughout 
both subspecies' ranges and is concentrated around human population 
centers and heavily used recreation sites. While it is known that 
interaction with and harassment by humans can cause manatees to alter 
their natural behavior and habitat use, impacts at the population level 
are not well understood.
    Potential overutilization of manatees and their habitats for 
recreational purposes may take place during viewing activities 
conducted by commercial tour operators and private citizens in the 
southeastern United States, Belize, and Mexico, and is becoming more 
frequent in Puerto Rico. People view manatees from the water; from 
boats, kayaks, paddleboards, and canoes; and from shoreline areas. The 
presence of motorized and nonmotorized watercraft and swimmers can 
disturb manatees and cause them to alter their habitat use, potentially 
causing them to leave the habitats on which they depend to fulfill 
physiological needs (Buckingham et al. 1999, entire; Sorice et al. 
2003, entire). For the Florida manatee, this type of activity may be 
most detrimental when manatees are clustered at warm-water aggregation 
areas necessary for survival due to their sensitivity to cold.
    Disturbance from recreation can also cause manatees to alter 
behaviors such as resting or nursing, and sometimes could result in 
separation of mother/calf pairs or interfere with reproduction or 
socialization. There are also frequently documented accounts of the 
public touching, pursuing, and offering water and food to manatees. 
Manatees may become conditioned to these interactions and thus alter 
their behavior such that they may be attracted to high human-use areas, 
posing additional risk to manatees especially in areas of high boat 
traffic. This further exposes manatees to human-associated threats such 
as watercraft collisions.
    Within the Florida manatee's range, the types of human interaction 
can vary. These include Florida manatee viewing from the water or 
shoreline to swimming with manatees. Human interaction with manatees 
may result in disruption of the manatee's natural behaviors (such as 
foraging, resting, thermoregulating at warm-water sites, and nursing 
and caring for their young) and interfere with mating herds, 
reproduction, or socialization behaviors. Some human activities may 
discourage Florida manatees' use of, or result in Florida manatees 
leaving, vital warm-water habitats necessary for their survival. For 
the Florida manatee, the highest levels of human interaction often 
occur during the winter months, when hundreds of manatees aggregate at 
warm-water sites, and effects from disturbance can be particularly 
detrimental due to the manatee's physiological need for warmth. During 
the rest of the year, many of the same types of human interactions 
occur at some level throughout the subspecies' range, but the magnitude 
of impact of these interactions is not well understood. For example, 
areas that are frequented by Florida manatees in South Carolina have 
become increasingly more well known and attract people to view the 
manatees; therefore, human interaction with

[[Page 3140]]

Florida manatees does not occur only in Florida. Many times, these 
viewing opportunities are passive, but there have been reports of 
people touching, feeding, providing water to, swimming with, or trying 
to ride on manatees.
    There is evidence that Antillean manatees are facing similar human 
interaction pressures throughout their range. In Puerto Rico, 
interaction with manatees by kayak and paddleboard users, divers, and 
swimmers occurs in several popular beach and coastal recreational 
areas. There is at least one case in Puerto Rico in which a person may 
have separated a newborn calf from its mother and the calf had to be 
rescued. In Swallow Caye, Belize, manatees stopped visiting suitable 
manatee habitat in 1992 after swim-with-the-manatee programs were 
allowed without proper control (Auil 1998, p. 12). In Costa Rica, 
manatees appear to avoid areas of high-quality habitat during the day 
when they are frequented by boats (UNEP 2010, p. 34). In Mexico, there 
is concern over the increased boat-based tourism that targets manatees 
and dolphins within the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve (Catesblanco-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2019, entire). Specific information is lacking 
for other range countries, but Antillean manatees are likely influenced 
by human interactions wherever their populations overlap with areas of 
human use. It is likely the threat of overutilization of manatees and 
their habitats will continue in the future and increase in areas with 
higher human populations.
Poaching
    Historically, manatees were harvested for a variety of purposes 
including meat; bones for weapons, medicine, and artisanal crafts; 
hides; oil for cooking; and fat for candle-making (Lefebvre et al. 
2001, p. 426; UNEP 2010, pp. 12, 31, 40; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 264; 
Self-Sullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, pp. 42-45). Now, they are 
primarily hunted for their meat (Jim[eacute]nez 2002, p. 276). Manatees 
are particularly susceptible to overexploitation because of their low 
reproductive rates, and poaching continues to pose a serious threat to 
some Antillean manatee populations, especially in those areas where few 
manatees remain (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 12).
    In the past, poaching has been responsible for declining numbers 
throughout much of the Antillean manatee's range (in 17 of 20 range 
countries; Thornback and Jenkins 1982, as cited in Lefebvre et al. 
2001, p. 426). Poaching is still common in areas where enforcement is 
lacking or where local people are unaware of laws in place to protect 
Antillean manatees (UNEP 2010, entire; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 386). In 
general, the actual level of poaching is not well-documented throughout 
the Antillean manatee's range. Poaching is currently not considered a 
threat in Puerto Rico, but it is still considered a primary threat to 
Antillean manatees in Cuba (Alvar[eacute]z-Alem[aacute]n et al. 2021, 
entire) and Guatemala (Machuca-Coronado et al. 2023, entire). Poaching 
is not considered a threat to the Florida manatee.
Cold Stress and Loss of Warm-Water Refugia
    The manatee is a subtropical species that has little tolerance for 
cold. Cold stress is not known to affect Antillean manatees because 
they inhabit warmer subtropical waters. However, for the Florida 
manatee, past and potential future losses of natural and human-made 
warm-water habitat coupled with cold stress constitute a major threat 
to this subspecies (Runge et al. 2017, p. 26; Valade et al. 2020, p. 
2).
    Manatees are characterized as having low metabolism and poor 
insulation, which inhibit their ability to retain heat and 
thermoregulate (Irvine 1983, entire; Worthy et al. 2000, p. 3; Rommel 
et al. 2001, p. 339; Bossart et al. 2002, p. 45; Rommel et al. 2002, p. 
3; Hardy et al. 2019, p. 2; Martony et al. 2019, p. 86). The likelihood 
of cold stress is highest where water temperatures are colder or have 
greater fluctuations (e.g., shallower water depths), as well as in 
areas with limited warm-water or foraging habitat. Cold stress is only 
an immediate threat during winter but impacts to the overall health and 
fitness of individuals are likely to carry over after cold weather has 
passed (Walsh et al. 2005, entire). The magnitude of this threat varies 
annually depending on the severity of the winter. Cold temperatures 
limit the northern extent of the Florida manatee's winter range and 
restrict the available wintering sites to areas mostly in peninsular 
Florida, although anthropogenic thermal discharges have extended the 
winter range of the Florida manatee and altered its distribution in 
Florida waters (Laist and Reynolds 2005a, p. 740).
    Florida's natural springs have seen substantial declines in flows 
and water quality, and many springs have been altered (i.e., dammed, 
silted in, or otherwise obstructed) to the point they are no longer 
accessible to manatees (Laist and Reynolds 2005b, p. 287; Taylor 2006, 
pp. 5-6; FWC 2007, p. 10). Flow declines are largely attributable to 
demands on aquifers (spring recharge areas) for potable water or other 
users such as agriculture (Marella 2014, pp. 1-2). Declining flows can 
result in fewer usable warm-water sites for wintering manatees, both in 
terms of thermal quantity and quality.
    In Florida, manatees are known to utilize 67 primary and secondary 
warm-water sites, including 10 power plants, 23 springs and spring 
complexes, and 34 passive thermal basins (Valade et al. 2020 pp. 2-3, 
25-30). Groundwater seeps, haloclines, solar radiation, thermal 
inertia, and biodegradation provide the source of heated water for 
passive thermal basins (Stith et al. 2012, entire; Laist et al. 2013, 
p. 1). Industrial outfalls are the primary warm-water sites most 
heavily used in the two largest Florida winter management units 
(Southwest and Atlantic), while Florida manatees in the two smallest 
and more northerly winter management units (i.e., Upper St. Johns River 
and Northwest) rely almost exclusively on natural springs (Laist et al. 
2013, p. 4). If power plant outflows in the Southwest and Atlantic 
management units are lost, or have reduced or unpredictable flows, 
manatees that winter at such sites would have to overcome their strong 
site fidelity and shift their distribution south in order to convert to 
using passive thermal basins and warm ambient waters in southern 
Florida, or they would have to move north to utilize the springs in the 
Upper St. Johns River and Northwest winter management units. Experience 
with disruptions at sites has shown that some manatees can adapt to 
minor changes at these sites; during temporary power plant shutdowns, 
manatees have been observed to use less-preferred nearby sites when an 
alternate warm-water source was not provided at the primary site.
    The potential loss of warm water at natural springs, passive 
thermal basins, and power plants in Florida is a significant threat to 
the subspecies, as more individuals would be susceptible to lethal and 
sublethal effects of cold stress (Service 2001, entire; Laist and 
Reynolds 2005a, 2005b, entire; Service 2007, entire; Runge et al. 2017, 
entire). Loss of warm-water sites has the potential to influence 
population dynamics enough to significantly increase the risk of 
population quasi-extinction (Runge et al. 2017, p. 26). However, 
severity and timing of these losses and their effect on populations are 
uncertain. In the future, warm-water refugia loss is likely to continue 
to be a threat to the Florida manatee and will increase over time.

[[Page 3141]]

