[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9880-9890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03735]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 131018873-4107-01]
RIN 0648-XC924
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Multiple Species and Subpopulations of Marine Mammals as
Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9881]]
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list two
species and three distinct population segments of marine mammals as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for the Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal (Arctocephalus
galapagoensis). We also find that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for
Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori), the Baltic Sea
subpopulation of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), the eastern
Taiwan Strait subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa
chinensis), and the Fiordland subpopulation of bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). We will conduct status reviews for this species
and three subpopulations to determine if the petitioned actions are
warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we
are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to
these marine mammals from any interested party.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by April 22, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0151, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0151, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent us
from contacting you if we have difficulty retrieving your submission.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon
request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Manning, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth
Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under
the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this
petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES). Of the 81 species
petitioned for listing, this notice addresses the marine mammals:
specifically, the Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal (Arctocephalus
galapagoensis), Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori); the Baltic
Sea subpopulation of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), the eastern
Taiwan Strait subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa
chinensis), and the Fiordland subpopulation of bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). Separate 90-day findings are being drafted or
have already issued for the other species addressed by the petition.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
the finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned, which includes
conducting a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the
petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month
stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the available
information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage does
not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is
threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of
the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is
contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the
scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains
detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure,
describing, based on available information, past and present numbers
and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the
species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species
over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied
by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
[[Page 9882]]
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based
upon the information in the petition, including references provided,
and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific information in our files which
indicates that the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable,
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable
person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions.
Conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the ESA's
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction
risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the subject species may be
either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the
classification is based upon in light of the standards of the ESA and
our policies as described above.
With respect to the two species and three subpopulations of marine
mammals discussed in this finding, the petitioner relies almost
exclusively on the risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of
information on the status of each petitioned species. All of the
petitioned marine mammals are listed as ``endangered'' or ``critically
endangered'' on the IUCN Red List and the petitioner notes this as an
explicit consideration in offering petitions on these species. Species
classifications under the IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and the
data standards, evaluation criteria, and treatment of uncertainty are
also not necessarily the same.
DPS Policy
A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy
clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct
population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying a species under the ESA (``DPS Policy''; 61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). The joint DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996)
identifies two criteria for making DPS determinations: (1) The
population must be discrete in relation to the remainder of the taxon
(species or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the population
must be significant to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1)
``It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as
a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation''; or (2) ``it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)'' of the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996).
If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both
of the above conditions, then its biological and ecological
significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) ``Persistence of
the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a
taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics'' (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Species Descriptions
The marine mammals addressed by the petition include three dolphins
(Cephalorhynchus hectori, Sousa chinensis, Tursiops truncatus), a
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and a seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis).
[[Page 9883]]
The Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis, is
found on most islands of the Gal[aacute]pagos Archipelago, Ecuador in
the southeast Pacific Ocean. This species is the smallest and least
sexually dimorphic member of the ``eared seal'' family, Otariidae. The
few adult males that have been weighed have ranged from 60-68 kg; adult
females are smaller and weigh an average of 27.3 kg (Aurioles and
Trillmich, 2013). Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals may mature at about 5-6
years of age, and lactation lasts for 2-3 years (Bonner, 1984). The
seals form colonies close to foraging areas and feed primarily at night
on squids and fishes. Their preferred haul-out areas are rocky, rugged
coasts with large boulders that provide shade.
Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) is a coastal species
endemic to New Zealand, and as a result of its very nearshore
distribution, it is one of the best-studied dolphins in the world. They
are the smallest members of the family Delphinidae. Adults reach
lengths of 1.5 m and weights up to 57 kg (Jefferson et al., 1993).
Hector's dolphins live in groups of 2-8 individuals but larger
aggregations (~50 animals) can also be seen at times (Jefferson et al.,
1993). Females bear their first calf at around 7-9 years of age and may
bear calves every 2-3 years (Dawson, 1991). Their diet consists of
small fishes and squids. Relatively recently, based on genetic and
morphological data, the population of Hector's dolphins occurring on
the coast of New Zealand's North Island were formally recognized as a
new subspecies, C. hectori maui or Maui's dolphin (Baker et al., 2002).
The dolphins of the South Island can be referred to as the nominate
subspecies, C. hectori hectori.
The harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, is a widely distributed
cetacean found in northern temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore
waters. They are commonly found in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fiords
in waters less than 200 m deep. They are medium to dark gray with a
white belly and throat and have a small, stocky body (~45-70 kg; 2.0 m
maximum length); a short, blunt beak; and a medium-sized triangular
dorsal fin. Sexual maturity is generally reached at about 3-4 years.
They feed on demersal and benthic species, mainly schooling fish and
cephalopods. They are non-social and are usually seen in groups of 2-5
animals. The petition requests listing of the Baltic Sea subpopulation
of harbor porpoise.
The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis, is found from
northern Australia and southern China, through Indonesia and westward
along the coastal rim of the Indian Ocean and down along the east coast
of Africa (Jefferson et al., 1993). This species primarily occurs in
nearshore habitats, and is often associated with estuaries, river
mouths and mangroves. Although still formally recognized as a single
species, some biologists consider there to be two species: S. plumbea,
found from South Africa to the east coast of India, and S. chinensis,
found from the east coast of India to China and Australia (Reeves et
al., 2008a). Evidence seems to be growing in support of the existences
of two or even more species (Reeves et al., 2008a). Color and color
patterns are variable among the populations; and, in some populations
the dorsal fin sits on a hump on the back, while in other populations
this hump is absent (Jefferson et al., 1993). All Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins have a distinctively long, well defined beak. Maximum sizes
recorded for males 3.2 m long and 2.5 m long for females. They form
social groups of about 10 animals, but groups of up to 30 animals have
been documented (Jefferson et al., 1993). Reproductive parameters are
not well known. Based on limited information, age at sexual maturity is
thought to be around 9-12 years, and gestation length may be about 10-
12 months (Jefferson, 2004). Diet consists of mainly nearshore and
estuarine fishes. The petition requests listing of the eastern Taiwan
Strait subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin.
The bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, is one of the most
well-known species of marine mammals. They have a robust body and a
short, thick beak. Their coloration ranges from light gray to black
with lighter coloration on the belly. Inshore and offshore individuals
vary in color and size. Inshore animals are smaller and lighter in
color, while offshore animals are larger, darker in coloration, and
have smaller flippers. Bottlenose dolphins range in length from 1.8 to
3.8 m, with males slightly larger than females. Lifespan is 40-45 years
for males and more than 50 years for females. Sexual maturity varies by
population and ranges from 5-13 years for females and 9-14 years for
males. Calves are born after a 12 month gestation period and are weaned
at 18 to 20 months. On average, calving occurs every 3 to 6 years.
Females as old as 45 years have given birth. Bottlenose dolphins are
commonly found in groups of 2 to 15 individuals, but offshore herds can
sometimes have several hundred individuals. They feed on a variety of
prey items, including invertebrates and fishes, and may forage
individually and cooperatively. The petition requests listing of the
Fiordland subpopulation of bottlenose dolphins.
Analysis of the Petition
The petition indicates the recommended administrative measure and
gives the scientific and common names of the species involved. The
petition is not clear, however, regarding which population or
populations of Hector's dolphin are petitioned for listing; we discuss
this further below in the section addressing this particular species.
The petition contains a narrative justification for the recommended
measures and provides information on the species' geographic
distributions, habitats, and threats. Information is provided regarding
the species' past or present numbers, or population status and trends
for all or a significant portion of the species' ranges. Supporting
documentation is provided, mainly in the form of IUCN species
assessments.
Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, we find that the
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) and Hector's
dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) constitute valid ``species'' eligible
for listing under the ESA as each is considered a valid taxonomic
species. In evaluating the request to list certain DPSs, we must first
consider whether the petition provides substantial information
indicating that the petitioned subpopulations may qualify as DPSs and
thus constitute valid ``species'' eligible for listing. Our analyses
and conclusions regarding the possible qualification of the petitioned
subpopulations as DPSs are provided below within the relevant species
section.
The petition includes a general introductory section discussing
threats to all 81 species addressed in the petition, a section on the
threats to the marine mammals petitioned for listing, and species-
specific sections with information on each individual marine mammal
species. We have reviewed and considered the information in each
section of the petition, and a synopsis of our analysis of the
information provided in the petition and readily available in our files
is provided below for each of the petitioned marine mammal species and
subpopulations.
Gal[aacute]pagos Fur Seal
This species (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) is currently listed as
``endangered'' on the IUCN Red List and
[[Page 9884]]
is listed on CITES Appendix II. The petition asserts that this species
is being threatened with extinction by all five of the ESA section
4(a)(1) factors--habitat destruction or modification, overutilization,
disease and predation, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and other
natural factors.
The petition states that Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals, and in fact
all of the marine mammals addressed in the petition, are threatened by
habitat destruction and modification as a result of various factors,
including human population growth and associated consequences such as
pollution, dead zones (i.e., areas of very low dissolved oxygen),
development, tourism, and ocean acidification. The petition highlights
the threat of ocean acidification in particular, and discusses how the
acidity of sea water alters the absorption of low and mid-frequency
sound. The petition argues that while communication over long distances
for some marine mammals may be improved, the increasing ocean acidity
also means a ``noisier'' environment and potential loss of suitable
habitat. The information in the petition regarding these various
habitat threats, however, is general in nature and is not clearly
linked to the petitioned species' range or habitats. For example, no
information is provided or available to us to indicate what, if any,
effect dead zones, pollution, or ocean acidification may be having, or
may have in the future, on Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal habitat.
Furthermore, the Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals' range lies within the
boundaries of the Gal[aacute]pagos National Park, where tourism is
closely regulated (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008) and where, presumably,
their habitat receives some measure of protection from development and
pollution.
During the 19th century, Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals were heavily
exploited by sealers and whalers. By the early 20th century, the
species was near extinction but ``has since recovered'' (Aurioles and
Trillmich, 2008). Although the seals are now protected, the petition
asserts that the seals continue to be threatened indirectly by fishing
as evidenced by reports of the seals becoming entangled in fishing
nets. According to the most recent IUCN assessment, entanglement of
seals is ``thought to be increasing'' (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008).
References or data to support this statement are not provided, and
there is no indication of why the entanglements are thought to be
increasing (e.g., increased fishing activity). The waters around the
islands are also protected by a 40 nautical mile no fishing zone
(Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008). No additional information is provided
or available in our files regarding fishing activity, the frequency of
seal entanglements, or the outcome of seal entanglements (e.g.,
mortality, injury). Therefore, it is unclear whether and to what extent
entanglement is affecting the extinction risk of the species.
The petition states that Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals are threatened
by both disease and predation. The petition presents information about
feral dogs on Isabela Island and how the dogs decimated colonies of
seals on the southwestern end of the island (Aurioles and Trillmich,
2008). The petition also states that transmission of diseases from dogs
to the fur seals is the ``most serious threat to the species at this
time.'' The feral dogs have since been exterminated from this island
(Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008), but because the potential exists for
feral dogs to return the island, the petition asserts that predation by
dogs and disease transmission from dogs to seals represent ``ongoing''
threats to the species' existence. No information is provided or is
available in our files to indicate the likelihood of feral dogs
returning, and no information is available in the petition or our files
to indicate whether or how these threats are currently being managed
within the Gal[aacute]pagos National Park. We also lack information
about how specific impacts occurring on Isabela Island would impact the
fur seals elsewhere in the archipelago and at the species level. As a
result, we cannot conclude that disease and predation by dogs on
Isabela Island represent ongoing threats to the species existence.
