[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20829-20846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07286]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 230403-0090; RTID 0648-XR118]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Atlantic Humpback Dolphin as an Endangered Species Under the Endangered
Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Atlantic humpback dolphin
(Sousa teuszii) in response to a petition from the Animal Welfare
Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and VIVA Vaquita to
list the species. Based on the best scientific and commercial
information available, including the draft status review report, and
taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, we have
determined that the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a high risk of
extinction throughout its range and warrants listing as an endangered
species. This species occurs only in coastal Atlantic waters of western
Africa. We are authorized to designate critical habitat within U.S.
jurisdiction only, and we are not aware of any areas within U.S
jurisdiction that may meet the definition of critical habitat under the
ESA. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat. We
are soliciting public comments on our draft status review report and
proposal to list this species.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 6, 2023.
Public hearing requests must be made by May 22, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0110, by the following method:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0110 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
The petition, status review report, Federal Register notices, and
the list of references can be accessed electronically online at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/atlantic-humpback-dolphin#conservation-management.
[[Page 20830]]
The peer review report is available online at: https://www.noaa.gov/information-technology/endangered-species-act-status-review-report-atlantic-humpback-dolphin-sousa-teuszii-id447.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Austin, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, 301-427-8422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 8, 2021, we received a petition from the Animal
Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and VIVA
Vaquita to list the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszii) as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The petition asserted
that the Atlantic humpback dolphin is threatened by four of the ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the present destruction or modification of
its habitat; (2) overutilization for commercial purposes; (3)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
On December 2, 2021, we published a 90-day finding for the Atlantic
humpback dolphin with our determination that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (86 FR 68452). We also announced the
initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's
decision on whether this species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened under the ESA. We received information from the public in
response to the 90-day finding and incorporated the information into
both the draft status review report (Austin 2023) and this proposed
rule.
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this
determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms
constitutes a ``species,'' which is defined in section 3 of the ESA to
include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). On
February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS;
together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a
distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic species (``DPS
Policy,'' 61 FR 4722). The joint DPS Policy identifies two elements
that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of
the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to
which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to
the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and a threatened species as one which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), 16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Thus, we interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that
is presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the
other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to
become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In
other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of
extinction, either presently (endangered) or not presently but within
the foreseeable future (threatened).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we must determine whether any
species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a
combination of any of the following factors: (A) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are also
required to make listing determinations based solely on the best
scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of
the species' status and after taking into account efforts, if any,
being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to
protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).
Status Review
To determine whether the Atlantic humpback dolphin warrants listing
under the ESA, we completed a draft status review report, which
summarizes information on the species' taxonomy, distribution,
abundance, life history, ecology, and biology; identifies threats or
stressors affecting the status of the species; and assesses the
species' current and future extinction risk. We appointed a biologist
in the Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Conservation
Division to compile and complete a scientific review of the best
available information on the Atlantic humpback dolphin, including
information received in response to our request for information (86 FR
68452, December 2, 2021). Next, we conducted an Extinction Risk
Analysis (ERA) to assess the threats affecting the Atlantic humpback
dolphin, as well as demographic risk factors (abundance, productivity,
spatial distribution, and diversity), using the information in the
scientific review. The draft status review report presents our
professional judgment of the extinction risk facing the Atlantic
humpback dolphin but makes no recommendation as to the listing status
of the species. The draft status review report (Austin 2023) is
available electronically (see ADDRESSES). Information from the draft
status review report is summarized below in the Biological Review
section, and the results of the ERA from the draft status review report
are discussed below.
The draft status review report was subject to independent peer
review pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16,
2004). The draft status review report was peer reviewed by four
independent scientists selected from the academic and scientific
community with expertise in cetacean biology, conservation, and
management, and specific knowledge of Atlantic humpback dolphins. The
peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness,
and application of data used in the draft status review report, as well
as the findings made in the ``Extinction Risk Analysis'' section of the
report. All peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to finalizing
the draft status review report.
We subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited
references, and peer review comments, and conclude the status review
report, upon which this proposed rule is based, provides the best
available scientific and commercial information on the Atlantic
humpback dolphin. Much of the information discussed below on the
species' biology, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk
is attributable to the status review report. We have applied the
statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors
set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our regulations regarding listing
determinations,\1\ and relevant policies
[[Page 20831]]
identified herein in making the listing determination. In the sections
below, we provide information from the report regarding threats to and
the status of the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order vacating the ESA section 4
implementing regulations that were revised or added to 50 CFR part
424 in 2019 (``2019 regulations,'' see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019)
without making a finding on the merits. On September 21, 2022, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay
of the district court's July 5 order. As a result, the 2019
regulations are once again in effect, and we are applying the 2019
regulations here. For purposes of this determination, we considered
whether the analysis or its conclusions would be any different under
the pre-2019 regulations. We have determined that our analysis and
conclusions presented here would not be any different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Review
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Atlantic humpback dolphin, S. teuszii, belongs to the family
Delphinidae in the order Artiodactyla, and is one of four currently
recognized species of humpback dolphins in the genus Sousa: S. plumbea
(Indian Ocean humpback dolphin), S. chinensis (Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphin), and S. sahulensis (Australian humpback dolphin) (Jefferson
and Van Waerebeek 2004; Mendez et al. 2013; Jefferson and Rosenbaum
2014). Available data indicate that there is genetic and morphological
differentiation between S. teuszii and other species of humpback
dolphins (Mendez et al. 2013). Additionally, a comprehensive study of
Sousa cranial morphometrics conducted by Jefferson and Van Waerebeek
(2004), found that S. teuszii have significantly shorter rostra, wider
skulls, and lower tooth counts when compared with 222 Southeast
African, Arabian/Persian Gulf, and Indian Sousa specimens (Jefferson
and Van Waerebeek 2004; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023).
The Atlantic humpback dolphin does not share mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) haplotypes with other species in the genus Sousa. A
phylogenetic assessment of combined nuclear and mtDNA datasets
indicates that S. teuszii is most closely related to the Indian Ocean
humpback dolphin (S. plumbea) from Southeast Africa (Mendez et al.
2013). The most plausible mechanism for their isolation is the Benguela
upwelling system, an area dominated by cold upwelling that is located
within the ~2,000 kilometer (km) distribution gap between S. teuszii
and S. plumbea (Jefferson and Van Waerebeek 2004; Mendez et al. 2013;
Collins 2015). The complete mitochondrial genome of S. teuszii was
recently mapped by McGowen et al. (2020), and was found to be 98.1
percent similar to its closest relative with a sequenced mitogenome,
the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (S. chinensis).
The Atlantic humpback dolphin holotype (a skull) was discovered in
1892 in ``Bucht des Kameruner Kriegsshiffhafens,'' (``Bay of Warships''
or ``Man O'War Bay''), in Cameroon by the German agronomist Eduard
T[euml]usz (Collins et al. 2017). The holotype was sent to Germany,
where it was examined and first described by the German zoologist Dr.
Willy K[uuml]kenthal, who based his description primarily on
differences in the skull compared to other humpback dolphins known at
the time (K[uuml]kenthal 1891; Collins 2015). The species was
originally placed in the genus Sotalia; the genus named Sousa came into
general use in the 1960s (K[uuml]kenthal 1891; Van Waerebeek et al.
2004; Collins 2015).
In terms of distinctive physical characteristics, the Atlantic
humpback dolphin is characterized by a prominent dorsal hump, ranging
from about 26-32 percent of body length, giving the species its common
name (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023). A small dorsal fin
with a rounded tip is situated at the top of the hump (Jefferson and
Rosenbaum 2014; Austin 2023). The species has a well-defined long and
slender beak; the lower jaw is paler gray in coloration than the upper
jaw (Austin 2023). Individuals are generally uniform dark gray in color
with a lighter ventral surface and broad flippers, with a straight
trailing edge and rounded tips (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Austin
2023). Some larger adults are known to have a white margin to the
dorsal hump and fin, apparently caused by scarring, and there may be
some white or dark oval flecking on the tail stock (Austin 2023).
Atlantic humpback dolphins reach maximum body lengths of approximately
2.8 meters (m) (Austin 2023). While sexual dimorphism has not been
studied in detail (largely due to small sample sizes of specimens), it
is suspected that adult males are larger, heavier, and have a more
pronounced dorsal hump, than females. The hump and dorsal fin of some
larger adults may be bordered by white pigmentation (Jefferson and Van
Waerebeek 2004; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014).
Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use
The Atlantic humpback dolphin is considered an obligate shallow
water dolphin that is endemic to the tropical and subtropical eastern
Atlantic nearshore waters (<30 m) of the west coast of Africa, ranging
discontinuously for approximately 7,000 km from Dakhla Bay (Rio de Oro)
in Western Sahara (23[deg]52' N, 15[deg]47' W) to T[ocirc]mbwa (Namibe
Province) in Angola (15[deg]46' S, 11[deg]46' E) (International Whaling
Commission 2011; Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; International
Whaling Commission 2017; International Whaling Commission 2020b; Austin
2023).
This species is the only member of the genus that occurs outside of
the Indo-Pacific region (Mendez et al. 2013; Jefferson and Rosenbaum
2014; Collins 2015). Although each of the 19 countries between (and
including) Western Sahara and Angola are presumed to be part of the
species' natural range, the current distribution is uncertain due to
incomplete research coverage, including an absence of survey effort in
many areas. Currently, there are confirmed records of occurrence
(confirmed via sightings, strandings, and bycatch data) in the
following 13 countries: Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, The
Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon,
Republic of the Congo, and Angola (Ayissi et al. 2014; Weir and Collins
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; CCAHD 2020; Bamy et al. 2021, Austin
2023). The six countries with no confirmed records (Sierra Leone,
Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana, mainland Equatorial Guinea, and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo) have received little or no
systematic cetacean or coastal research (Collins 2015; Collins et al.
2017, Austin 2023). It remains uncertain whether the absence or
scarcity of records in many countries is due to lack of observation
effort and reporting, scarcity of the species, or a discontinuous
distribution (caused by suboptimal habitat and/or local extirpation)
(Weir et al. 2021, Austin 2023). Additionally, the species is not known
to occur around any of the larger offshore islands of the Gulf of
Guinea, including Sao Tome and Principe or Bioko (Fernando P[oacute]o)
and Annabon (Pagalu) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004).
Eleven putative ``management stocks'' (i.e., subpopulations) of S.
teuszii were identified by Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) based on
localities or countries where the species has been recorded and
evidence of gaps in the species' range (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004;
Austin 2023). These management stocks are meant to serve practical
management purposes amongst range countries until intraspecific genetic
variation data become available (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). However,
Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) proposed that the currently recognized
management stocks of Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago
(Guinea-Bissau) and South Guinea be combined into a single
[[Page 20832]]
``Guineas'' stock due to multiple records reported from the Tristao
Islands and the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary (Weir 2015) in northern
Guinea.
Throughout its range, the Atlantic humpback dolphin predominantly
occurs shoreward of the 20 m depth isobaths, and often in the
shallowest (<=5 m depth) part of that range, in nearshore waters
(average sea surface temperatures ranging from 15.8[deg] to 31.8[deg]
Celsius), and in a diverse array of dynamic habitats strongly
influenced by tidal patterns (e.g., sandbanks, deltas, estuaries, and
mangrove systems) (Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; Taylor et al.
2020). In this context, ``nearshore'' is defined as areas in which the
sea floor is affected by wave motion, resulting in dynamic, tide-
influenced, habitats (Weir 2015; Weir and Collins 2015). Documented
habitats include: large estuarine systems (including mangrove channels,
upstream waters with tidal influence, and the estuary-influenced waters
further offshore); exposed marine coasts (often within, or just beyond,
the surf zone); coastal archipelagos; tidal mud-flats, sandbanks and
seagrass expanses; and large, sheltered enclosed shallow bays (Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015; Austin
2023).
Even though recorded sightings are typically coastal, the species
may also occur up to at least 13 km from shore when suitable shallow
habitat is present (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir and Collins 2015).
It has been recorded some distance upriver but there is no evidence
that it travels beyond the influence of marine waters, and is not known
to enter the coastal lagoons that are a prevalent feature of equatorial
Atlantic African coasts (Maigret 1980a; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir
and Collins 2015).
Areas of known occurrence of S. teuszii may reflect availability of
suitable shallow habitat for the species. The Dakhla Bay, Banc
d'Arguin, and Saloum-Niumi stocks are separated from each other by
distances exceeding 350 km, and few observations have been recorded
between them despite fieldwork over several decades (Collins 2015).