Low Genetic Diversity
    Low genetic diversity has been identified in Antillean manatee 
populations in Puerto Rico, Belize, Brazil, Mexico, Panama, and Cuba 
(Hunter et al. 2010, entire; Nourisson et al. 2011, p. 833; Hunter et 
al. 2012, entire; D[iacute]az-Ferguson et al. 2017, pp. 383-384; 
Alvarez-Alem[aacute]n 2019, pp. 103, 115; Luna et al. 2021, entire). 
Low genetic diversity likely exists elsewhere across the Antillean 
subspecies' range, and genetic diversity is likely lower the more 
isolated a population is. Additional research is needed to understand 
whether low genetic diversity leads to reduced fitness or poses an 
imminent threat to manatee populations. When genetic diversity is 
substantially reduced or slowly eroded over time through loss of 
individuals, it can lead to an extinction vortex, which results in an 
inbreeding feedback loop and can lead to extinction (Nordstrom et al. 
2023, p. 2). There is no evidence that low genetic diversity is an 
issue for the Florida manatee.
Climate Change
    Climate change impacts are likely to influence the viability of 
manatees in several ways, including temperature increases, sea level 
rise, fluctuations in ocean chemistry, hydrological cycle deviations, 
and changes in timing and intensity of tropical storms, as well as 
extreme cold events. These large-scale impacts may lead to habitat 
changes, increased algal blooms, and new threats from diseases (Edwards 
2013, pp. 727, 735; Marsh et al. 2017, entire; Osland et al. 2020, 
entire). The synergism of these factors will affect manatee health and 
habitat, and potentially reduce the future range of each subspecies.
    More than 90 percent of the excess heat accumulated in the climate 
system between 1971 and 2010 has been stored in the ocean, particularly 
near the surface (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
2014, pp. 40-42; IPCC 2019, p. 9). The upper ocean (0-700 m, or 0-2,297 
ft) has warmed since the 1970s due to human-caused carbon dioxide 
emissions (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (AR6 
SPM) 2021). The ocean will continue to warm throughout the 21st 
century, and the strongest warming is predicted to occur in tropical 
regions and Northern Hemisphere subtropical regions (IPCC 2014, p. 60). 
Increasing ocean temperatures will affect estuarine and freshwater 
systems, seagrass, and other forage plant communities by influencing 
photosynthetic rates and biomass, changes in plant communities and 
growth of competitors, changes in aspects of life history, or shifts in 
distribution if physiological tolerances are exceeded (Short and 
Neckles 1999, pp. 172-175; Bjork et al. 2008, pp. 21-23). Influences 
can be both positive (e.g., possible increased photosynthesis and 
growth from increased carbon) and negative (e.g., increased growth of 
competitive algae and epiphytes that shade seagrass and reduce growth) 
(Short and Neckles 1999, pp. 172-175; Bjork et al. 2008, pp. 21-23). 
Increased temperatures can also increase stress on plants, decreasing 
growth and reproduction and resulting in less forage for manatees 
(Marsh et al. 2017, p. 343).
    An increase in temperature will likely decrease the frequency and 
intensity of cold weather events, which in turn would decrease Florida 
manatees' exposure to cold stress and may reduce the time they spend at 
warm-water sites. However, these changes may not completely eliminate 
mortality events from cold weather (Osland et al. 2020, pp. 3, 13). 
Conversely, manatees in tropical regions may reach upper thermal 
tolerances due to rising water temperatures (Marsh et al. 2017, p. 
336).
    Due to the projected sea level rise (SLR) associated with climate 
change, coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly 
experience submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion (IPCC 
2014, p. 17). In response to SLR and other climate change impacts, many 
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their 
geographic ranges, seasonal activities, and migration patterns (IPCC 
2014, p. 4). Increases in sea level have been occurring throughout the 
southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, and the 
overall magnitude of SLR in the region has been slightly higher than 
the global average (Mitchum 2011, p. 9). At various locations in 
Florida, SLR has averaged about 3.0 millimeters (mm) (0.12 inches (in)) 
per year since the early 1990s (Ruppert 2014, p. 2). The amount of SLR 
that will occur in the future will depend largely on the rate of 
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and associated warming. Salt 
marshes may be able to persist with SLR by either floodwater 
sedimentation or through landward migration. However, future SLR is 
expected to shift available habitat farther inland (in some cases 
closer to developed areas) or the habitat will be lost all together. 
Coastal tidal marshes are threatened by this ``coastal squeeze,'' the 
combination of SLR rise and a physical barrier that prevents the 
landward migration of marshes (Martinez et al. 2014, p. 180).
    Regarding fluctuations in ocean chemistry, rising carbon dioxide 
levels will directly impact seagrasses and other aquatic vegetation 
(Unsworth et al. 2019, p. 810). As carbon dioxide increases in the 
atmosphere, it will continue to increase in the ocean and lead to a 
decrease in pH. Under elevated carbon dioxide conditions, seagrass 
growth rates will increase (Koch et al. 2013, p. 103). An additional 
consequence of fluctuations in ocean chemistry from climate change may 
be harmful algal blooms. Increased ocean temperatures will influence 
the range, frequency, duration, size, and seasonal window of 
opportunity for harmful algal blooms.
    Hydrological cycle deviations are another potential consequence of 
climate change, with projections for future precipitation trends 
suggesting overall annual precipitation will decrease in the 
southeastern United States and Puerto Rico (Carter et al. 2014, p. 17; 
Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 271-275; Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 145). 
Similarly, uncertain predicted changes in precipitation in Mexico, 
Central America, and South America indicate that the wet season could 
become drier, and the dry season could become either wetter or drier 
depending on the region, but primarily drier along the Caribbean coast 
of Central America and most of South America (Vera et al. 2006, p. 4; 
Karmalkar et al. 2011, pp. 622-626). Climate change could intensify or 
increase the frequency of drought events. Frequency, duration, and 
intensity of droughts are likely to increase in the southeastern United 
States where Florida manatees primarily occur (Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 
145-147). Overall, the changes in rainfall patterns will likely have a 
geographically uneven impact on manatees.
    Tropical cyclones, severe storms, and dust storms will bring 
intense flooding that may impact seagrasses and manatees through 
increased runoff and turbidity in coastal waters (Marsh et al. 2017, p. 
343). Impacts to manatees from tropical storms and hurricanes include 
strandings, debris-related injuries, individuals being swept off-shore 
or exceedingly far inshore, entrapment in isolated water bodies, and 
impacts to forage (Langtimm and Beck 2003, entire; Langtimm et al. 
2006, entire; Langtimm et al. 2007, p. 192; NOAA 2007, pp. 94-96). The 
Florida manatee survival rate is negatively correlated with more 
intense hurricane seasons (Langtimm and Beck 2003, p. 262). Tropical 
storms, hurricanes, and high tide flooding events are already 
contributing to increased Florida manatee rescues as manatees are 
gaining access to areas that were previously inaccessible, such as in 
golf course ponds, in culverts, in

[[Page 3142]]

stormwater retention areas, and behind water control structures. In 
Puerto Rico, tropical storms and hurricanes intensify heavy surf, and 
at least one manatee calf death was attributed to Hurricane Hortense in 
1996 (Service 2007, p. 33). For the Antillean manatee, hurricane events 
may have a greater impact on some populations (Caribbean and Gulf of 
Mexico) than on others (coast of South America).
Other Influences
    Disease and Predation: Numerous infectious diseases and parasites 
have been reported in manatees) (Owen et al. 2018, entire). 
Papillomaviruses can infect individuals with suppressed immune systems 
have been observed in manatees and are believed to be spread via 
contact (Bossart et al. 2002, entire; Woodruff et al. 2005, entire; 
Halvorsen and Keith 2008, p. 414). However, papillomas (epithelial 
tumors) on infected manatees are benign. Toxoplasmosis has been 
identified in the Florida manatee and the Antillean manatee in Puerto 
Rico, but cases of the disease and evidence of antibodies to Toxoplasma 
gondii were rare in the Puerto Rican population (Buergelt and Bonde 
1983, entire; Smith et al. 2016, entire; Bossart et al. 2012, entire).
    There is no evidence that predation is a significant threat to the 
viability of either the Florida manatee or the Antillean manatee. There 
have been documented interactions with sharks and alligators on 
manatees, but these instances are rare (Mou Sue et al. 1990, p. 239; 
Marsh et al. 2011, p. 239). As there is no evidence of predation being 
a significant threat to either subspecies of manatee, we do not 
anticipate this to change in the future. However, impacts from disease 
may increase over time if manatees are under stress due to climate 
change.
    Entanglement by Fishing Gear and Marine Debris: Fishing gear, both 
active and discarded, can kill or injure both subspecies of manatee 
through either entanglement (e.g., in nets, crab traps, or monofilament 
line), ingestion (e.g., monofilament line, fishhooks, etc.), or 
incidental capture (e.g., in inshore recreational and commercial shrimp 
trawls). Other marine debris not related to fishing, like plastics, 
rope, wire, sponges, balloons, etc., can pose an issue for manatees 
(Reinert et al. 2017, p. 418; Service Captive Manatee Database 2024, 
unpaginated; Service 2020, pp. 2-3). Causes of death from ingestion of 
marine debris include intussusception (telescoping of the intestine 
into itself) of the small intestine and impaction, obstruction, and 
perforation of the gastrointestinal tract (Beck and Barros 1991, p. 
509; Reinert et al. 2017, p. 418). Causes of death from entanglement 
have included secondary infection, drowning, and being tethered to an 
immovable object (Reinert et al. 2017, p. 418).
    Drowning in fishery nets has occurred but appears to be infrequent, 
with just one instance of a manatee associated with a recreational 
shrimp net between 2014 and 2018 (FWC Manatee Mortality Database 2024, 
unpaginated). Incidental captures of manatees by research groups does 
occur and non-target manatees can be caught during other rescue 
activities, again with limited frequency, but manatees are typically 
released unharmed (Service 2020, p. 2). In 2019, Florida manatees were 
reported to be incidentally captured on at least 15 occasions (Service 
2020, p. 2). Because conservation actions have been implemented, deaths 
from marine debris are rare, and population modeling efforts have 
determined that marine debris (including entanglements and ingestion of 
fishing gear) presents only a low threat to the persistence of the 
Florida manatee (Runge et al. 2015, p. 16; 2017, p. 18).
    Entrapment in Water Control Structures: Water control structures 
include flood gates that control water movement and navigation locks 
that allow vessel passages past dams and impoundments, such as those 
associated with the Caloosahatchee Waterway. Water control structures 
and navigation locks have historically posed a threat to the Florida 
manatee. Between 1980 and 1999, an average of 6.6 Florida manatees per 
year died in structure-related deaths (FWC Manatee Mortality Database 
2021, unpaginated).
    Because of safety advances for water control structures (discussed 
further under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below), 
these structures are not currently considered a major threat to the 
Florida manatee. Most water control structures that may impact Florida 
manatee have been retrofitted with manatee protection systems or mesh 
barriers, and these structures implement standard operating procedures 
to reduce impacts to manatees. Information is not available regarding 
the precise degree to which water control structures pose a threat to 
the Antillean manatee, but the best available information indicates a 
few manatee deaths are reported in Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba due to 
dams and water control structures. Water control structures are not 
believed to currently be a major threat to either subspecies of 
manatee, and we do not anticipate this threat to increase in the future 
because we assume that management actions to prevent entrapment will 
continue.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    As described under Threats Analysis, above, several factors can 
affect the viability of manatees. Below, we provide an overview of 
conservation efforts, and regulatory mechanisms, and recovery plans 
that address the threats and provide benefits to manatees.
Watercraft Collisions
    The primary conservation action to reduce the risk of manatee 
injury and death from watercraft collisions is the establishment of 
protected areas that restrict boat entry and limit vessel speeds. The 
rationale behind speed limits is that a slower speed allows both 
manatees and boaters additional response time to avoid a collision 
(Calleson and Frohlich 2007, p. 297; Rycyk et al. 2018, p. 956). 
Furthermore, if an impact occurs, the degree of trauma will generally 
be less if the colliding boat is operating at slower speed (Laist and 
Shaw 2006, p. 478; Calleson and Frohlich 2007, p. 297).
    For the Florida manatee, manatee protection zones are a primary 
conservation tool that has been implemented to address this threat. 
These zones, which have been implemented in Florida at the Federal, 
State, and local level, regulate boater entry and speed in protected 
areas to reduce risk to manatees and their habitat. There are many 
different types of protection zones, including idle- and slow-speed 
areas, boater travel corridors that allow higher speeds in deeper 
channels, shoreline buffers, zones with seasonal entry or speed 
limitations, non-motorized areas, and no-entry areas (FWC 2007, p. 
148). Federal, State, and local manatee protection speed zones have 
been established in 27 Florida counties.
    For the Antillean manatee, some countries have designated protected 
areas to help reduce the impact of watercraft collisions and other 
threats to manatees. For example, Belize has three protected areas 
created specifically to safeguard manatee habitat: Swallow Caye 
Wildlife Sanctuary, Corozal Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, and Gales Point 
Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as numerous protected areas within coastal 
areas (UNEP 2010, p. 24). Other countries, including Brazil, the 
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Mexico, have also designated 
reserves specifically for the conservation of manatees (UNEP 2010, pp. 
28, 41, 47, 60).

[[Page 3143]]