The petition states that current protections for the
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals are inadequate to protect them against the
most serious threats to their existence. Specifically, the petition
asserts that although the seals are listed on CITES Appendix II and are
protected under Ecuadorian law and by management of the
Gal[aacute]pagos National Park, these protections are not adequate to
address the threats of bycatch, disease, predation, tourism, El
Ni[ntilde]o and anthropogenic climate change. The petition does not
discuss the existing regulatory context further or indicate what
additional regulations might be necessary to adequately protect the fur
seals from these threats. Also, as discussed above, we do not have
sufficient information to indicate whether bycatch, disease, predation
and tourism are posing an extinction risk for the species. Therefore,
it is unclear whether existing regulatory mechanisms and protections
are inadequate to address these threats. With respect to climate change
and El Ni[ntilde]o, we agree with statements in the petition that
localized protections may not be adequate to protect a species from
global events. However, the petition does not present information
regarding existing regulatory mechanisms or what protections are needed
to address these particular threats as they relate specifically to
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals. For example, the petition does not relate
current levels of greenhouse gas emissions to the status of the
species, or indicate what reductions would adequately safeguard the
seals from anthropogenic climate change given an existing context of
the various emission reduction targets and pledges that have been made
by a number of countries. Such specific information is also not
provided regarding regulatory mechanisms to mitigate the effects of El
Ni[ntilde]o, a natural feature of our climate system and the seals'
habitat. Thus, it is unclear the level and extent to which existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect Gal[aacute]pagos fur
seals from potential consequences of anthropogenic climate change and
El Ni[ntilde]o.
The petition states that Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals are threatened
by El Ni[ntilde]o events, which result in declines in primary
productivity and reduced food availability for higher trophic levels.
The effects of El Ni[ntilde]o on Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals and other
pinnipeds in the eastern tropical and temperate Pacific Ocean are well
documented (Limberger, 1990; Aurioles-Gamboa et al., 2004). The 1982/83
El Ni[ntilde]o was an extreme event that had widespread oceanographic
effects and resulted in very high mortality rates for Gal[aacute]pagos
fur seals and other species (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008). El
Ni[ntilde]o events occur irregularly about every 3-6 years, and strong
events, as measured by the degree of warming, occur at 8 to 15 year
intervals. El Ni[ntilde]o events of the magnitude similar to the 1982/
83 event, however, only occur one or a few times per century (see
www.elnino.noaa.gov). Presumably, the seals are somewhat resilient to
this periodic disturbance, which forms a part of the evolutionary
framework that shaped the species (Limberger, 1990), but the degree of
recovery of Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals since the 1982/83 event is not
known (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008). Whether or not El Ni[ntilde]o
constitutes an extinction risk for the species depends on the rate of
recovery of the seals and the frequency of intense El Ni[ntilde]o
events. Sufficient information to evaluate this is not available in the
petition or in in our files. Thus, it is not clear that such events
represent an extinction risk to
[[Page 9885]]
the species such that listing under the ESA may be warranted.
The petition presents the additional argument that El Ni[ntilde]o
events ``appear to be increasing in frequency and duration'' and
therefore this threat ``will only continue to grow.'' Whether the
frequency and intensity of El Ni[ntilde]os are increasing or are being
influenced by anthropogenic climate change are unanswered questions and
currently the subject of much research. Furthermore, there is no
information provided to indicate that such environmental changes are
occurring at a certain rate that is expected out-pace the species'
ability to adapt. Sightings of Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals and other
pinnipeds outside their geographic ranges have been documented along
the Central and South American coast, and several authors have
hypothesized these extra-range sightings are caused in part by El
Ni[ntilde]o events (Felix et al., 2001; Capella, 2002; Aurioles-Gamboa
et al, 2004). While much research is still needed to conclusively link
El Ni[ntilde]o events to these extra-range sightings, such dispersal
may play an important role in the long-term persistence of populations
as the carrying capacity of their preferred habitats changes in
response to climatic events (Capella et al., 2002).
The petition includes brief mention of several other threats to
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals, including small population size, oil
spills, a small range, and a declining population trend. We considered
each of these factors and concluded that statements about them and
their effect on the species are very general in nature or not
substantiated by any data or information. For example, the petition
states that, although there is limited large vessel traffic in the
Gal[aacute]pagos, smaller vessels ``could release moderate quantities''
of oil ``if involved in a marine accident.'' No information regarding
frequency or potential for such oil spills is presented or available in
our files. Furthermore, according to the last IUCN assessment, the
current abundance of Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals is roughly estimated to
be about 15,000 to 20,000 animals (Aurioles and Trillmich, 2008), which
is not necessarily considered ``small.'' Given the limited information
provided, we do not consider the ``other natural factors'' discussed in
the petition to constitute substantial information that listing
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals under the ESA may be warranted.
Overall, while the information in the petition suggests that the
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal should continue to be protected, much of the
information about threats is overly general or speculative in nature.
Insufficient information is provided to demonstrate that ocean
acidification, pollution, entanglement, disease, predation and climate
change are operative threats that are acting or will act on the species
such that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Many of the major
threats presented in the petition also appear to have been eliminated
(e.g., direct harvest, feral dogs) or addressed through current
management action (e.g., no fishing zone, regulation of tourism).
Information regarding specific effects of climate change on the seals
and the seals response to this threat is lacking, and the argument that
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seals will not be able to recover from temporary
impacts of El Ni[ntilde]o events is not well supported. In conclusion,
we do not find that the petition presents substantial information that
listing under the ESA may be warranted for the Gal[aacute]pagos fur
seals.
Hector's Dolphin
Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) has a discontinuous
distribution along the coasts of both the North and South Islands of
New Zealand and is comprised of multiple, genetically distinct
populations (Reeves et al., 2013a). A separate IUCN assessment has been
completed for the subspecies C. hectori maui or Maui's dolphin, which
occurs off the North Island. The petition states that, because Maui's
dolphin has been recognized and assessed separately, ``. . . this
Petition is focused on the South Island subspecies and petitions for
listing as an endangered or threatened species and not as a DPS.''
