2025-00467. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Florida Manatee and Endangered Status for the Antillean Manatee

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 (790-1,840)	High	Good	Good	Good	HIGH.
( print page 3149)
Southwest	2,966 (2,551-3,434)	Moderate	Good	Good	Good	HIGH.
Atlantic	3,520 (2,750-4,430)	Moderate	Diminished	Diminished	Good	MODERATE.
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 (3,820-6,010)	High	Good	Good	Good	HIGH.
East Coast	4,000 (3,240-4,910)	Moderate	Caution *	Diminished	Good	MODERATE.
* “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 ( print 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 ( print 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.

( print page 3152)

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.

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 ( print 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-Martínez 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]

Resiliency unit	Abundance (certainty)	Trend (certainty)	Trend category 1	Current condition
Brazil	>1,104 (>485-2,221) (low certainty)	Stable/Declining/Unknown (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Caribbean Mexico, Belize, Guatemala	650-1,400 (moderate certainty)	Stable/Declining/Unknown (moderate certainty)	Low	LOW.
Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama Coastal	800-950 (169-204 minimum) (low certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Gulf of Mexico	600-850 (moderate certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Colombia Rivers	400 (100-1,000) (low certainty)	Unknown/Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Puerto Rico	386 (sd = 89) (high certainty)	Stable (moderate certainty)	Moderate	MODERATE.
Cuba	100-500 (50 minimum) (low certainty)	Unknown/Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Hispaniola	300 (38-53 minimum) (low certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana	300 (45 minimum) (low certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Venezuela Rivers	<300 (low certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Trinidad and Tobago	100 (25-30 minimum) (low certainty)	Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Lago de Maracaibo (Venezuela)	<100 (low certainty)	Unknown (low certainty)	Unknown	LOW.
Jamaica	50 (low certainty)	Unknown/Declining (low certainty)	Low	LOW.
Panama Canal	20-25 (16 minimum) (moderate certainty)	Unknown (low certainty)	Unknown	LOW.
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).

( print 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. ( print 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 ( print 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 ( print 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 ( print 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 ( print 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 § 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 ( print 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

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.

2. In § 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:

§ 17.11

Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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