Habitat Loss and Modification
    To offset threats to seagrass in the United States, including 
Puerto Rico, a wide range of conservation efforts are ongoing. These 
include the collective efforts of the Service, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE), Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 
Resources (PRDNER), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard, FWC, Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection (FDEP), Florida's regional Water Management Districts 
(WMDs), and others who are working to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
project impacts on manatee habitat. The development and implementation 
of no-wake areas, marked navigation channels, boat exclusion areas, and 
standard manatee construction conditions for marinas and boat ramps are 
a few of the efforts making a positive impact on maintaining and 
protecting important manatee habitat.
    For the Florida manatee, habitat degradation and loss from natural 
and human-related causes are being addressed through collective efforts 
to improve overall water quality; minimize construction-related 
impacts; minimize loss of seagrass due to propeller scarring and dock 
construction; and increase the abundance of SAV, salt marsh, and 
mangroves by restoring these habitats. The Service, USACE, and NOAA, as 
well as multiple State agencies including FWC, FDEP, and regional WMDs, 
review development permits to identify potential impacts and develop 
measures that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate for direct and 
secondary impacts. In addition, these agencies have programs for 
increasing SAV, salt marsh, and mangrove habitats through restoration; 
restoring living shorelines; and improving water quality. In southwest 
Florida, spatial coverage of seagrass increased by more than 12,000 ha 
between the 1980s and 2016 in six assessed estuaries (St. Joseph Sound, 
Clearwater Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Lemon Bay, and Charlotte 
Harbor; Tomasko et al. 2018, p. 1135). This recovery was made possible 
by conservation actions that limited nutrient loads in the water, 
including upgrading wastewater and stormwater systems, as well as 
legislation regulating discharged pollutants (Tomasko et al. 2018, pp. 
1133-1135). Protected areas where boat access is limited or prohibited 
also protect manatee habitat from direct threats from vessels, their 
wakes, and other destructive activities.
    Major habitat restoration efforts were undertaken by Save Crystal 
River, Inc., with financial backing by the State of Florida and other 
sources. As part of this effort to restore Kings Bay, a three-pronged 
approach was instituted in the area, consisting of: organic detritus/
muck removal; then replanting with more salt-tolerant eelgrass variants 
(``Rock Star'' and ``Salty Dog''), with the initial plantings protected 
by herbivory exclusion cages; and then maintenance of the restoration 
site (Kramer 2020, pp. 1-4; Save Crystal River 2021, entire). Over 
time, the plants have shown strong growth and persistence, and have 
expanded the vegetated area well beyond the initial planting locations, 
contributing to enhanced water clarity in many parts of the bay. While 
water clarity has improved, an added benefit for manatees is that the 
SAV has expanded nearer to natural spring sites, resulting in reduced 
travel distances to feed and less exposure to colder ambient 
temperatures and boat traffic.
    Current efforts to forestall reductions in salt marsh habitat 
include reducing impacts from coastal development through the Federal 
and State permitting process, mitigation for lost salt marsh, and 
restoration efforts to enhance and increase salt marsh habitat 
(Radabaugh et al. 2017, pp. 139-141).
    There are recovery efforts being made to protect the Antillean 
manatee against threats posed by habitat loss or modification. In 
Puerto Rico, there have been efforts to restore damaged habitat, 
protect habitat by restricting boater entry or speeds, and provide 
mooring buoys to prevent anchorage (PRDNER 2012, entire). In Belize, 
three protected areas were created specifically to protect critical 
manatee habitat (Swallow Caye Wildlife Sanctuary, Corozal Bay Wildlife 
Sanctuary, and Gales Point Wildlife Sanctuary), and more than 43 
percent of the country's protected areas are within the coastal zone 
(UNEP 2010, p. 24). Mexico has designated significant special manatee 
protection areas (UNEP 2010, p. 60). The Dominican Republic and 
Guatemala also have designated protected habitat specifically for 
Antillean manatee conservation, in addition to other protected coastal 
and wetland areas that are not protected specifically for manatees 
(UNEP 2010, pp. 19-82; Dom[iacute]nguez Tejo 2019, p. 6).
    Some Antillean manatee habitat has been protected in other range 
countries including the Bahamas, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, 
French Guiana, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Trinidad 
and Tobago, and Venezuela, although these protected areas are not 
necessarily protected or enforced to the benefit of manatees 
specifically (e.g., Ramsar sites designated as wetlands of 
international importance but without specific management or planning to 
benefit manatees) (UNEP 2010, pp. 19-82).
Pollution and Harmful Algal Blooms
    Conservation measures associated with harmful algal blooms include 
rescue and treatment of affected individuals, and efforts to reduce the 
occurrence of harmful algal blooms in cases where the drivers of blooms 
are understood, which is not the case for red tides caused by blooms of 
the marine algae Karenia brevis. Although there are no effective 
conservation measures available currently to reduce the impact of red 
tides themselves, manatee rescue, care and treatment, and release have 
aided in the rehabilitation of numerous manatees suffering from 
sublethal effects of brevetoxin exposure. Between 2010 and 2022, 70 
Florida manatees have been rescued (7.7 percent of all rescues) for red 
tide-related causes (FWC Manatee Mortality Database 2024, unpaginated).
    Many efforts are being undertaken to address recurring algal blooms 
in Florida, and specifically in the IRL. The State of Florida, Indian 
River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), Brevard County, and 
many other partners have funded and are implementing a large number of 
projects to improve the IRL's health. The initiatives are aimed at 
removing legacy nutrient loads and reducing current nutrient sources 
through the implementation of stormwater improvement projects, 
fertilizer bans, septic to sewer conversions, dredging of accumulated 
muck from the lagoon, and restoration projects for oysters, clams, and 
seagrass (Tetra Tech and Closewaters, LLC 2021, entire; IRLNEP 2019, 
entire).
    For the Antillean manatee, once the manatee deaths in the Tabasco 
region started to increase, the Mexican government summoned a committee 
to investigate the causes of death. While brevetoxins have been 
reported from Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica (Steidinger 
2009, pp. 550-551), algal blooms are not known to be a significant 
threat to the Antillean manatee throughout its range. However, between 
2018 and 2019, more than 50 Antillean manatee deaths in Mexico were 
attributed to toxicity from algal blooms within the wetlands in the 
Tabasco region, although the algal species and cause of the bloom was 
not identified (N[uacute][ntilde]ez-Nogueira and Uribe-L[oacute]pez 
2020, p. 257). The magnitude, timing, and frequency of harmful algal 
blooms may change in the future with a changing climate. Further, large 
mats

[[Page 3144]]

of pelagic sargassum may impact Antillean manatees' respiratory, 
ocular, and neurological functions.
Human Interactions
    In Florida, where people currently view manatees, numerous measures 
are in place to prevent the take of manatees due to disturbance from 
viewing-related harassment. All waterborne activities are prohibited in 
Federal manatee sanctuaries and FWC or other State no-entry zones; 
specific waterborne activities may be restricted in Federal manatee 
refuges and FWC no-motorized-vessel zones. Both the Service and FWC 
promote and post appropriate guidelines for Florida manatee viewing 
through outreach via social media and signage at public viewing areas. 
Ecotourism is popular throughout the State of Florida but remains a 
significant concern due to increasing demand for manatee-related 
tourism, limited law enforcement presence, and cumulative effects from 
these activities on manatees especially when the activities occur in 
the vicinity of large manatee aggregations at warm-water sites.
    Within the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge in Citrus County, 
Florida, a special use permit system is in place to govern commercial 
tours within refuge waters. The permit system ensures these activities 
occur with proper education and viewing practices in place. Federal and 
State designated sanctuaries and protected areas keep people out of 
sensitive manatee habitats (i.e., warm-water sites), educated tour 
guides are tasked with ensuring that their customers do not harass 
manatees, and many educational programs prescribe appropriate measures 
to take when in the presence of manatees. Refuge staff, including law 
enforcement, hold annual meetings with volunteers and tour guides to 
provide updates on manatee issues in the area and to review proper 
manatee viewing practices. The federally designated Kings Bay Manatee 
Refuge regulates waterborne activities that are disruptions to natural 
behaviors such as resting, nursing, foraging, mating, and socializing, 
and has established speed zones for the protection of manatees.
    There is limited information available about conservation measures 
that address human interaction in many range countries for the 
Antillean manatee. In Puerto Rico, government agencies and local 
nongovernmental organizations have implemented education and outreach 
strategies to ensure that manatee harassment is avoided and minimized 
by concessionaires and others within manatee use areas. There has been 
an increase in the type and number of recreational activities where 
manatees occur and, thus, an increase in the scenarios where manatee 
harassment occurs. In general, surveillance and enforcement related to 
human interactions with manatees is difficult given the frequency and 
diversity of the incidents. There are examples of similar protected 
areas and use restrictions to protect Antillean manatees in other range 
countries from human interactions. For example, at Swallow Caye in 
Belize where manatees stopped visiting suitable habitat after swim-
with-the-manatee programs were allowed, community groups and a local 
conservation organization helped to declare the area a wildlife 
sanctuary in 2002. The area is currently co-managed between the Belize 
Forest Department and a local conservation organization, and manatees 
have returned to the area (UNEP 2010, p. 23). In Mexico, several 
workshops and meetings were conducted with the local tourist operators 
and the authorities within the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve 
(Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez et al. 2019, entire).
Loss of Warm-Water Refugia
    As discussed under Threats Analysis, above, cold stress does not 
tend to affect Antillean manatees, because they inhabit warmer 
subtropical waters. Florida manatees during the colder months may 
suffer from cold stress and require human intervention. However, for 
the Florida manatee, primary direct conservation response to address 
cold stress is rescue and treatment. Providing care for cold-stressed 
manatees is dependent on the public or other entities reporting these 
distressed manatees to FWC and other rescue partners, as well as the 
availability of experienced rescue personnel, availability of 
rehabilitation space, and other resources necessary to rescue, 
transport, and provide treatment. Consequently, only a small number of 
individuals that need treatment for cold stress are likely to be 
rescued and rehabilitated.
    Over the last 10 years (2014-2023), close to 40 manatees have been 
rescued outside of Florida, and most of those rescues were the result 
of artificial warm-water attractants (power plants, pulp mills, and 
other industrial-related outfalls that produce heated effluents in 
manatee-accessible waters) that altered manatee migratory behavior but 
where the heated discharges were insufficient to sustain manatees 
through the winter (Service Manatee Database 2024, unpaginated). When 
these situations occur, the Service works cooperatively with the 
industrial partner to try to mitigate those attractants.
    Major spring restoration efforts have occurred at Homosassa 
Springs, Three Sisters Springs, Chassahowitzka Spring, Ulele Spring, 
Fanning Springs, Manatee Springs, and Warm Mineral Springs, where sand 
bars and other obstructions were removed to facilitate manatee access 
to these areas (TNC 2015, unpaginated; Valade et al. 2020, p. 17). 
Restoration and shoreline stabilization at Blue Spring (Volusia 
County), a major natural warm-water site, is ongoing. Because of 
sedimentation from human activities, manatees could not access the Warm 
Mineral Springs warm-water site under certain low tide conditions (FWC 
2019, pp. 16-17). Another site in southwest Florida at Port of the 
Islands is expected to be lost because of hydrologic restoration in the 
Picayune Strand as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan (CERP). In response, a manatee warm-water mitigation feature was 
built that includes three deep pools that are connected to the 
surficial aquifer and hold warm saline groundwater for manatee use. 
This site is being monitored by researchers to evaluate temperature 
conditions and manatee use (FWC 2019, pp. 16-17).
    The State of Florida's WMDs are also required to set minimum flows 
and levels (MFLs) for aquifers, surface watercourses, and other surface 
water bodies. Minimum flows are required for rivers, streams, 
estuaries, and springs in Florida, which provide benefits to manatees 
and help provide protection for natural warm-water sites. The MFLs 
created for each waterbody must establish a limit that identifies a 
point where further water withdrawals will be harmful to the water 
resources or ecology of the area; non-consumptive and environmental 
values are considered in this determination. After an MFL is set, water 
use permits are used to regulate and prevent groundwater withdrawals 
that would lower flows or levels that fall below the MFL. MFL reviews 
typically occur on a 5-year cycle, and these levels ensure adequate 
flows and require that conservation measures be taken should flows drop 
below targets. MFLs have been completed for numerous waterbodies 
including those important for manatees, like Blue Spring (Volusia 
County); Manatee and Fanning Springs (Levy County); Weeki Wachee Spring 
(Hernando County); Homosassa, Chassahowitzka, and the Crystal River/
Kings Bay system (Citrus County); DeLeon Springs (Volusia County); 
Silver Glen Springs (Lake and Marion

[[Page 3145]]