Despite this stated focus on the ``South Island subspecies,'' the
petition provides status information for both subspecies and relies on
the species-level IUCN assessment for C. hectori. The Latin name for
the South Island subspecies, C. hectori hectori, is not mentioned in
the petition. Thus, it is not clear which entity the petition is
requesting be considered for listing under the ESA. We elected to
address the species, C. hectori, in our review, because the petition
consistently refers to C. hectori throughout its discussions and
presents status and threats information for the dolphins range-wide.
Hector's dolphin is currently classified as ``endangered'' on the
IUCN Red List and is listed on Appendix II of CITES. Maui's dolphin is
listed separately as ``critically endangered'' on the Red List. Under
the New Zealand Threat Classification System, the South Island
subspecies is currently categorized as ``endangered'' (Baker et al.,
2010), and Maui's dolphin is categorized as the more serious,
``nationally critical.''
Aside from the vaquita (Phocoena sinus), Hector's dolphin is
considered to have the most limited range of any marine cetacean
(Reeves et al., 2013a). Alongshore ranges of individual dolphins may
typically be less than 60 km (Brager et al, 2002). The petition states
that, due to this limited coastal distribution, Hector's dolphins are
threatened by human activities such as ``pollution, vessel traffic and
habitat modification.'' The petition refers to a single sentence in the
IUCN assessment of C. hectori to support of these assertions (Reeves et
al., 2013a). No further discussion or information is provided in the
petition to clarify these statements or indicate how these factors are
threatening the Hector's dolphins of either island. One study in our
files, however, suggests that boat strikes are posing more of a threat
to this species than previously thought (Stone and Yoshinaga 2000), but
the available data are too limited to make conclusive statements
regarding the severity or extent of this particular threat.
The petition asserts that that the main threat to Hector's dolphins
is incidental entanglement in fishing nets and gear. Multiple,
independent modeling efforts have indicated that bycatch is
contributing to the decline of Hector's dolphin populations (Martien et
al., 1999; Burkhart and Slooten, 2003), and populations are predicted
to continue declining throughout New Zealand under the current
management scenarios (Slooten, 2013). In a review of such modelling
efforts, Slooten and Davies (2012) showed that all analyses are
remarkably consistent in indicating that (1) dolphin populations have
declined substantially due to fisheries mortality, and (2) recovery is
unlikely under recent management efforts. Research has also
demonstrated a significant conservation benefit of the Banks Peninsula
Marine Mammal Sanctuary (Slooten, 2013), which was enacted in 1988 to
protect the dolphins from commercial gillnetting. Despite this
sanctuary, additional protected areas, and a slow but steady escalation
of protections since 1988, Slooten (2013) reports that population
decline is still occurring nationwide. An expert panel, convened in
2012 by the New Zealand Department of Conservation and Ministry for
Primary Industries and consisting of scientists from New Zealand and
the United States, estimated that fisheries bycatch accounted for 95.5%
of all human-caused mortality; pollution, mining, and tidal energy
generation were among the threats comprising the remaining 4.5%
[[Page 9886]]
of human-caused mortality (Slooten, 2013). Overall, the available
information suggests that bycatch is posing an extinction risk for the
species.
The petition states that Hectors' dolphins are also threatened with
extinction from disease. However, no other information, discussion or
references are provided in the petition to indicate what diseases are
affecting the dolphins and how these diseases are affecting
survivorship or health of the dolphins. While it is possible the
species is threatened by some disease or diseases, the available
information is insufficient to indicate that it is an operative threat
that is posing a potential extinction risk for the species. For
example, Duignan et al. (2005) confirmed the presence of Brucella in a
female dolphin, but the prevalence of this potentially significant
dolphin pathogen or its impacts on Hector's dolphin is not known.
The petition asserts that Hector's dolphin is threatened by the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition focuses
specifically on CITES and the efforts of the New Zealand government. No
information or discussion of international trade is provided, and thus
it is not clear whether CITES protections are actually inadequate to
address this particular threat. For reasons discussed above, we agree
that recent protections extended to Hector's dolphins within New
Zealand do not appear to be sufficient to address the threat of
bycatch, which is estimated to be occurring at an unsustainable rate
(Slooten, 2007).
Although figures vary among studies, Hector's dolphins have been
estimated to number 7,270 animals off the South Island (Slooten et al.,
2004) and 111 animals off the North Island (Slooten et al., 2006).
Dolphin densities have declined since the 1970s and the populations
have become increasingly fragmented (Slooten, 2013). In a population
viability analysis for the period 1970-2009, Slooten (2007) estimated a
rate of decline of 74% over 3 generations for the species as a whole.
Given low the abundances and population fragmentation, the ongoing
threat of bycatch, and the predicted continued decline in abundance, we
find that Hector's dolphin may warrant listing under the ESA.
Baltic Sea Subpopulation of Harbor Porpoise
The petition requests listing of the Baltic Sea subpopulation of
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) as a DPS. To meet the definition of
a DPS, a population must be both discrete from other populations of the
species and significant to the species as a whole (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996). Several morphological and genetic studies referenced in the
petition provide some evidence that the harbor porpoises in the Baltic
Sea are distinct from the harbor porpoises living in the Kattegat,
Skagerrak and North Seas (Tiedemann et al., 1997; Huggenberger et al.,
2002). On the basis of these studies, the petition argues that the
Baltic Sea porpoises are markedly separated from other subpopulations
and thus meet the ``discreteness'' criterion of the DPS Policy. A more
recent paper in our files provides some additional support for this
assertion: Wiemann et al. (2010) analyzed microsatellite and
mitochondrial DNA for over 300 porpoise samples from the Baltic and
surrounding seas and found a small but significant amount of genetic
separation of the Baltic Sea porpoises from those in the adjacent Belt
Sea. The data also suggest some level of gene flow among
subpopulations, and the issues of how and where to divide
subpopulations into meaningful management units has been a matter of
some debate (Palme et al., 2008; Wiemann et al., 2010). In a review
article on harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea, Kochinski (2002)
concludes that, although some studies are inconsistent in their
findings, the existence of a Baltic Sea subpopulation does seem likely.