This suggests that these stocks may currently be reproductively
isolated from each other and from more southern stocks, and that the
distribution of S. teuszii may be naturally discontinuous in some
areas, with highest densities in optimal habitats and reduced
occurrence on intervening coasts (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). However, Collins (2015) notes that
gaps in the species' range may be a relatively recent phenomenon, due
to increased human pressures in once pristine regions (Van Waerebeek
and Perrin 2007; Weir et al. 2011). Available data demonstrate that
even where dedicated cetacean surveys are conducted, sightings in most
areas of known occurrence can be low, and a general absence of records
from gap areas may indicate occurrence in extremely low densities
rather than absence. For instance, in southern Gabon, where S. teuszii
occurs in the surf zone on open coastlines, boat-based survey work
demonstrates that sightings rates can be very low, even with dedicated
effort (Collins 2015; Austin 2023).
Atlantic humpback dolphin migrations and movements are poorly
understood largely because the necessary work (e.g., comparison of
identification catalogues, genetic sampling and tagging) has not been
conducted (Collins et al. 2017). Because Atlantic humpback dolphins
feed primarily on coastal, estuarine, and reef-associated fishes,
localized movements have been linked to feeding opportunities
facilitated by tides (Busnel 1973; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017).
Movements on larger scales have never been documented, but have been
inferred using local accounts and sightings from fishers, suggesting
movement north of the Banc d'Arguin (Maigret 1980a) and sightings
between Nouamghar and Nouakchott (Mauritania) may indicate occasional
movements south (Robineau and Vely 1998). More recent observations of
S. teuszii groups passing between Barra and Buniada Points, indicate
routine movement between Senegal and Gambia (Collins 2015).
Additionally, swim speeds of 1-7 km/hour (hr) (mean of 4 km/hr) were
recorded during travel along a linear coastline in Angola, indicating
that Atlantic humpback dolphins might be capable of undertaking
considerable spatial movements with the potential for relatively large
home ranges (Weir 2009). Records suggest transboundary movements
between some range countries, such as between Saloum-Niumi (Senegal-The
Gambia) and Bijagos (Guinea-Bissau) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins
2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017). Sightings in the Rio
Nu[ntilde]ez region suggest this connectivity extends into Guinea (Weir
and Collins 2015). Additionally, beach-based observations indicate
routine movements of S. teuszii across the Gabon/Republic of the Congo
border within the Mayumba-Conkouati transboundary protected area;
however, it remains unclear if these individuals range farther afield
(Collins 2015).
Diet and Feeding
Information on the Atlantic humpback dolphin's diet and feeding
ecology is limited, as few stomach samples have been examined and
direct observations of feeding are rare (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004;
Collins 2015). Additionally, there have not been any targeted studies
of its diet or interactions with prey species. However, based on
stomach contents of bycaught S. teuszii specimens and direct
observations of feeding, it is thought that S. teuszii diet consists
predominantly of coastal, estuarine, and reef-associated fish (Cadenat
and Paraiso 1957; Cadenat 1959; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009;
Austin 2023).
There are few accounts of observed Atlantic humpback dolphin
predation. In Mauritania, a single Atlantic humpback dolphin was
observed twice among bottlenose dolphin pods (Tursiops truncatus)
fishing for mullet (Mugil cephalus and Liza aurata) (Busnel 1973;
Collins et al. 2017). Additionally, S. teuszii have been observed
chasing mullet in channels between the Tidra and Nair islets (Banc
d'Arguin) (Duguy 1976) and feeding on the South African mullet (Liza
richardsonii) and Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) off the coast of the
Flamingos area of Angola (Weir 2009).
Foraging has been linked to rising (flood) tides (Van Waerebeek et
al. 2004; Weir 2009). In the Saloum Delta, tides were thought to
provide access to inner reaches of mangrove channels and mangrove edges
(Maigret 1980a; Collins 2015). Daily movements of individual Atlantic
humpback dolphins into channels inshore were coupled with flood tides
in Banc d'Arguin (Maigret 1980a), and (Duguy 1976) reported S. teuszii
at the Banc d'Arguin chasing mullet in the channels between the Tidra
and Nair islets. In other areas, feeding activity also coincides with
observations of larger group sizes (e.g., 20-40 individuals) (Maigret
1980a; Collins et al. 2004; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004).
Atlantic humpback dolphins observed off the coast of the Flamingos
area of Angola have been observed spending approximately half of the
daylight hours engaged in travel and foraging activities and were
observed foraging preferentially around rocks and reefs, as well as at
the mouths of rivers, including the typically dry Flamingo River (Weir
2009). Off the coast of Guinea, limited observations suggest that S.
teuszii individuals observed in
[[Page 20833]]
the shallow waters west of the [Icirc]le de Ta[iuml]di spent relatively
more time foraging than those individuals in deeper waters of the outer
R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez estuary (Weir 2015).