Counties); and Wakulla Springs (Wakulla County).
    Additional conservation actions include the Service's and FWC's 
coordination with the power-generating companies in Florida, and 
through the FDEP, manatee protection conditions are incorporated into 
each facility's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. 
The Service also coordinates with State and industry partners to 
minimize any future manatee losses from industrial site reductions or 
closures by seeking short-term alternatives and long-term sustainable 
options for supporting manatees without reliance on industrial warm-
water sources. In 2004, the Warm-water Task Force created the first 
version of the Warm-water Habitat Action Plan to address the expected 
loss of warm-water habitat produced by Florida power plants. The task 
force was part of the Service's Manatee Recovery Team and consisted of 
representatives of Federal and State wildlife agencies, the power 
industry, recreational and commercial boating interests, and 
environmental organizations. The Service and FWC finalized the Florida 
Manatee Warm-water Habitat Action Plan (Valade et al. 2020, entire), 
and this document serves as the framework to address the expected loss 
of industrial warm-water habitat in the future. This plan consists of 
seven main strategies and sets forth both short-term and long-term 
measures to address one of the most significant threats to the future 
existence of the Florida manatee and the recovery of the subspecies 
(Valade et al. 2020, entire).
Water Control Structures
    Water control structures are not believed to be a major threat to 
the Antillean manatee. However, advances in manatee protection systems 
installed on water control structures to prevent Florida manatees from 
being crushed or impinged have been largely successful. Efforts to 
mitigate the negative effects of these water control structures on 
manatees are ongoing. In Florida, most water control structures that 
are known to have caused Florida manatee deaths have been retrofitted 
with manatee protection systems (Service 2023, p. 12), including 
acoustic arrays and piezo-electric strips that reverse closing locks or 
gates when they encounter a manatee. In addition, mesh exclusion 
barriers are used to prevent manatees from accessing the recessed areas 
of navigational locks. Risks at navigational locks and water control 
structures have been further reduced by the implementation of standard 
operating procedures developed by the Florida WMDs and the USACE 
(Service 2023, p. 12). In response to these advances, annual mortality 
has fallen to an average of 4.2 manatees per year between 2000 and 2019 
(FWC Manatee Mortality Database 2024, unpaginated).
Entanglement by Fishing Gear and Marine Debris
    Conservation actions to reduce the impact of this threat include 
rescue, efforts to remove and keep discarded fishing gear and debris 
out of the water, and community outreach and education. In addition, 
best management practices have been provided by FWC and the Service for 
some commercial fisheries and research activities that have included 
active tending of nets, limited set times, location restrictions, and 
reporting of entanglements and captures of manatees during these 
activities.
    Rescue activities have reduced mortality associated with fishing 
gear, which has likely contributed towards recovery of the Florida 
manatee. Permits related to in-water activities, such as mooring 
fields, turbidity booms, and other entangling materials, are reviewed 
by FWC and Service staff, and conditions to minimize or eliminate 
entanglements are provided as specific conditions to the issued permit. 
Derelict crab trap removal, monofilament recycling programs, and other 
coastal cleanup efforts also aid in reducing the threat to marine 
wildlife and minimizing the number of entanglements by removing gear 
from the water. Extensive education and outreach efforts increase 
awareness and promote sound gear-disposal activities.
Recovery Plans and Recovery Actions
    Recovery and conservation actions for the West Indian manatee are 
described in the ``UNEP Caribbean Environment[al] Program's Regional 
Management Plan for the West Indian Manatee'' (UNEP 2010, entire) and 
in national conservation plans for countries outside the United States. 
The UNEP plan identifies short- and long-term conservation and research 
measures that should be implemented to conserve the West Indian 
manatee. This plan also includes an overview of manatees within their 
range countries, including descriptions of regional and national 
conservation measures and research programs that have been implemented. 
Given the general lack of information about the Antillean manatee in 
most of its range countries, the plan recommends that needed research 
and the development of common methodologies be prioritized in concert 
with coordinated manatee and manatee habitat protection efforts (UNEP 
2010, entire). Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, and 
Trinidad have developed country-specific manatee recovery plans as well 
(UNEP 2010, p. 92).
    Efforts to conserve manatees outside the United States vary 
significantly from country to country. Some countries, including, but 
not limited to, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Brazil, Dominican Republic, 
and Cuba, are engaged in efforts to assess the current status and 
distribution of manatees. Many countries also provide protections for 
manatees and their habitats. A number of governments have designated 
manatee protection areas and have developed or are developing 
conservation plans (UNEP 2010, p. xiv). National legislation exists for 
manatees in all range countries, and many countries have ratified their 
participation in international conventions and protocols that protect 
manatees and their habitat (UNEP 2010, p. xv). Other efforts to protect 
manatees include education and outreach efforts, and countries promote 
cooperation and information exchanges.
    Within the United States, the Service's Recovery Plan for the 
Puerto Rico Population of the West Indian (Antillean) Manatee (Service 
1986, entire), the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (Service 
1999, entire), and the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service 2001, 
entire) identify recovery and conservation actions for the two 
subspecies. Actions common to all plans include minimizing manatee 
mortality and injury, protecting manatee habitats, and monitoring 
manatee populations and habitat.
    The Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico population of the West Indian 
(Antillean) Manatee (Service 1986, entire) included three major 
objectives: (1) To identify, assess, and reduce human-related 
mortalities, especially those related to gill-net entanglement; (2) to 
identify and minimize alteration, degradation, and destruction of 
important Antillean manatee habitats; and (3) to develop criteria and 
biological information necessary to determine whether and when to 
reclassify (either delist or downlist) the Puerto Rico population 
(Service 1986, p. 12). The 1986 plan also includes a step-down outline 
that identifies two primary recovery actions: (1) population 
management, and (2) habitat protection. The 1986 plan (Service 1986, 
entire) does not establish quantitative recovery criteria to describe a 
sustainable population of manatees in Puerto Rico. It does, however, 
direct the Service to determine and satisfy the recovery criteria that 
are based on mortality and

[[Page 3146]]

abundance trends and a minimum population size and to ensure that 
adequate habitat protection and anti-poaching measures are implemented 
(Service 1986, Executive Summary). Since the release of the 1986 plan, 
initiated recovery actions have provided substantial new knowledge 
about the subspecies' ecology and threats. Some of these efforts apply 
to multiple tasks and are helping to update conservation information 
and tools that are applied towards adaptive management and education. 
Efforts include (but are not limited to) the rescue, rehabilitation, 
and release actions related to strandings (led by PRDNER); aerial 
surveys; identification of important manatee habitats and resources in 
Puerto Rico; and developing conservation measures as part of project 
reviews.
    The current Florida Manatee Recovery Plan on October 30, 2001 
(Service 2001, entire) includes four principal objectives: (1) Minimize 
causes of Florida manatee disturbance, harassment, injury, and 
mortality; (2) determine and monitor the status of Florida manatee 
populations; (3) protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor Florida 
manatee habitats; and (4) facilitate Florida manatee recovery through 
public awareness and education. To help achieve these objectives, the 
2001 recovery plan identifies 118 recovery implementation tasks. Since 
the release of the 2001 recovery plan, initiated recovery actions have 
provided substantial new knowledge about the subspecies' ecology and 
threats. Some of these efforts apply to multiple tasks and are helping 
to update conservation information and tools that are applied towards 
adaptive management and education. The delisting criteria for 
maintaining spring flows and protecting warm-water refugia have not yet 
been met.
    Recovery actions are also implemented during technical assistance 
and project review. Any action or project with a Federal nexus (e.g., 
Federal funds, permits, or actions) will require a consultation with 
the Service under section 7 of the Act. During the consultation 
process, the Service identifies conservation measures to avoid and 
minimize possible effects of proposed actions or projects. Each year, 
we review numerous projects pertaining to the manatee (e.g., dredging, 
dock and marina construction, coastal development, marine events (i.e., 
high-speed boat races), and underwater and beach unexploded ordnance). 
The Service has developed guidelines specific to Puerto Rico for 
Antillean manatee conservation measures. For example, we have worked 
with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop and implement standard permit 
conditions for boat races, such as observer protocols.
Regulatory Mechanisms
    Because the Florida manatee is a subspecies of the West Indian 
manatee, its conservation has benefited from a number of Federal, 
State, and local laws. The species is federally protected in the United 
States, including Puerto Rico, under the Act and the MMPA. In addition 
to the consultation procedures under section 7 of the Act, the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination 
Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) provide regulatory mechanisms for interagency 
consultation associated with projects, and these reviews may result in 
habitat protection for the subspecies. The boat facility siting 
strategies in the 16 county manatee protection plans are a major 
component of the section 7 consultation process under the Act. Manatee 
protection plans (MPPs) are Federal, State, and local agreements 
designed to help direct future boat facility development away from the 
highest manatee use areas on a county-specific basis.
    Critical habitat for the Florida manatee was designated in 1976 
(see 41 FR 41914, September 24, 1976, and 42 FR 47840, September 22, 
1977). This designation identified specific waterways in Florida that 
were historically known to support high concentrations of Florida 
manatees at that time. In 2010, the Service concluded that revisions to 
critical habitat for the Florida manatee were warranted and that future 
updates to this designation would need to encompass the most recent 
studies of distribution, habitat use, and habitat requirements (75 FR 
1574, January 12, 2010). We proposed to revise the critical habitat 
designation for the Florida manatee and to designate critical habitat 
for the Antillean manatee in a separate Federal Register publication 
(89 FR 78134).
    In addition to the Act, within the continental United States, 
Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands, the MMPA and State and 
Commonwealth laws and regulations provide protections for Florida and 
Antillean manatees. Under the MMPA, the primary objective of marine 
mammal management is to maintain the health and stability of the marine 
ecosystem (16 U.S.C. 1361(6)). Service regulations implementing the 
MMPA restrict the taking, possession, transportation, selling, offering 
for sale, and importing of all marine mammals (50 CFR part 18).
    In addition to the Federal protections discussed above, the Florida 
manatee is protected at the State level in Florida. The first State 
protection of manatees in Florida was established in 1893 when hunting 
was prohibited, and a State law was instituted in 1907 that imposed a 
$500 fine and/or 6 months in prison for killing or molesting a manatee. 
The first manatee protection areas were established in 1979 (FWC 2007, 
p. 179). The subspecies is protected under the Florida Endangered and 
Threatened Species Act (see Florida Statutes at section 379.2291) and 
the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 (see Florida Statutes at 
section 379.2431(2)). At the species level, the West Indian manatee 
(Trichechus manatus) is listed as endangered on the State marine 
endangered and threatened species list (see Florida Administrative Code 
at section 68A-27.0031).
    Within Florida, the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 provides 
significant protections, including authority for the regulation of 
manatee protection zones in manatee habitat and the development of 
county-specific MPPs. In establishing the Florida Manatee Sanctuary 
Act, Florida declared the entire State a refuge and sanctuary for 
manatees and called for the protection of manatees from injury, 
disturbance, harassment, or harm. The Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act 
also allows for the enforcement of boat speeds and operations in areas 
where manatees have been frequently seen and where the best scientific 
information supports that manatees inhabit the areas on a regular 
basis.
    Manatee protection plans are comprehensive county-wide manatee 
protection strategies that are developed cooperatively and agreed to by 
the county, FWC, and the Service. Important aspects of MPPs include 
boat facility siting recommendations and associated predictability for 
permitting, habitat protection policies, education programs, and 
coordinated law enforcement efforts with a plan for implementation.
    Manatee protection plans are also addressed in the Florida Manatee 
Sanctuary Act and the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. In 1989, the 
Florida Governor and Cabinet provided a directive that identified 13 
``key'' counties that needed to develop MPPs and described what 
conservation measures should be incorporated into these plans. In 2002, 
the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act to 
include the requirement for MPPs in these 13 key

[[Page 3147]]

counties. Furthermore, deadlines were set up for completion of these 
plans and criteria for approval. MPPs have also been established in 
other counties.
    Federal and State agencies have made the effort to mitigate the 
loss of warm-water habitat in Florida by providing regulatory measures 
to protect spring flows, supporting spring restoration efforts, and 
working cooperatively with industry to maintain important artificial 
warm-water sources while regional warm-water networks are established 
to support the manatee population. In some areas of Florida, local 
governments have also adopted protection measures, including local 
speed zones that provide benefits to manatees (see appendix B of the 
SSA report (Service 2024a, pp. B71-B79)).
    In other parts of its range, the Florida manatee is listed under 
State laws. For each State listed here, the listed entity is the West 
Indian manatee rather than the Florida subspecies, but the Florida 
subspecies is the only subspecies known to regularly occur in these 
States. The West Indian manatee is listed as endangered under State law 
in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina (when present in inland 
waters), Mississippi, and Virginia. The species is listed as threatened 
under State law in Louisiana and Texas. Alabama does not have a State 
law that designates species as either endangered or threatened, but 
West Indian manatees are a protected species under the State's 
Protected Nongame Species Regulation (Alabama Administrative Code at 
section 220-2-.92(1)(e)). In addition to protections from take and 
harassment, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) also 
conducts some boater awareness by posting manatee signs at boat 
launches in Southern Louisiana. The Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources (GADNR), in coordination with the USACE, requires permanent 
manatee education signs to be posted at all boat launches, marinas, and 
community docks in tidal waters; GADNR also requires temporary signs 
and other standard conditions for in-water work in tidal waters and 
marshes.
    The Antillean manatee in Puerto Rico is also protected by 
Commonwealth laws and regulations (see appendix B of the SSA report 
(Service 2024b, p. 35)). A number of international environmental 
agreements provide protections for the West Indian manatee or its 
habitat, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; March 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087); 
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment 
of the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR or Cartagena Convention; adopted on 
March 24, 1983, and entered into force on October 11, 1986); Cartagena 
Convention's Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife 
(SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region (adopted on January 18, 1990, and 
entered into force on June 18, 2000); Convention on Biological 
Diversity (1992); International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention; adopted on November 2, 1973); 
and United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS; 1982). Further, 
multiple international treaties and agreements provide protections for 
the Antillean manatee throughout its range including the UNEP Regional 
Management Plan for the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) and 
manatee protection ordinance. For additional information on existing 
regulatory protections for the manatee, please refer to appendix D of 
the SSA report (Service 2024b, pp. 137-139).
    While regulatory mechanisms should be effective and consistent 
across the two subspecies' ranges, the extent and overall effectiveness 
of these regulatory protections to the subspecies and their habitats 
vary from country to country. Lack of enforcement remains a critical 
issue for the Antillean manatee (UNEP 2010, p. 89; Marsh et al. 2011, 
p. 387), and despite having laws in place, illegal activities such as 
poaching and destruction of habitat still occur (Self-Sullivan and 
Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 41). In Puerto Rico, for example, PRDNER has 
indicated that current speed regulatory buoys are ineffective, in part 
because regulations do not identify the perimeter or area that each 
buoy regulates (Service 2017, p. 16695). Although some efforts may be 
having a positive impact on manatee recovery, enforcement and 
compliance will require significant cooperative efforts and funding, 
particularly with regulations and enforcement to avoid and minimize 
watercraft collisions and habitat degradation.