Thus, we consider the available information sufficient to indicate that
there may be a discrete Baltic Sea subpopulation of P. phocoena. For
ease of discussion, we refer to these harbor porpoises as the Baltic
Sea subpopulation (BSS) throughout the remainder of this document.
The petition asserts that the BSS differs from other subpopulations
in its genetic characteristics and that loss of the BSS of harbor
porpoise would result in a significant gap in the range of the
taxonomic species. Based on these two lines of reasoning, the petition
argues that the BSS meets the ``significance'' criterion of the DPS
Policy. We find limited support for the assertion that loss of this
subpopulation from the Baltic Sea would result in a signifigant gap in
the range of this very wide-ranging and mobile species. Given the
evidence of some degree of migration among the subpopulations (Wiemann,
2010), we cannot concur with the statement in the petition that it is
``highly unlikely'' for harbor porpoises from other subpopulations to
fill the gap that would be left by an extirpated BSS. However, we do
agree, that on the basis of morphological differences among
subpopulations, the BSS may differ markedly in its genetic
characteristics. For example, Huggenberger et al. (2002) found
significant differences in skull morphology among subpopuations of the
North and Baltic Sea regions that may stem from differences in prey
species among areas. Differences in tooth ultrastructure, which may be
genetically or environmentally controlled, have also been found among
harbor porpoises from the Baltic, North and Skagerrat Seas (Lockyer,
1999). In conclusion, we find sufficient indication that the BSS may
meet the ``significance'' criterion of the DPS Policy.
The weight of the available evidence suggests that the BSS may meet
the ``discreteness'' and the ``significance'' criteria of the DPS
Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) and thus may qualify as a DPS.
Therefore, we proceeded to review the petition and information readily
available in our files to evaluate whether this presumed DPS may
warrant listing under the ESA. We note, however, that precise
boundaries for this potential DPS are not known or determined at this
stage.
The petition highlights pollution, and specifically polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), as a cause of habitat modification, disease and
parasitism that is threatening the BSS of harbor porpoise. PCBs are
toxic organic chemicals once widely used in many commercial and
industrial products (e.g., paints, plastics, electrical equipment), and
although used and manufactured to a much lesser extent today, they can
still be released into the environment where they persist for long
periods of time. PCBs can enter the food chain through direct contact,
inhalation or ingestion, and can accumulate in the tissues of animals,
especially those of higher trophic levels. An analysis of organic
contaminants in harbor porpoises showed that animals in the Baltic Sea
have 41 to 245% higher mean levels of PCBs and other organochlorines in
their tissues when compared to animals from the Kattegat and Skagerrak
Seas (Berggrena et al., 1999). The total mean concentration of PCBs
measured in mature harbor porpoises from the Baltic Sea (46 26 [mu]g/g) also exceeds the estimated threshold level for
subtle, adverse neurobehavioral effects in harbor porpoises (i.e., ~3
[mu]g/g; (Berggrena et al, 1999). Beineke et al. (2005) completed
detailed pathological examinations on 61 stranded or by-caught harbor
porpoises and found that harbor porpoises from the German North and
Baltic Seas exhibited a higher incidence of bacterial infection when
compared to harbor porpoises from less polluted
[[Page 9887]]
Icelandic and Norwegian waters. These authors concluded their findings
support the hypothesis of contaminant-induced immunosuppression in
harbor porpoise, which may possibly contribute to disease
susceptibility (Beineke et al, 2005). In a review article, Koschinski
(2002) reports that environmental contaminants most likely do affect
the long-term viability of the BSS porpoises and may in fact have
played a large role in their decline from the 1940s to the 1970s, after
which time the concentration of PCBs and other organochlorine
contaminants began to decline. The IUCN assessment for the BSS also
references multiple studies that report various pathologies in Baltic
harbor porpoises, including pneumonia, skin lesions, and heavy parasite
loads (see Hammond et al., 2008b). Thus, while it is unclear the level
and extent to which pollution is currently affecting the BSS, the
available information indicates the BSS is exposed to a relatively high
level of pollution, and it suggests this exposure may be having
negative health consequences for these animals.
The petition and IUCN assessment for the BSS of harbor porpoise
state that the most significant threat to this subpopulation today is
bycatch in commercial fisheries (Hammond et al., 2008b). Bycatch of
harbor porpoises has been documented to occur in multiple gear types,
but the majority of the bycatch is attributed to bottom-set gillnets
and driftnets (Koschinski, 2002). Entanglement in such nets typically
results in mortality (Koschinski, 2002). Concern about incidental catch
of small cetaceans led the European Union (EU) to adopt a regulation in
2004 to help minimize bycatch in EU waters (Hammond et al., 2008b).
Information or data to evaluate the effectiveness of this regulation in
mitigating bycatch of harbor porpoises are not available to us.
Apparently, a complete evaluation of the threat bycatch poses to the
BSS is not yet possible due to uncertainty regarding the total amount
of bycatch and uncertainty regarding harbor porpoise stock structure,
abundance, and population growth rate (Berggren, 1994; Koschinski,
2002). However, Berggren et al. (2002); as cited in (Carlstrom et al,
2009) concluded that the levels of bycatch in the Skagerrak, Kattegat,
and Baltic Sea are not sustainable. Overall, it appears that bycatch is
widely accepted to be a serious threat to harbor porpoises in the
Baltic Sea; however, sufficient data and information to thoroughly
evaluate the extent and severity of this threat appear to be lacking,
especially given the context of ongoing conservation action.
The petition argues that existing regulatory measures are
inadequate to protect the BSS of harbor porpoise and focuses the
discussion on CITES and the 2004 EU fisheries regulation in particular.