Reproduction and Growth
Data and information regarding life history and reproductive
parameters are almost nonexistent for this species. An estimated
generation length of 18.4 years is given for the Atlantic humpback
dolphin by Taylor et al. (2007), although Moore (2015) provided a
figure closer to 25 years for the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (S.
chinensis) and Indian Ocean humpback dolphin (S. plumbea) (Collins
2015; Collins et al. 2017). Available data for other species in the
genus can be used to infer that S. teuszii likely has a low
reproductive rate and low intrinsic potential for population increase
(Taylor et al. 2007; Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014; Moore 2015).
In the Saloum Delta (Senegal), births are thought to occur in March
and April, based upon observations of juveniles (Maigret 1980b; Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015). This pattern was also suggested
for Guinea Bissau (Collins 2015). No neonates have been examined, but
lengths at birth may be similar to the 100 cm cited for S. plumbea from
South Africa (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). The species is suspected to
be sexually dimorphic (males larger at maturity and with a more
prominent dorsal hump (Austin 2023)), but the sample size of carcasses
used to formally assess this trait (~20 individuals) is too small to
assess this statistically (Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014). The data
required to estimate other S. teuszii vital rates remain unavailable.
Social Behavior
Atlantic humpback dolphins have a surfacing behavior that usually
comprises calm rolls, during which the beak is often lifted above the
water and the body is arched, accentuating its characteristic hump.
Overall, the species is naturally unobtrusive, preferring to maintain a
distance from boats and engines; however, individuals have been
observed occasionally leaping, breaching, spyhopping and tail-slapping
(Weir 2015; Austin 2023). Traveling and foraging are the dominant
behaviors reported during targeted focal follows of Atlantic humpback
dolphins (Weir 2009; Weir 2015; Weir 2016).
Atlantic humpback dolphins typically travel in small groups; 65
percent of reviewed sightings comprised 10 or fewer animals, although
larger groups of up to 45 individuals have been reported (Weir and
Collins 2015). Mixed-species associations between Atlantic humpback
dolphins and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have been
observed in Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon,
the Republic of the Congo, and Angola (Weir 2009; Weir 2011; Leeney et
al. 2016).
Population Structure and Genetics
No analyses of Atlantic humpback dolphin population structure have
been conducted. Thus, the only information currently available comes
from known distribution records and evidence of range gaps, which was
the approach initially used by Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) to identify
Atlantic humpback dolphin management stocks (see Range, Distribution,
and Habitat Use and Austin 2023). Additionally, while the complete
mitochondrial genome of S. teuszii has been mapped by McGowen et al.
(2020), genetic data have been collected for only a few individuals
(Mendez et al. 2013; Austin 2023). As a result, estimates of genetic
diversity across and within populations are currently not available for
this species.
Population Abundance and Trends
Atlantic humpback dolphin abundance data are limited and robust
abundance estimates are lacking for most putative stocks. However, the
available information for the eleven recognized management stocks
suggests stocks range from the tens to low hundreds of individuals
(Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023).
Atlantic humpback dolphin populations at the northern (Dakhla Bay,
Western Sahara) and southern (Namibe, Angola) extremes of the range
appear to be very small (Weir 2009; Collins 2015; Austin 2023).
Observations by Beaubrun (1990) described this stock as ``miniscule'',
and additional sightings in the same area between January 20 and
February 14, 1996, by Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. (1998) reported
only 4 sightings with a mean group size of 6.9 individuals.
Furthermore, Van Waerebeek et al. (2004) noted that the Dakhla Bay
stock is likely limited to a few tens of individuals.
The Banc d'Arguin and Saloum-Niumu stocks have been estimated
repeatedly at ~100 animals since the mid-1970s (Maigret 1980a; Van
Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). Incidental sightings
from the southern Banc d'Arguin suggest that the species is sighted
relatively frequently (Collins 2015). However, this stock has never
been considered large by those who have completed assessments (Maigret
1980a, b; Robineau and Vely 1998). For the Saloum-Niumi stock,
encounter rates and group sizes recorded during surveys since 1997
indicate a small population ``unlikely [to] exceed low hundreds, and
may be less'' (Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004;
Austin 2023). However, between October and November 2015, a systematic
survey conducted by Weir (2016) in the Saloum Delta of Senegal produced
a minimum population size estimate of 103 animals, which is the highest
population estimation recorded for S. teuszii within the species' range
(Austin 2023).