Cumulative Effects

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA reports, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on both subspecies. To assess the current and future condition 
of each subspecies, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors 
that may be influencing the subspecies, including threats and 
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the 
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence 
risk to the entire subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative 
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 
analysis.

Current Condition--Florida Manatee

    Viability of the Florida manatee is best understood by describing 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (see Analytical Framework, 
above). Maintaining sufficiently resilient populations across the range 
of a species increases the ability of that species to adapt to natural 
selection processes, increasing the chances that the species will 
persist in a changing world (Service 2016, pp. 12-13). We delineated 
resiliency units within each representative unit to serve as the basis 
for this status assessment. We use the term ``resiliency unit'' rather 
than population to be clear that delineated units do not necessarily 
align with biological populations. While we used the concept of 
biological populations as a guide in delineating these units, there 
were cases where information was lacking about connectivity and 
barriers to connectivity between groups of manatees, or where data 
availability necessitated assessing units at different scales. These 
delineations were based on a number of factors including connectivity 
and dispersal patterns, site fidelity, seasonal differences in 
distribution, ecological differences, and the scale of data 
availability. There are five representative units for the West Indian 
manatee, and the Florida manatee is contained within one representative 
unit (see Current Condition--Antillean Manatee, below, and section 
4.1.1 of the Florida manatee SSA report for more details (Service 
2024a, pp. 64-67)).
    The Florida manatee was characterized at two seasonal scales to 
assess resiliency: one based on warm season distribution (also called 
warm season coastal resiliency units) and one based primarily on cold 
season distribution (also called winter management units) (see figure 
2, below). Warm season coastal resiliency units include the Gulf and 
East Coast units as well as the freshwater tributaries flowing into the 
two units. Cold season distribution is based on four Florida winter 
management units: Northwest, Southwest, Atlantic, and Upper Saint Johns 
River (see chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2024a, pp. 63-94)).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 3148]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.039

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    To measure the current resiliency of the Florida manatee, we first 
analyzed and scored four condition factors: (1) population trend, (2) 
regional foraging habitat condition, (3) winter foraging habitat 
condition, and (4) winter warm-water refugia condition. Overall 
resiliency was calculated by tallying the number of times a unit was 
assigned high, moderate, or low condition across the four resiliency 
factors at both warm season and winter management scales (Service 
2024a, pp. 69-94). For more details on resiliency methodology, see 
section 4.2 of the SSA report (Service 2024a, pp. 69-78).
    Based on the assessment of current demographic and habitat needs 
for the Florida manatee, three winter management units (Northwest, 
Southwest, Upper St. Johns River) have high resiliency and one winter 
management unit (Atlantic) has moderate resiliency (see table 1, 
below). Scaled to warm season coastal resiliency units, the Gulf Coast 
exhibits high resiliency, and the East Coast exhibits moderate 
resiliency. Forage conditions and availability of warm-water habitat 
for the Florida manatee are currently in good condition for three of 
the four winter management units. The exception is the Atlantic winter 
management unit, where the forage-driven UME affected resiliency in the 
unit from 2021-2023. While the long-term implications of this UME to 
the Florida manatee population are unknown, the population trend for 
the Atlantic winter management unit was tentatively assessed as low, 
leading to an overall resiliency of low for this recent two-year 
period. The Atlantic winter management unit has the highest estimated 
abundance of Florida manatees, as calculated from the 2021-2022 
Statewide abundance survey in Florida (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 7), 
indicating a large number of manatees were being affected by the loss 
of forage and degraded conditions in this unit.

              Table 1--Current Resiliency for the Four Florida Manatee Winter Management Units and Two Warm Season Coastal Resiliency Units
                                                               [Service 2024a, pp. 93-94]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Abundance      Trend (2011-2020)          Forage           Winter forage      Warm-water refugia   Overall resiliency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Unit:
    Northwest................  1,270 (790-       High...............  Good...............  Good...............  Good...............  HIGH.
                                1,840).

[[Page 3149]]

 
    Southwest................  2,966 (2,551-     Moderate...........  Good...............  Good...............  Good...............  HIGH.
                                3,434).
    Atlantic.................  3,520 (2,750-     Moderate...........  Diminished.........  Diminished.........  Good...............  MODERATE.
                                4,430).
    2021-2023................  ................  (Low)..............  ...................  ...................  ...................  (LOW).
    Upper St. Johns River....  480 (460-510)...  High...............  Good...............  Good...............  Good...............  HIGH.
Warm Season Coastal
 Resiliency Unit:
    Gulf Coast...............  4,810 (3,820-     High...............  Good...............  Good...............  Good...............  HIGH.
                                6,010).
East Coast...................  4,000 (3,240-     Moderate...........  Caution *..........  Diminished.........  Good...............  MODERATE.
                                4,910).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Caution'' condition indicates that there are some metrics that indicate that forage resources are being impacted.

    The Florida manatee, which comprises a single representative unit, 
currently has one coastal resiliency unit exhibiting high resiliency 
and the second exhibiting moderate resiliency (see table 1, above). 
Three of the four winter management units exhibit high resiliency and 
one (the Atlantic unit) exhibits moderate resiliency. Of note, from 
2021 to 2023, the Atlantic unit had a low level of resiliency, driven 
by losses of forage and high mortality due to the UME declared in 2021 
(Service 2023, p. 5). However, when comparing from 2011-2020 across the 
winter management units, the Atlantic unit was assessed to have 
moderate resiliency currently. Additionally, the number of manatees in 
Florida on the East coast from 2021-2022 was estimated to be between 
3,940-6,980 (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 1). The estimate from 2022 was 
higher than the estimate from 2016; however, the credible intervals 
permit a range of population trajectories (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 5). 
This range of population trajectories lends credence to a tentative 
score of low from 2021 to present in the Atlantic winter management 
unit in the SSA report (Service 2024a, p. 90), but this range also 
leaves the possibility that the population is increasing after the UME.
    Loss of forage is the driver limiting the resiliency of the East 
Coast resiliency unit. Prior to the UME, the Atlantic unit was 
exhibiting stable or slow population growth, while the other three 
winter management units were, and continue to, exhibit positive growth 
(Service 2023, p. 5). The full impacts of the ongoing UME are 
continuing to be assessed at this time and both retrospective and 
predictive population modeling efforts are underway and will be 
included in future versions of the SSA report.
    Redundancy for the Florida manatee can be described as the number 
and distribution of sufficiently resilient populations across the 
range, and the subspecies' ability to withstand anticipated species-
relevant catastrophic events. The Florida manatee has redundancy at a 
regional scale; in addition to the overall moderate resiliency of 
Atlantic unit and overall high resiliency of Northwest, Southwest, and 
Upper St. John's River the East Coast resiliency unit currently has 
moderate, and the Gulf Coast high, resiliency. In addition, the 
subspecies is distributed throughout its historical range. Resiliency 
across the Florida manatee's range has enabled the subspecies to 
survive past catastrophic events, such as UMEs and hurricanes, and to 
recover from such events. Thus, the Florida manatee has sufficient 
redundancy, or distribution of current moderate to high resiliency 
units, across its range to withstand catastrophic events.
    Representation refers to the breadth of genetic and environmental 
diversity within and among populations that contributes to the ability 
of the species to respond and adapt to changing environmental 
conditions over time (Service 2016, p. 6). Maintaining sufficiently 
resilient populations across the range of the species increases the 
ability of the species to adapt to natural selection processes, 
increasing the chances that the species will persist in a changing 
world (Service 2016, pp. 12-13). Partial migration between resiliency 
and management units results in genetic mixing, which has led to low 
genetic differentiation between units (Service 2023, pp. 25-27). This 
migration and subsequent genetic mixing increases the adaptive capacity 
of the Florida manatee by allowing for the introduction of advantageous 
traits across units that can enhance the species' ability to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions. Partial migration describes a 
species' adaptive ability to exploit new areas where conditions are 
favorable before retreating when the season changes and conditions 
become unfavorable (Bright Ross et al. 2021, entire). Partial migration 
has already enabled range shifts for the Florida manatee on the Gulf 
Coast (Cloyed et al. 2021, p. 6) and contributes to the subspecies' 
adaptive capacity. Partial migration allows portions of a population to 
respond to environmental variability, such as losses of warm-water 
refugia, and shift to other available wintering locations. Thus, the 
Florida manatee does exhibit potential adaptive capacity to changing 
environmental conditions.

Future Conditions--Florida Manatee

    In our analysis of the Florida manatee's future condition, we 
carefully considered the best available science, including future 
condition projections of modeled threats and the subspecies' response 
to those threats from a 2016 modeling effort, as well as information 
regarding the ongoing threat of seagrass loss, the emerging effects of 
the UME, and the emerging effects of climate change. We relied on a 
core biological model (CBM) that resulted from a collaborative research 
effort of subject matter experts and represents the most comprehensive 
analysis to date (Runge et al. 2017, entire). Plausible future 
scenarios were developed and modeled to project the future condition of 
the subspecies. The CBM forecasts population dynamics of the Florida 
manatee in four regions (Northwest, Upper St. Johns River, Atlantic, 
and Southwest winter management units), incorporating current 
information on life history and uncertainty in parameter estimates, and 
applying environmental as well as demographic stochasticity (Runge et 
al. 2017, p. 33). The plausible scenarios predicted future viability 
under multiple scenarios grouped as: baseline (no change to current 
habitat, demographics, or threats), current and ongoing threats (level 
of various threats increased or decreased to examine their effects on 
long-term viability of Florida manatees), and potential emerging