However, no information is presented on international trade of the BSS
of harbor porpoise, and no information is presented to indicate that
the current Appendix II listing of P. phocoena is not adequate to
safeguard the BSS from effects of international trade. The petition
argues that the EU's fisheries regulation is inadequate because this
regulation does not address sources of bycatch from fisheries other
than drift net fisheries (e.g., does not address trawls). The extent of
take or mortality in other fisheries or gear types is not discussed
further nor is such information available in our files; thus, it is not
possible for us to evaluate the extent to which these other fisheries
pose a threat to the BSS. Lastly, the petition argues that no
regulations are adequately addressing the threat of pollution; but the
regulatory context for addressing pollution and PCBs in this region is
not discussed, making this assertion difficult to assess. Furthermore,
while the petition refers to a report by ASCOBANS (``Agreement on the
Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas'') at one
point, the petition provides no information on international
conservation goals or actions being taken by this group. We have no
additional information in our files regarding the management actions of
this group or any other individual country. Thus, we do not find there
is sufficient information to support the claim that existing measures
are inadequate.
The harbor porpoise, P. phocoena, is an abundant and widespread
species with an estimated global abundance of about 700,000, (Hammond
et al., 2008a). In contrast, the BSS is estimated to number fewer than
250 mature animals (Hammond et al., 2008b). In his review of existing
literature, Koschinski (2002) states that abundance of porpoises in the
Baltic region declined during the second half of the 20th century and
the range contracted considerably. Anecdotal data collected by Skora et
al. (1988) suggest that in Polish waters, harbor porpoise abundance is
very low as compared to the abundance in the early 20th century. Harbor
porpoises are still fairly abundant in the Kattegat and Belt Seas
(0.73-0.99 animals/sq km), especially relative to the Baltic proper
where densities are less than 0.01 animals/sq km (Koschinski, 2002).
Acoustic and visual surveys conducted in the Baltic Sea and surrounding
waters during the summers of 2001 and 2002 have confirmed that the
relative abudance and occurrence of harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea
are very low (Gillespie et al., 2005). An unpublished ASCOBANS report
(1997; as cited in Koschinski, 2002) also states that harbor porpoises
in the Baltic Sea ``appear to be in a serious long-term decline.''
In conclusion, we find that harbor porpoises of the Baltic Sea may
meet the ``discreteness'' and ``significance'' criteria of the DPS
Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) and thus may qualify as a DPS. We
also find that, given the available information regarding low
abundance, a declining population trend and potential threat of
pollution, the BSS of harbor porpoise may warrant listing as threatened
or endangered under the ESA.
Eastern Taiwan Strait Subpopulation of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin
The petition requests listing of the eastern Taiwan Strait
subpopulation (ETS) of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa
chinensis, as a DPS. As discussed previously, a population must be both
discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the
species as a whole in order to meet the definition of a DPS (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). The petition discusses how the ETS dolphins
can be distinguished from Indo-Pacific dolphins off the coast of
mainland China on the basis of pigmentation patterns. While a genetic
basis for this color variation has not yet been established, the
maintenance of these phenotypic differences may be indicative of
reproductive isolation (Wang et al., 2008). As additional evidence of
``marked separation'' of ETS dolphins, the petition discusses how the
ETS dolphins are restricted to the western side of Taiwan, mainly in
and around the two main estuaries. With few exceptions, all sightings
of ETS dolphins have been reported from within 3 km of shore despite
survey efforts beyond this point, and it has been suggested that the
depth of the relatively narrow Taiwan Strait may function as a barrier
for movement of ETS dolphins across to the coast of mainland China
(Wang et al., 2008; Reeves et al., 2008b). An analysis of 450
individually photo-identified dolphins also provided no evidence of
movement or exchange of individuals among the ETS and two groups from
mainland China (Wang et al., 2008). Overall, this information suggests
this subpopulation may be ``discrete'' from other Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins.
[[Page 9888]]
With respect to the ``significance'' criterion of the DPS Policy,
the petition states that the ETS dolphins are significant to the
taxonomic species as a whole, because loss of this particular
subpopulation would result in a significant gap in the range of the
species. While it may be unlikely that other Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins would move to occupy the available habitat should the ETS
dolphins be extirpated (given potential bathymetric barriers), it is
not clear that the loss of this small range would constitute a
``significant gap'' given the extensive Indo-Pacific range of this
species. The petition also argues that the subpopulation is significant
to the species as a whole, because it differs markedly from other
subpopulations in its genetic characteristics. While there are no
genetic data provided in the petition or in our files to indicate the
observed phenotypic differences are genetically controlled, a
meaningful degree of genetic differentiation of the ETS dolphins is
plausible given the potential year-round residency of the ETS dolphins
and the evidence suggesting a lack of migration among regional groups
(Wang et al., 2008; Wang and Yang, 2010). Thus, we find sufficient
indication that the ETS dolphins may meet the ``significance''
criterion of the DPS Policy.
We conclude that the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in the eastern
Taiwan Strait may meet both the ``discreteness'' and the
``significance'' criteria of the DPS Policy and thus may qualify as a
DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Therefore, we proceeded to review
the petition and information readily available in our files to evaluate
whether this presumed DPS may warrant listing under the ESA. For ease
of discussion, we refer to the ETS subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific
humpback dolphin as a DPS throughout the remainder of this text.