Data and sightings records for the Canal do G[ecirc]ba-
Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago stock within Guinea-Bissau suggest the
continued occurrence of a population of S. teuszii into at least the
late 1990s (Spaans 1990; Jefferson et al. 1997; Van Waerebeek et al.
2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004). A more recent review of sightings
records indicates that S. teuszii is still relatively widely
distributed in the Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago stock
within Guinea-Bissau (Leeney et al. 2016), but sightings appear to be
declining in regularity (Collins 2015). Within the Guinea stock, six S.
teuszii sightings were recorded by Weir (2015) during 817.6 kms of
boat-based survey effort in the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary. Photo-
identification resulting from this survey resulted in a minimum
population estimate of 47 individuals (Weir 2015; Austin 2023).
Recently, observations of S. teuszii in Togolese waters were
recorded for the first time by Van Waerebeek et al. (2017), providing
evidence confirming Togo as a newly documented range country. Van
Waerebeek et al. (2017) described five sightings recorded from shore in
Togo between 2008 and 2015. However, small group sizes suggest that the
species is not very abundant in Togolese waters (Van Waerebeek et al.
2017; Austin 2023).
In Benin, a single small group (n=4) of Atlantic humpback dolphins
was sighted and photographed west of Cotonou, Benin, making it the
first S. teuszii record for the Benin stock (Zwart and Weir 2014;
Austin 2023). Additionally, Collins (2015) noted that 27 individuals
were also observed in Beninese waters. In Nigeria, two dolphins killed
in artisanal gillnets off Brass Island in 2011 and 2012 were the first
authenticated records of S. teuszii for this range country. Recently,
however, five additional S. teuszii sightings have been documented
between 2017 and 2021 off the coast of western Nigeria near Lagos
(Austin 2023).
Surveys of the Cameroon Estuary stock between May and June 2011,
[[Page 20834]]
yielded a single S. teuszii sighting on May 17, 2011, despite extensive
beach and boat-based survey effort (Ayissi et al. 2014). Additionally,
in May 2011, a recorded encounter rate of 0.386 sightings per 100 km
(or 3.86 individuals per 100 km) suggests that abundance there may be
very low (Ayissi et al. 2014; Austin 2023). Boat-based surveys,
conducted in Gabon within the Gabon Estuary stock, between 2003 and
2006 yielded five sightings (Collins et al. 2010; Collins 2015). Boat
surveys conducted off the coast of Gamba region of Gabon between 2013
and 2015, documented S. teuszii in Gabonese waters during the survey's
first year in 2013 (Minton et al. 2017; Austin 2023). However,
sightings rates during shore-based work in 2012 in the Republic of the
Congo within the Congo stock were much higher (though not directly
comparable), and suggest that the coasts of southern Gabon and a
limited area in the adjacent Republic of the Congo may harbor a total
population in the low hundreds (Collins 2013; Collins 2015; Austin
2023). While most of the Angolan coast is unsurveyed, intensive survey
effort in 2008 along a 35 km stretch of coastline off Angola found a
small group of 10 resident individuals in the Flamingos area (Weir
2009; Austin 2023).
It is important to note that, while photo-identification work has
yielded minimum estimates of the number of Atlantic humpback dolphins
in a number of the study areas discussed above (i.e., Saloum Delta
region of Senegal, R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary of Guinea, and the
Flamingos area of Angola), each of these studies had limited temporal
and spatial extents, and (with the possible exception of the Angola
study conducted by Weir (2009)) are unlikely to have photographed all
S. teuszii individuals using those areas. Additionally, while encounter
rates are available for a number of other studies noted above, they are
not directly comparable due to differing sampling methodologies (e.g.,
platforms, extent of study area, and seasons).
Overall, the best available scientific and commercial information
indicates that the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a small total
population size (Austin 2023). Comprehensive reviews conducted by
Collins (2015) and Collins et al. (2017) conclude that the species
probably includes fewer than 3,000 individuals (Collins 2015; Collins
et al. 2017; Austin 2023). If it is assumed that 50 percent of these
are mature individuals, then the number of mature individuals in the
total population would be no more than 1,500 (Taylor et al. 2007;
Collins et al. 2017; Brownell et al. 2019; Austin 2023).