[[Page 3150]]

threats (investigated the possible impact of multiple emerging threats 
on the viability of the Florida manatee) (Runge et al. 2017, pp. 13-
16).
    Current and ongoing threats in the CBM included mortality resulting 
from watercraft collisions, water control structures, and entanglement 
by fishing gear and marine debris; loss of warm-water habitat; and red 
tide. Potential emerging threats included cold-related mortality and a 
multiple emerging threats scenario, which included seven features. The 
seven features included in the multiple emerging threats scenario are: 
(1) watercraft-related mortality rate increasing by 50 percent over the 
next 30 years, then stabilizing; (2) immediate loss of industrial power 
plants; (3) reduction of carrying capacity provided by natural spring 
flows of 50 percent over the long term; (4) manatees choosing warm-
water sites in proportion to their historical use; (5) elevated 
frequency of cold and severely cold years; (6) elevated frequency of 
moderate and intense red tide events; and (7) chronic density-
independent additional mortality (2 percent) occurring in the IRL area. 
The analysis for the CBM was completed using data up to 2016, prior to 
the recent UME, and serves as the best available science providing a 
comprehensive assessment and projected future condition for the Florida 
manatee (Runge et al. 2017, p. 4). Nevertheless, the models developed 
and used within the SSA provide the best available future projections 
for the Florida manatee (see section 5.3 of the SSA report (Service 
2024a, pp. 104-107)). Although Runge et al. (2017, entire) did not 
account explicitly for the current and ongoing UME, the multiple 
emerging threats scenario did account for chronic density-independent 
additional mortality in the area that is part of the current UME, and 
current ongoing modeling efforts will result in an updated version of 
the SSA report when completed.
    Our baseline and threats future condition scenarios forecast 
viability 50, 100, and 150 years in the future, and the emerging 
threats future condition scenarios forecast viability 100 years in the 
future. We have sufficient information to determine the threats that 
are currently impacting the subspecies and are expected to continue to 
impact the subspecies in the future, as well as the subspecies' 
response to those threats (baseline and threats future condition 
scenarios). The timeframes of 50, 100, and 150 years also give time for 
this long-lived mammal to demonstrate the impact of threats on 
populations and the subspecies as a whole. For emerging threats, we 
have sufficient certainty to project threats that are expected to 
impact the subspecies in the future at 100 years and the subspecies' 
response to those threats. Earlier than this timeframe, we do not have 
information that impacts to the subspecies will be demonstrable, and 
beyond this timeframe, there is too much uncertainty about subspecies' 
response. Therefore, the selected timeframes are reasonable to model 
threats and forecast variations of threats acting on the subspecies and 
its habitat, as well as reasonable time for a long-lived marine mammal 
to respond to those threats. Although we need not identify the 
foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time, we have 
described the foreseeable future for the Florida manatee as far into 
the future as we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the subspecies and the subspecies' responses to those 
threats. We have taken into account considerations such as the 
subspecies' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, 
and environmental variability in our future condition scenarios and 
timeframes.
    The suite of future condition threats scenarios for the Florida 
manatee (modeled at 50, 100, and 150 years) predict how particular 
threats impact the subspecies' probability of falling below established 
quasi-extinction thresholds (100, 250, 500 individuals) and expected 
minimum population (EMP) size. Threats generally fall into two groups: 
those that have minimal effect on quasi-extinction probability (e.g., 
water-control structures, marine debris) and those that have a more 
significant effect (e.g., watercraft collisions, warm-water refugia 
loss, harmful algal blooms/red tide). The potential emerging threats 
scenarios take into consideration increases to existing threats, 
appearance of new threats, and multiple threats increasing at the same 
time, and compare the results to the baseline scenario.
    For the Florida manatee, both the baseline and ongoing threats 
scenario future condition results indicate that the probability of 
Florida manatee extinction at 150 years is low, but substantial threats 
remain. Model results indicate that there could be a substantial shift 
in the distribution of Florida manatees, depending on the threat being 
considered. Long-term declines are projected in the Southwest and 
Atlantic resiliency units (or winter management units), while long-term 
increases are projected for the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River 
winter management units. Based on factors affecting warm-water 
habitats, the model estimates a higher carrying capacity for Florida 
manatees in the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River winter management 
units (Runge et al. 2017, p. 13). However, in the Southwest and 
Atlantic units, declines are expected due to the number of power plants 
operating with once-through cooling in those regions, which may only be 
available until the end of the operational lifetime of each plant 
(Runge et al. 2017, pp. 14, 20). Overall, threat scenario results 
projections for the Florida manatee are variable, but the model 
indicates the future viability of the Florida manatee will likely be 
impacted as watercraft use increases due to human population increases 
and as cold water stress or red tide events increase. The greatest risk 
of decline is predicted for the Atlantic and Southwest winter 
management units, largely because of the expected loss of artificial 
warm-water sources. Under all future scenarios, the EMP size is 
expected to decrease over time; however, overall extinction risk is 
low, and the adult population of Florida manatee will likely remain 
above quasi-extinction thresholds for 150 years. However, the long-term 
viability of the Florida manatee is related to the subspecies' ability 
to withstand human-caused and natural threats of varying magnitude and 
duration, as well as the effectiveness of conservation efforts to 
address the Florida manatee's needs.
    The future projections modeling effort did not explicitly include 
the severity of impacts from the most recent UME, as the consequences 
of this UME on population size and trend are not completely understood 
at this time but are currently being assessed to update the CBM. The 
USGS and FWC have ongoing initiatives to update demographic data, 
integrated population models, and the CBM for the Florida manatee. We 
acknowledge the unknown consequences to Florida manatees associated 
with the recent UME have likely had implications on the subspecies' 
future viability that were not detected in the modeling effort. For 
further information on the future conditions of the Florida manatee, 
please refer to chapter 5 of the SSA report (Service 2024a, pp. 97-
113).
    Concomitant with the UME, seagrass loss and loss of foraging 
habitat were not explicitly included in the modeling effort. As 
described above in Habitat Loss and Modification, seagrass resources 
have been declining in multiple locations across Florida since 2011 and 
are contributing factors to the recent UMEs. While there has been some 
recently reported improvement in the condition of seagrass beds in the 
IRL (SJRWMD 2023, entire), current seagrass

[[Page 3151]]

levels are greatly reduced from previous long-term levels and remain a 
risk to manatee viability in the future.
    The modeling effort also did not forecast industrial warm-water 
sources going offline within the next 20-25 years as has been discussed 
by power plant representatives in recent years. The baseline scenario 
encompassed power plants being online for 50 years, which is no longer 
the case. The greatest effect would be to the Atlantic and Southwest 
winter management units. Currently, more than half of Florida manatees 
seek shelter from winter cold in the warm-water discharges of power 
plants. The rest of the population uses natural springs and thermal 
basins located in Florida. The power companies will likely phase out 
power plant discharges within the next 25 years, and human-caused 
impacts to warm water availability, such as flow reductions and other 
activities, threaten Florida's springs and thermal basins. Although 
some mitigation strategies have been discussed and planned, uncertainty 
associated with manatee spatial and temporal response to these plant 
shutdowns is important in assessing viability of the subspecies in the 
future.
    Also not included in the modeling effort are the effects of climate 
change on Florida manatees in the future. Climate change impacts are 
expected to influence the viability of manatees in several ways, 
including temperature increases, sea level rise, fluctuations in ocean 
chemistry, hydrological cycle deviations, and changes intiming and 
intensity of tropical storms, as well as extreme cold events.These 
large-scale impacts may lead to habitat changes, increased algal 
blooms, and new threats from diseases (Edwards 2013, pp. 727, 735; 
Marsh et al. 2017, entire; Osland et al. 2020, entire). The synergism 
of these factors will affect manatee health and habitat, and 
potentially reduce the future range of the Florida manatee.
    While the risk of population decline at the regional level is high 
for the Florida manatee at the Southwest and Atlantic units, risk of 
population decline is moderate at the warm season coastal resiliency 
unit scale. It is important to note that the 2016 model did not include 
the severity of the ongoing UME, nor did it include differing seagrass 
loss/rebound futures, nor did it include effects of future climate 
change. These are substantial risks to the Florida manatee in the 
future, all of which may negatively impact the viability of the Florida 
manatee and increase its extinction risk.

Current Condition--Antillean Manatee

    The West Indian manatee species is divided into five representation 
units. The current range of the Antillean manatee is grouped into four 
representation units based on known genetic and ecological variation 
across the subspecies' range, as well as input from subspecies experts. 
Unit 1 represents the Florida manatee (see Current Condition--Florida 
Manatee, above), and there are four units (Units 2-5) that encompass 
the Antillean manatee. The four Antillean representative units are: 
Unit 2: Greater Antilles, Unit 3: Gulf of Mexico to Caribbean coast of 
South America-Coastal, Unit 4: Gulf of Mexico to Caribbean coast of 
South America-Freshwater, and Unit 5: Atlantic Coast of South America 
(inset of figure 3, below; section 4.1.1 of the Antillean manatee SSA 
report (Service 2024b, pp. 45-47)). Representation units for the 
Antillean manatee are based on known genetic and ecological variation 
across the subspecies' range.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 3152]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.040

    Figure 3. Antillean manatee's 4 representative units (units 2-5) 
and 14 resiliency units. The units portray the general extent of each 
unit and do not reflect presence and absence within each unit.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    These four representative units of the Antillean manatee span 20 
countries and are characterized by 14 resiliency units (see figure 3, 
above) based on assumed connectivity as well as data availability (see 
chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2024b, pp. 44-74)). The current 
resiliency assessments for the Antillean manatee differ from the 
Florida manatee because: (1) the biology and ecology of the two 
subspecies differ, primarily because different factors influence their 
resiliency; and (2) the two subspecies differ in the amount of data and 
information available to assess their resiliency.
    Current resiliency (henceforth called current condition) for each 
Antillean manatee resiliency unit was determined using the best 
available information on population trends. Population trends were used 
to determine the current condition of each resiliency unit, as 
population trends are an indicator of current condition; populations 
that are stable or increasing are more resilient to stochastic events 
than those that are declining. The best available information on trends 
was gathered primarily from three publications: (1) the most recent 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 
assessment for the West Indian manatee (Deutsch et al. 2008, 
Supplementary Table 1), (2) the UNEP Regional Management Plan for the 
West Indian manatee (UNEP 2010, p. 11), and (3) a population viability 
analysis for the Antillean manatee (Castelblano-Martinez et al. 2012, 
p. 132).
    Sometimes different data sources report different trends (e.g., one 
source says ``stable,'' while another says ``declining''). In all these 
cases, we retain all the reported trends in the current condition 
assessment for each country to transparently report the uncertainty in 
the current trend. Trends were ranked moderate if they were reported as 
stable and ranked low if any sources reported them as declining. For 
resiliency units made up of multiple countries where different trends 
were reported for different countries, we report the trend of the 
entire unit to be the trend associated with more than half of the 
manatees in the unit. For example, if two out of three countries were 
reported to have a declining trend and one out of three was reported to 
have a stable trend, the entire unit with these three countries was 
reported to have a declining trend.
    After the reported population trends for each resiliency unit were 
identified, each resiliency unit was sorted into one of four 
categories, called trend categories, shown in Table 2 below. These 
trend categories were used to describe current condition of Antillean 
manatee resiliency units. For populations where trends were unknown, 
they were classified the same as otherwise identical trend descriptions 
without ``unknown'', with

[[Page 3153]]

the uncertainty in the true trend incorporated into the certainty 
metric associated with the trend.

     Table 2--Reported Population Trends That Were Included in High,
               Moderate, Low, and Unknown Trend Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Trend category                 Reported population trends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High.........................  Increasing; Increasing/Unknown; Stable/
                                Increasing; Stable/Increasing/Unknown.
Moderate.....................  Stable; Stable/Unknown.
Low..........................  Stable/Declining; Stable/Declining/
                                Unknown; Declining; Declining/Unknown.
Unknown......................  Unknown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trend certainty also helped convey the variability in data 
availability across the subspecies' large geographic range (see table 
4-2 in the SSA report (Service 2024b, p. 53)). These certainty levels 
are defined as High (based on recent information (i.e., within 20 
years)), Moderate (based on other recent data, but not a statistical 
estimate (e.g., minimum counts, genetic analysis, mortality records, 
etc.)), and Low (based on informed opinions of local experts, localized 
and/or outdated data (e.g., more than 20 years old)).
    Certainty levels were also reported for abundance. While not used 
to explicitly determine current condition of resiliency units, 
abundance was also reported for each resiliency unit because the 
ability of Antillean manatee to withstand the normal range of 
environmental and demographic stochasticity increases with abundance. 
We believe the general magnitude of the estimates are informative, such 
that a list of resiliency units ranked in order of estimated abundance 
is likely to provide a fair interpretation of which resiliency units 
have relatively higher or lower abundance than the others. The 
abundance of each resiliency unit was informed primarily by the same 
three sources that informed population trends (Deutsch et al. 2008, 
Supplementary Table 1; UNEP 2010, p. 11; Castelblanco-Mart[iacute]nez 
et al. 2012, p. 132).
    Current condition for the Antillean manatee is also influenced by 
the quality and quantity of habitat, threats and stressors, and 
conservation actions pursued in each population. Study and 
documentation of these factors are uneven across the subspecies' range 
and cannot be assessed in a consistent manner across all or even most 
populations. Consequently, we have not included these factors 
explicitly in the current condition assessment but do summarize the 
information available for each population. While the quantity and 
quality of habitat is important for the current condition of 
populations, information about habitat status is not available for many 
areas within the subspecies' large geographic range. Habitat 
information for each population is summarized in the SSA report 
(Service 2024b, pp. 55-71).
    Thirteen out of 14 resiliency units exhibit low current condition, 
and only the Puerto Rico resiliency unit, where the trend is stable, 
has moderate current condition. Our current condition assessment for 
the Antillean manatee was mostly characterized by low certainty for the 
current status, and Antillean manatees are consistently described as 
being more abundant historically than they are today.