The petition states that the ETS DPS of S. chinensis is being
threatened by habitat destruction and modification and lists multiple
causes including reduction of freshwater flows, seabed reclamation, and
pollution. The ETS DPS dolphins' exposure to land-based pollution and
other threats is relatively high all along the central western coast of
Taiwan, because these dolphins are thought to inhabit only a narrow
strip of coastal habitat: They have not been observed in waters deeper
than 25 m and are typically sighted in waters 15 m deep and within 3 km
from shore (Reeves et al., 2008b). Information in our files indicates
that much of the preferred habitat of the ETS DPS has been altered or
may become altered, but we do not have sufficient information to
evaluate what effects this and most of the activities discussed in the
petition (e.g., reduced freshwater flows, seabed reclamation) are
having on the dolphins' status. For example, while several of the
rivers in western Taiwan have already been dammed or diverted for
agricultural, municipal, or other purposes, there are no data or
information in the petition or our files to indicate what the impact,
if any, reduced water flows to the estuaries is having on the ETS DPS
dolphins or their prey (Ross et al, 2010). However, we do have some
information in our files indicating that these dolphins are exposed to
toxic PCBs and are likely to be negatively affected through ingestion
of contaminated prey. By measuring PCB concentrations of known prey
species, Riehl et al. (2011) constructed a bioaccumulation model to
assess the risk PCBs may be posing to the ETS dolphins. Their results
indicated that the ETS dolphins are at risk of immunotoxic effects of
PCBs over their lifetime (Riehl et al., 2011). In addition, surveys of
97 ETS DPS dolphins conducted from 2006 to 2010 showed that 73% had at
least one type of skin lesion and that 49% of the surveyed dolphins
were diseased (Yang et al., 2011). These data suggest the dolphins may
have weakened immune systems and are consequently more susceptible to
disease. Overall, while we have insufficient information to evaluate
several of the claims in the petition, we do have sufficient
information to indicate that pollution is probably having a negative
impact on the status of the ETS of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins.
The petition asserts that the greatest threat to this DPS is
bycatch in commercial fisheries. Data or information to directly
evaluate this assertion appears to be lacking, but some indirect data
does suggest that fisheries are posing a threat to this DPS. For
example, thousands of vessels deploying trammel or gillnets are known
to operate within the range of this DPS, and one third of 32 photo-
identified dolphins of this DPS have scars thought to have been caused
by either collisions with ships or interactions with fishing gear (Wang
et al., 2004). There are also two unpublished reports of dead, stranded
ETS dolphins suspected to have died as a result of a fisheries
interaction (see Ross et al., 2010). Overall, however, the available
information is insufficient to support conclusions regarding whether or
to what extent bycatch is contributing to extinction risk for the ETS
DPS.
The petition asserts that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to conserve this DPS. The petition specifically identifies
the CITES Appendix I listing of Sousa spp. as one deficiency; however,
no additional information or data are provided in the petition
regarding international trade of ETS DPS dolphins. Thus, we cannot
conclude that the Appendix I listing is inadequate to safeguard this
DPS from the threat of international trade. The ETS DPS dolphins are
currently protected under Taiwan's Wildlife Conservation Act, although
it appears that no specific habitats or areas are currently being
protected (Ross et al., 2010). The petition, the IUCN assessment, and
other references in our files also discuss Taiwan's policy on
environmental impact assessments and the failure of this process to
adequately assess potential impacts of projects to the ETS DPS dolphins
or result in meaningful protection for the dolphins (e.g., see Wang et
al., 2007). The lack of habitat protections and a rigorous
environmental review process is concerning given the large number of
new industrial projects awaiting approval and an expectation of
continued habitat alteration and degradation (Wang et al., 2007).
The size of the ETS DPS has been estimated to total 99 animals, and
additional mark-recapture data from 2007-2010 indicate that the total
population size is probably less than 80 animals (Wang et al., 2012).
Given the low estimated abundance and restricted range coupled with
high exposure to environmental contaminants and potentially weak
regulatory protections, we conclude that the ETS DPS of the Indo-
Pacific humpback dolphin may warrant listing under the ESA.
Fiordland Subpopulation of Bottlenose Dolphin
The petition requests listing of the Fiordland subpopulation of
bottlenose dolphins as a DPS and provides information on how this
subpopulation meets both the ``discreteness'' and ``significance''
criteria of the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Bottlenose
dolphins occupy three, discontinuous coastal regions around New
Zealand: Northland, Marlborough Sounds and Fiordland. A comprehensive
analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that there is a high degree of
genetic isolation of the Fiordland, Northland and Marlborough Sounds
subpopulations from each other (Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2008). Within
Fiordland--the mountainous, rainforested region in the southwest
portion of New Zealand's
[[Page 9889]]
South Island--the population is considered to be further subdivided
into three units, which can be referred to as the Milford, Doubtful and
Dusky Sounds units (Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2008). The three bottlenose
dolphin communities within Fiordland appear to be relatively separate
from each other; however, there are some records of exchange among
these groups, suggesting that they are part of one metapopulation
(Currey et al., 2011a; citing Lusseau et al. 2006). We find the
available information sufficient to indicate that the Fiordland
bottlenose dolphins may meet the ``discreteness'' criterion of the DPS
Policy.
The petition argues that the Fiordland bottlenose dolphins are
significant to their taxon as a whole for multiple reasons. We agree
with the assertion in the petition that the Fiordland bottlenose
dolphins differ markedly from other populations in their genetic
characteristics and thereby may meet the ``significance criterion'' of
the DPS Policy. As noted above, analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates
that there is significant genetic differentiation of the Fiordland
bottlenose dolphins (Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2008). The Fiordland
dolphins also display multiple physical (e.g., larger, more rotund
bodies; shorter fins, flukes and rostrum; Currey et al., 2011a; citing
Schneider, 1999) and behavioral (e.g., shorter birthing season; Haase
and Schneider, 2001) differences that possibly reflect adaptation to
their colder water habitat, which lies at the extreme southern end of
the species' range (Currey et al., 2011a). The coastal fiords and bays
of Fiordland may also represent an ecological setting that is unusual
for this species. We find this information sufficient to indicate that
the Fiordland bottlenose dolphins may meet the ``significance''
criterion of the DPS Policy.