 Table 3--Current Condition Summary for the Antillean Manatee Sorted in Descending Order of Estimated Abundance
                                             [Service 2024b, p. 71]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Abundance
        Resiliency unit              (certainty)     Trend  (certainty)   Trend category \1\   Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil.........................  >1,104 (>485-       Stable/Declining/   Low................  LOW.
                                  2,221) (low         Unknown (low
                                  certainty).         certainty).
Caribbean Mexico, Belize,        650-1,400           Stable/Declining/   Low................  LOW.
 Guatemala.                       (moderate           Unknown (moderate
                                  certainty).         certainty).
Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa       800-950 (169-204    Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
 Rica, Panama Coastal.            minimum) (low       certainty).
                                  certainty).
Gulf of Mexico.................  600-850 (moderate   Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
                                  certainty).         certainty).
Colombia Rivers................  400 (100-1,000)     Unknown/Declining   Low................  LOW.
                                  (low certainty).    (low certainty).
Puerto Rico....................  386 (sd = 89)       Stable (moderate    Moderate...........  MODERATE.
                                  (high certainty).   certainty).
Cuba...........................  100-500 (50         Unknown/Declining   Low................  LOW.
                                  minimum) (low       (low certainty).
                                  certainty).
Hispaniola.....................  300 (38-53          Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
                                  minimum) (low       certainty).
                                  certainty).
Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana  300 (45 minimum)    Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
                                  (low certainty).    certainty).
Venezuela Rivers...............  <300 (low           Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
                                  certainty).         certainty).
Trinidad and Tobago............  100 (25-30          Declining (low      Low................  LOW.
                                  minimum) (low       certainty).
                                  certainty).
Lago de Maracaibo (Venezuela)..  <100 (low           Unknown (low        Unknown............  LOW.
                                  certainty).         certainty).
Jamaica........................  50 (low certainty)  Unknown/Declining   Low................  LOW.
                                                      (low certainty).
Panama Canal...................  20-25 (16 minimum)  Unknown (low        Unknown............  LOW.
                                  (moderate           certainty).
                                  certainty).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trends that were unknown were categorized as such. Trends were ranked as high if they were reported to be
  increasing or if different sources reported them to be stable or increasing. Trends were ranked as moderate if
  they were reported to be stable. To be conservative, trends were ranked as low if any sources reported them as
  declining, even if they were also reported as stable by the same source (i.e., one source described it as
  stable/declining) or different sources (i.e., one source described it as stable and a different source
  described it as declining).


[[Page 3154]]

    The resiliency uncertainty carries over into our interpretations of 
redundancy and representation in the four Antillean manatee 
representative units (see inset of figure 3, above). The Greater 
Antilles representative unit (Unit 2) contains one resiliency unit 
(Puerto Rico) that currently exhibits a moderately certain stable 
population, resulting in moderate current condition. All remaining 
resiliency units in the Greater Antilles representative unit (Cuba, 
Hispaniola and Jamaica) and all resiliency units in the other three 
Antillean manatee representative units (Units 3, 4, 5) exhibit low 
current condition. The most genetically distinct Antillean manatee 
representative unit, in terms of evolutionary history indicated by 
mitochondrial DNA haplotypes, is the Atlantic Coast of South America 
unit (Unit 5) (Service 2024b, pp. 24-28). Both resiliency units in this 
representative unit currently exhibit low current condition. The most 
ecologically distinct Antillean manatee representative unit, the Gulf 
of Mexico to Caribbean Coast of South America-Freshwater unit (Unit 4), 
is also characterized by all resiliency units exhibiting low current 
condition.
    The best available information indicates abundance is declining 
across most of the subspecies' range (see section 4.2.2 in the SSA 
report (Service 2024b, pp. 55-71)). Current abundance estimates in each 
resiliency unit for the Antillean manatee vary widely, ranging from 20 
to more than 1,000 individuals (see table 3). Two resiliency units are 
estimated to have more than 1,000 Antillean manatees: (1) Caribbean, 
Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, and (2) Brazil. Four resiliency units 
are estimated to have 100 or fewer Antillean manatees: (1) Trinidad and 
Tobago, (2) Lago de Maracaibo, (3) Jamaica, and (4) Panama Canal; those 
four resiliency units are comparatively smaller than those that support 
larger Antillean manatee populations. The remaining eight resiliency 
units are estimated to support between 100 and 1,000 Antillean 
manatees. As with trend estimates, the certainty of abundance estimates 
vary across the range of the Antillean manatee and are mostly based on 
expert input, past versus present occurrence records or perceptions, 
and mortality records.
    The majority of the genetic and ecological diversity within the 
subspecies occurs in resiliency units characterized as having low 
current condition, thus leading to overall low representation for the 
subspecies. Redundancy is also low, as all but one of the resiliency 
units are in low condition, thus the subspecies is susceptible to 
catastrophic events. As discussed previously, more information about 
the status of the Antillean manatee and its habitat across its range is 
needed to reduce uncertainty on the current status of the subspecies as 
a whole. We note that the subspecies is represented throughout its 
historical range and in regard to redundancy, there are 4 
representative units and 14 resiliency units. This analysis led to an 
overall current condition of low for the Antillean manatee.
    Because we have determined that the Antillean manatee meets the 
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' (see Determination of 
Status for the Florida Manatee and Antillean Manatee, below), we are 
not presenting the results of the future scenarios for the Antillean 
manatee in this proposed rule. Instead, details regarding the future 
conditions analysis and the future resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation of the Antillean manatee are presented in detail in the 
SSA report (see chapter 5 of the SSA report (Service 2024b, pp. 76-
96)), which is available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0050.

Determination of Status for the Florida Manatee and Antillean Manatee

    The Act defines the term ``species'' as including 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)). Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its 
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for 
determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered 
species or a threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered 
species'' as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act 
requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because 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.

Proposed Action for West Indian Manatee Listing

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
the West Indian manatee species is comprised of two subspecies: the 
Florida manatee and the Antillean manatee. We recognize the Florida 
manatee and the Antillean manatee as separate listable entities (i.e., 
subspecies) under the Act. We no longer recognize the listed entity of 
the West Indian manatee separate from the two subspecies, and we, 
therefore, propose to remove the West Indian manatee from the List.

Status Throughout All of Its Range--Florida Manatee

    Based on our assessment of demographic and habitat needs for the 
Florida manatee, three winter management units (Northwest, Southwest, 
and Upper St. Johns River) have high current condition, and one winter 
management unit (Atlantic) has moderate current condition. Scaled to 
warm season coastal resiliency units, the Gulf Coast unit exhibits high 
current condition, and the East Coast unit exhibits moderate current 
condition. The loss of forage (particularly, but not limited to, winter 
forage) led to a tentative short term (2021-2023) classification of low 
condition for the Atlantic winter management unit. However, the number 
of manatees in Florida on the East Coast from 2021-2022 was estimated 
to be between 3,940-6,980 (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 1). While the credible 
intervals permit a range of population trajectories, the estimate from 
2022 was higher than the estimate from 2016 (3,240-4,910; Gowan et al. 
2023, pp. 5-6).
    The overall current condition for the broader East Coast resiliency 
unit is moderate given the 10-year assessment timeframe. Two winter 
management units with high current condition, Northwest and Upper St. 
Johns River, are dependent upon natural springs for warm water, unlike 
the Atlantic and Southwest units, which use industrial outfalls as 
their primary artificial warm-water sites. The Northwest and Upper St. 
Johns River winter management units support the two smaller abundances 
of Florida manatees. The Atlantic winter management unit has the 
highest estimated abundance of Florida manatees, meaning a large number 
of manatees are currently being affected by the loss of forage and 
conditions in this unit. However, the range of population trajectories 
leaves the possibility that the population is increasing after the UME.

[[Page 3155]]

    While Florida manatees are currently affected by watercraft 
collisions (Factor E), habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 
modification from coastal development (Factor A), unusual mortality 
events (UME) (Factor E), natural processes including cold weather 
events and harmful algal blooms (Factor E), and human interactions 
(Factor B), all winter management and coastal resiliency units exhibit 
current moderate to high current condition that supports the current 
viability of the subspecies. The recent UME is impacting the Atlantic 
winter management unit, although the magnitude and severity of the 
impact has not yet been determined. The other three winter management 
units exhibited, and continue to exhibit, stronger positive growth 
compared to the Atlantic unit. The Florida manatee is a highly managed 
species for which many conservation initiatives have been and continue 
to be implemented to ameliorate threats, including efforts to improve 
water quality and restore seagrass. The best available science 
demonstrates long-term population growth and some adaptive capacity. 
The subspecies is represented throughout its historical range, and 
there are multiple units with moderate to high current condition across 
the range. While we anticipate that the threats will continue to act on 
the subspecies in the future, they are not currently affecting the 
subspecies such that it is in danger of extinction now. Further, the 
Florida manatee's vulnerability to stressors is not of such magnitude 
that it is currently in danger of extinction as a result of the threats 
to the subspecies or the subspecies' response to those threats. After 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we find 
that, given the moderate to high current condition for all Florida 
manatee units and the distribution of these resilient units throughout 
the subspecies' range, the Florida manatee is not in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range and does not meet the Act's 
definition of an endangered species.
    We therefore proceed with determining whether the Florida manatee 
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range. Future viability of the Florida manatee was 
investigated under plausible future condition scenarios: a baseline 
scenario, threats scenarios, and multiple emerging threats scenarios. 
We assessed Florida manatee future condition at 50, 100, and 150 years 
under all future scenarios. We determined these timeframes represent 
the period of time under which we are able to reasonably determine that 
both the future threats and subspecies' response to those threats are 
likely. As described above in Future Conditions--Florida Manatee, the 
selected timeframes are reasonable to model threats and forecast 
variations of threats acting on the subspecies and its habitat, and 
they are reasonable timeframes for a long-lived marine mammal to 
respond to those threats. Although we need not identify the foreseeable 
future in terms of a specific period of time, we have described the 
foreseeable future for the Florida manatee as far into the future as we 
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the 
subspecies and the subspecies' responses to those threats. We have 
taken into account considerations such as the subspecies' life-history 
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental 
variability in our future condition scenarios and timeframes.
    Overall, future condition modeling results indicate the probability 
of Florida manatee extinction is low under scenario projections as 
described above in Future Conditions--Florida Manatee. However, 
substantial risks remain across the range of the subspecies. In the 
future, the Florida manatee will continue to be threatened by 
watercraft collisions (Factor E), habitat loss (including seagrass 
loss) and modification from coastal development (Factor A), unusual 
mortality events (UME) (Factor E), natural processes including cold 
weather events and harmful algal blooms (Factor E), and human 
interactions (Factor B), as well as the potential loss of warm-water 
refugia (Factor A) and climate change (Factor E). The greatest risk is 
estimated for the Atlantic and Southwest wintering populations; this 
risk is largely driven by the continued loss of seagrasses (Factor A), 
increase in cold water events (Factor E), and red tides (Factor E).
    In our future condition projections, at the winter management unit 
level, probability of decline is greatest in the Atlantic winter 
management unit, followed by the Southwest, Northwest, and Upper St. 
Johns River winter management units. At the warm season coastal 
resiliency unit scale, the East Coast and its tributaries have a 
greater probability of decline than the Gulf Coast and its tributaries. 
At this warm season coastal resiliency unit scale, risk of population 
decline is moderate, while at the regional level, risk of population 
decline is high for the two larger winter management units (i.e., 
Southwest and Atlantic). In addition, future distributional shifts of 
the subspecies are predicted to be largely driven by the loss of 
artificial warm-water refugia, and the future viability of Florida 
manatees in the Southwest and Atlantic winter management units may be 
most negatively impacted by this.
    Overall, future condition modeling efforts project low risk of 
extinction for the Florida manatee under all future condition scenarios 
in 50, 100, and 150 years. These modeling efforts include relevant 
threats at the time of the assessment, but information was not 
available to incorporate loss of seagrass related to the UME, the 
short- and long-term effects of the UME on subspecies abundance and 
distribution, and the subspecies' response to both loss of seagrass and 
the UME. In addition, updated climate change assessments have become 
available since the future condition modeling effort, which was based 
on the 2017 assessment. Therefore, in our determination of the Florida 
manatee's status, we carefully considered the best available science, 
including future condition projections of modeled threats and the 
subspecies' response to those threats, as well as information regarding 
the ongoing and emerging threat of seagrass loss, the effects of the 
UME, and the emerging effects of climate change.
    We expect that the current threats to the subspecies, including 
watercraft collisions, habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 
modification from coastal development, UMEs, cold weather events and 
harmful algal blooms, and human interactions, will continue to affect 
the subspecies' viability, and the negative impacts of emerging 
threats, including the loss of warm-water refugia, effects of climate 
change, loss of seagrass, and effects of UMEs, will further affect the 
subspecies' viability. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and 
assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 
4(a)(1) factors, we determine that the Florida manatee meets the 
definition of a threatened species across its range. Thus, after 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
conclude that the Florida manatee is not in danger of extinction but is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range--Florida Manatee

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. The

[[Page 3156]]

court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 
(D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision of the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (hereafter ``Final Policy''; 79 FR 37578, July 
1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a species is 
threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze 
whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its 
range.
    Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether 
the Florida manatee is in danger of extinction in a significant portion 
of its range. In undertaking this analysis for Florida manatee, we 
choose to address the status question first.
    We evaluated the range of the Florida manatee to determine if the 
subspecies is in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. The 
subspecies' range can theoretically be divided into portions in an 
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the 
subspecies' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered 
species. For the Florida manatee, we considered whether the threats or 
their effects on the subspecies are greater in any biologically 
meaningful portion of the subspecies' range than in other portions such 
that the subspecies is in danger of extinction in that portion.
    We examined the following threats: watercraft collisions, habitat 
loss (including seagrass loss) and modification from coastal 
development, UMEs, natural processes including cold weather events and 
harmful algal blooms, human interactions, loss of warm-water refugia, 
and climate change, including cumulative effects. We found a potential 
difference in biological condition of the subspecies in the wintering 
area of the southeast coast of Florida (Brevard County south to Miami-
Dade County; Atlantic winter management unit). The Atlantic winter 
management unit includes the current extent of the ongoing UME, is 
recognized as the larger of the two important wintering areas of the 
East Coast resiliency unit and contains a high abundance of Florida 
manatees. The current UME is the result of massive loss of forage for 
manatees, and there has been a substantial increase in mortality of 
manatees. Based on the forage-driven UME, the Atlantic winter 
management unit has a tentative lower level of condition in the 2021-
2023 timeframe; however, when comparing similar time periods (past 10 
years) across the winter management units, the Atlantic unit is 
assessed to have moderate current condition. Additionally, the number 
of manatees in Florida on the East coast from 2021-2022 was estimated 
to be higher than an estimate provided from 2016, though credible 
intervals permit a range of population trajectories (Gowan et al. 2023, 
pp. 1, 5). This range of population trajectories lends credence to a 
tentative score of low from 2021 to present in the Atlantic winter 
management unit in the SSA report (Service 2024a, p. 90), but this 
range also leaves the possibility that the population is increasing 
after the UME.
    Recent demographic evidence for Florida manatees that winter in the 
Atlantic winter management unit indicates this area has the highest 
abundance estimate of manatees. The number of manatees could provide 
potential resilience to threats along the southeast coast of Florida. 
Thus, we determined that although the recent UME has negatively 
impacted short-term condition in the Atlantic winter management unit, 
the area exhibits overall moderate current condition and still contains 
the greatest number of Florida manatees; therefore, the Atlantic winter 
management unit does not exhibit a different status from the rest of 
the range. We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Florida 
manatee's range where the biological condition of the subspecies 
differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status 
of the subspecies in that portion differs from any other portion of the 
subspecies' range. Therefore, no portion of the subspecies' range 
provides a basis for determining that the subspecies is in danger of 
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that 
the subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict 
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the 
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of 
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Determination of Status--Florida Manatee

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Florida manatee meets the Act's 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Florida manatee as a threatened species in accordance with sections 
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Status Throughout All of Its Range--Antillean Manatee

    Current abundance estimates in each resiliency unit for the 
Antillean manatee range from 20 to more than 1,000 individuals. While 
abundance estimates for Antillean manatee resiliency units are highly 
uncertain, the best available information indicates abundance is 
declining across most of the subspecies' range. One out of 14 
resiliency units has moderate current condition (Puerto Rico, where the 
trend is stable), and the remaining 13 units have low current 
condition. When comparing abundance estimates, two resiliency units 
(Caribbean/Mexico/Belize/Guatemala and Brazil) are estimated to have 
more than 1,000 Antillean manatees. However, four resiliency units 
(Trinidad and Tobago, Lago de Maracaibo, Jamaica, and the Panama Canal) 
are estimated to have 100 or fewer Antillean manatees. The remaining 
eight resiliency units are estimated to support between 100 and 1,000 
Antillean manatees.
    While the current condition assessment is characterized by low 
certainty, the best available information indicates declining 
population numbers due to current and ongoing threats such as 
watercraft collisions (Factor E), habitat loss (including seagrass 
loss) and modification (Factor A), natural processes like harmful algal 
blooms (Factor E), human interactions (Factor B), poaching (Factor E), 
and low genetic diversity (Factor E). Additionally, there is a lack of 
effective enforcement of manatee conservation regulations in the 
Antillean manatee's range (Factor D), with enforcement varying widely 
by country due to limited funding and understaffed law enforcement 
agencies. Although the Antillean manatee subspecies possesses some 
redundancy and an ability to withstand catastrophic

[[Page 3157]]

events on a rangewide basis, all resiliency units, except for one 
(Puerto Rico), have low current condition. Two units have an abundance 
over 1,000 individuals, but four units have 100 or fewer individuals. 
Further, low genetic diversity in some areas indicates the Antillean 
manatee may lack adaptive capacity. Despite populations being spread 
out across multiple units, the low abundance, habitat fragmentation, 
and adaptive capacity of populations throughout the subspecies' range 
compromise Antillean manatee redundancy.
    After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we determined the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicates declining population numbers due to current and 
ongoing threats such as watercraft collisions, habitat loss and 
modification, natural processes like harmful algal blooms, human 
interactions, poaching, and potentially low genetic diversity. The best 
scientific and commercial data available indicates an overall low 
current condition for the Antillean manatee subspecies. Although 
populations are widely distributed in multiple units across the 
subspecies' range, the low abundance in many of these units reduce 
Antillean manatee redundancy. Most delineated units have very low 
numbers of Antillean manatees; four units contain 100 or fewer 
individuals, and eight units contain 100 to 1,000 animals. Further, the 
small, isolated populations and potential low genetic diversity 
indicate the Antillean manatee may lack adaptive capacity. It is 
important to recognize the different methodologies used to define 
populations for both subspecies, therefore it is not appropriate to 
make direct comparisons between the two. While the Antillean manatee 
may have some individual populations larger than some of the Florida 
manatee the condition of the Antillean manatee also reflects declining 
trends and isolation of populations. Thus, after assessing the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the 
Antillean manatee is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range--Antillean Manatee

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the Antillean manatee is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did 
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. 
Because the Antillean manatee warrants listing as endangered throughout 
all of its range, our determination does not conflict with the decision 
in Everson because that decision concerns significant portion of the 
range analyses for species that warrant listing as threatened, not 
endangered, throughout all of their ranges.

Determination of Status--Antillean Manatee

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Antillean manatee meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Antillean manatee as an endangered species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We have determined that the Antillean 
manatee is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range and 
accordingly did not undertake an analysis of a potential DPS for the 
Puerto Rico population.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required 
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions 
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species) or from our Florida Ecological Services Field 
Office and Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this rulemaking is finalized, funding for recovery actions will 
be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, 
State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, Puerto Rico and the State of Florida 
would be eligible for

[[Page 3158]]

Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the 
protection or recovery of the Antillean manatee and the Florida 
manatee, respectively. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the separate listings of the Florida manatee and the 
Antillean manatee are only proposed actions under the Act at this time, 
please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery 
efforts for these subspecies. Additionally, we invite you to submit any 
new information on these subspecies whenever it becomes available and 
any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Florida manatee or the 
Antillean manatee that may be subject to conference and consultation 
procedures under section 7 of the Act are land management or other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and the Service, as 
well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require 
a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit from the 
Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal 
action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are 
not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--
do not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should 
coordinate with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7 
consultation and conference requirements.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) 
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United 
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the 
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these 
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and 
State or Territorial conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The 
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which 
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

II. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to 
mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring 
any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. 
Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states 
that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any 
threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the 
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. 
With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad 
authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened 
species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 
9 prohibitions for a given species.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that 
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington

[[Page 3159]]

Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do 
not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana 
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 
history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the 
threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options 
available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those 
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of 
such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation 
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    The provisions of the Florida manatee's proposed protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we 
would use to promote the conservation of the Florida manatee. The 
proposed protective regulations would apply only if and when we make 
final the listing of the Florida manatee as a threatened species. 
Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the recovery planning 
provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements 
under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into 
partnerships for the management and protection of the Florida manatee. 
As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to 
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, even 
before the listing of any species or the designation of its critical 
habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to 
be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such 
species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species 
regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
    Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that ``may 
affect'' a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the 
activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (``blanket rule'' or 
species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not change the process or 
criteria for informal or formal consultations and does not alter the 
analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. 
For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency 
determines that an action is ``not likely to adversely affect'' a 
threatened species, this will require the Service's written concurrence 
(50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency determinates that an 
action is ``likely to adversely affect'' a threatened species, the 
action will require formal consultation with the Service and the 
formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Because 
consultation obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we 
may consider developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and 
interagency consultations for actions that result in forms of take that 
are not prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require 
consultation). These tools may include consultation guidance, 
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) effects determination 
keys, template language for biological opinions, or programmatic 
consultations.
    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we propose to apply the protections for the Florida manatee through our 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31(a). In our April 5, 2024, final rule 
revising those regulations (89 FR 23919 at 23922-23923), we found that 
applying those regulations as a whole satisfies the requirement in 
section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the threatened species. We 
have not identified any ways in which a protective regulation for this 
threatened subspecies would need to differ from the regulations at 50 
CFR 17.31(a) in order to contain the protections that are necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the Florida manatee. 
Therefore, if we finalize this rule as proposed, the regulations at 50 
CFR 17.31(a) apply. This means that, except as provided in 50 CFR 17.4 
through 17.8, or in a permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 17.32, all of 
the provisions of 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, except Sec.  
17.21(c)(3) and (5), would apply to the Florida manatee, and the 
provisions of 50 CFR 17.32(b) concerning exceptions for certain 
entities would also apply to the subspecies.
    Accordingly, protections in Florida's coastal and inland waters 
will not change with the designation of the Florida manatee subspecies 
as a threatened species. Manatee protection areas (MPAs) have played a 
substantial role in manatee conservation and will be needed into the 
foreseeable future, and the designation of these areas will not be 
affected by the Florida manatee's listing. In addition, the MMPA 
prohibits the ``take'' (i.e., to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or 
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill; 16 U.S.C. 1362(13)) of 
marine mammals. MPAs also play an important role in avoiding take under 
the MMPA.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 12988 and 
by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in 
plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

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

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g., 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical 
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) 
rule)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994

[[Page 3160]]

(Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), the President's 
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal 
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We have communicated with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians 
and the Seminole Tribe of Florida for the Florida manatee. There are no 
federally recognized Tribes within the range of the Antillean manatee. 
We will continue to work with Tribal entities during the development of 
a final listing rule for the Florida manatee.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (Florida 
manatee) and Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (Antillean 
manatee) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida 
and Caribbean Ecological Services Field Offices.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife under MAMMALS by adding, in alphabetical order, 
entries for ``Manatee, Antillean'' and ``Manatee, Florida'', and 
removing the entry for ``Manatee, West Indian'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name                Scientific name        Where listed         Status        and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     MAMMALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Manatee, Antillean...............  Trichechus manatus    Wherever found......            E   [Federal Register
                                    manatus.                                                  citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule].
Manatee, Florida.................  Trichechus manatus    Wherever found......            T   [Federal Register
                                    latirostris.                                              citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-00467 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P