We conclude, based on the readily available information in our
files and the information presented in the petition, that the Fiordland
bottlenose dolphins may meet both the ``discreteness'' and the
``significance'' criteria of the DPS Policy and thus may qualify as a
DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Therefore, we proceeded to review
the petition and information readily available in our files to evaluate
whether this potential DPS may warrant listing under the ESA.
Citing the IUCN assessment, the petition states that the Fiordland
bottlenose dolphins are exposed to three main threats: Disturbance and
boat strikes associated with boat-based tourism, increased freshwater
discharge from hydroelectric power generation, and reduced prey
availability (Currey et al., 2011a). Other threats discussed in the
petition (e.g., anthropogenic climate change, ocean acidification) are
general in nature and not clearly or causally linked to the status or
habitat of the Fiordland bottlenose dolphins. Thus, as summarized
below, our review of the information regarding threats to this
subpopulation focused on the three main threats identified in the IUCN
assessment.
Tour boats have been shown to affect several behaviors of
bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, and dolphins with boat-strike
scars have been observed in both Doubtful and Milford Sounds (Currey et
al., 2011a; citing Lusseau et al., 2002; Lusseau, 2003; Boisseau,
2003). In response to the documented impacts on the dolphins, a
voluntary code of conduct was adopted in 2006 in Milford and Doubtful
Sounds. Dolphin Protection Zones, in which boating activities are
limited, were also created and extend 200m out from shore in regions of
the fiord that include some of the most frequently used habitats
(Currey et al., 2011a). This management effort remains voluntary, and
its effectiveness is unknown (Currey et al., 2011a). Tourism in
Fiordland is increasing, and thus the potential for impacts on
bottlenose dolphins is expected to increase as well, even in the less
accessible Dusky Sound (Currey et al., 2011a). Although boating clearly
is and will likely continue to affect the Fiordland dolphins, it is not
clear what population-level effect boating activity is having on the
Fiordland bottlenose dolphins. Thus, based on the available
information, it is unclear whether this threat is posing an extinction
risk that is cause for concern.
The Lake Manapouri hydroelectric power station tailrace discharges
a large volume of freshwater into Deep Cove in Doubtful Sound and
creates a distinct low-salinity water layer significantly deeper than
that found in neighboring fiords (Currey et al., 2011a; citing Gibbs et
al. 2000, Gibbs 2001). The bottlenose dolphins of Doubtful Sound
exhibit a higher severity of skin lesions, have smaller calves and a
more restricted calving season when compared to the bottlenose dolphins
of the less-disturbed Dusky Sound (Rowe et al., 2010). This
circumstantial evidence supports but does not confirm the hypothesis
that the elevated freshwater input is having a negative impact on the
bottlenose dolphins within this particular sound. Additional data are
required to fully evaluate the extent to which freshwater input from
this hydropower facility is contributing to extinction risk for the
Fiordland subpopulation.
Quoting from the IUCN assessment, the petition states that the
Fiordland bottlenose dolphins are threatened by reduced prey
availability as a result of environmental degradation and overfishing.
Specific information or data to support this assertion are very
limited. The IUCN assessment cites several studies that document an
altered sub-tidal community structure and reduced the species' richness
in response to the freshwater input in Doubtful Sound from the
hydropower facility (Currey et al., 2011a; citing Boyle et al. 2001,
Tallis et al. 2004, Rutger and Wing 2006). These ecological side-
effects may translate into reduced or altered prey availability for the
dolphins. The IUCN assessment also states that historical fishing has
resulted in significant declines in fish abundance throughout Fiordland
(Currey et al., 2011a; citing Beentjes and Carbines 2005). Specific
information regarding the dolphins' existing prey resources, however,
is not presented or available in our files; thus, it is difficult to
fully assess whether food limitation is posing a threat to the
Fiordland bottlenose dolphins.
While the common bottlenose dolphin, T. truncatus, is a
cosmopolitan and relatively abundant species, the Fiordland
subpopulation contains only about 205 animals (95% CI: 192-219; Currey
et al., 2009). Results of population viability analyses by Currey et
al. (2009) also show that the Fiordland subpopulation is highly likely
to decline over periods of one, three and five generations. The average
rate of decline for this subpopulation was estimated as 31.4% over one
generation (21 years), and the average risk of extinction was
calculated as 10.1% over five generations (100 years) (Currey et al.,
2009). Capture-recapture modeling of data from 1996-2008 for the
bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound indicate that this unit has been
declining since 1995, and that the decline has been driven by reduced
survivorship of calves (less than 1 year old) and juveniles (less than
3 years old) (Currey et al., 2011b).
In conclusion, while it is difficult to attribute the decline of
the Fiordland bottlenose dolphins to a specific cause or causes, we
find that low abundance coupled with past and projected decline of
these dolphins constitutes substantial information that listing
Fiordland bottlenose dolphins as threatened or endangered under the ESA
may be warranted.
[[Page 9890]]
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, we conclude that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the
Gal[aacute]pagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis. In contrast, as
described above, we find that there is substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for
Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori; the BSS of the harbor
porpoise, Phocoena phocoena; the ETS subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific
humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis; and the Fiordland subpopulation of
the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. We hereby announce the
initiation of status reviews for each of these four entities to
determine whether the petition actions are warranted.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status reviews are based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant
to whether Hector's dolphin, the BSS of harbor porpoise, the ETS
subpopulation of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, and the Fiordland
subpopulation of bottlenose dolphin may warrant listing as threatened
or endangered under the ESA. Specifically, we are soliciting data and
information, including unpublished data and information, in the
following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance
of Hector's dolphin and the petitioned subpopulations of harbor
porpoise, Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin
throughout their range; (2) historical and current population trends;
(3) life history and habitat requirements (4) genetic analyses of
subpopulations, populations or subspecies; (5) past, current and future
threats, including any current or planned activities that may adversely
impact these marine mammals; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the marine mammals and their habitat; and (7) management,
regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all
information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications;
and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association,
institution, or business that the person represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request to the
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 14, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-03735 Filed 2-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P