Apart from the systematic surveys in Angola, Republic of the Congo,
Gabon, Cameroon, Senegal, and Guinea, no quantitative assessments of
population abundance exist in other range countries, thus precluding
any quantitative assessments of trend for this species across its
range. However, based on available evidence, and a review of published
estimates of abundance in each range country, the best available data
and information indicates that most S. teuszii stocks are small and
that some stocks (i.e., Canal do G[ecirc]ba-Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago
stock) may be experiencing population declines (Collins 2015; Collins
et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Limited research effort for each putative S.
teuszii management stock has either identified significant mortality or
yielded strong evidence to infer it (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins
2015; Collins et al. 2017). According to Van Waerebeek et al. (2003),
Van Waerebeek et al. (2004), Weir (2009), Collins (2015), Weir (2015),
Collins et al. (2017), and Van Waerebeek et al. (2017), artisanal
fishing bycatch and directed takes are the principal causes of these
declines, although habitat loss is also likely a contributing factor as
well (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023).
Extinction Risk Analysis
In evaluating the level of risk faced by a species and determining
whether the species is threatened or endangered, we must consider all
relevant data and base our conclusions on the best scientific and
commercial data available. In evaluating and interpreting the best
scientific and commercial data available, we also apply professional
judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in
determining whether the species is threatened or endangered. We
evaluate both the viability of the species based on its demographic
characteristics (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial
distribution/connectivity, and genetic diversity; see McElhany et al.
(2000)), and the threats to the species as specified in ESA section
4(a)(1)(A)-(E) (summarized in a separate Threats Assessment section
below).
For purposes of assessing the extinction risk for the Atlantic
humpback dolphin, we reviewed the best available information on the
species and evaluated the overall risk of extinction facing the
Atlantic humpback dolphin, now and in the foreseeable future. The term
``foreseeable future'' was discussed qualitatively in the status review
report (Austin 2023) and defined as the period of time over which we
can reasonably determine that both the specific threats facing the
species and the species' response to those threats are likely. We note
however, that the term foreseeable future is not limited to a period
that a species' status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted
within predetermined limits of statistical confidence. The foreseeable
future also need not be identified as a specific period of time and may
vary depending on the particular threat. See generally 50 CFR
424.11(d).
In considering an appropriate foreseeable future for this
extinction risk analysis, we took into account the best available
information regarding both the life history of the Atlantic humpback
dolphin and threats to the species. Due to uncertainty regarding the
species' life history parameters, we do not define a quantitative time
frame for the foreseeable future in the risk assessment sections below.
Thus, foreseeable future is stated qualitatively, in terms of the
projected trend of each threat.
Demographic Risk Assessment
In our status review, data and information about demographic risks
to the Atlantic humpback dolphin were considered according to four
categories--abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and genetic diversity. Each of these demographic threat
categories was then rated according to the following qualitative scale:
Unknown: The current level of information is either unavailable or
unknown for this particular factor, such that the contribution of this
factor to the species' risk of extinction cannot be determined.
Low risk: It is unlikely that the particular factor directly
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of
extinction.
Moderate risk: It is likely that the particular factor directly
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of
extinction.
High risk: It is highly likely that the particular factor directly
contributes or will contribute significantly to the species' risk of
extinction.
(Note: the term ``significantly'' is used here as it is commonly
understood--i.e., in a sufficiently great or important way as to be
worthy of attention.)
In the sections below, we present information from Austin (2023) to
summarize the demographic risks facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
Abundance
There are no historical abundance estimates for the Atlantic
humpback
[[Page 20835]]
dolphin. While historical and robust range-wide abundance estimates are
lacking, and there are no robust estimates available for most of the
recognized management stocks, the available information suggests stocks
range from the tens to low hundreds of individuals (Austin 2023). Most
stocks for which data are available are extremely small and several
appear to be isolated and at risk of local extirpation (e.g., Dakhla
Bay, Banc d'Arguin, and Angola) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009; Weir et al. 2011; Collins 2015; Van
Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Considering the relatively small
numbers observed, and taking into account the many areas of the
species' range where there has been little or no assessment, available
published estimates suggest that the species' total abundance consists
of no more than 3,000 individuals (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017),
and indicate that the number of mature individuals is likely less than
1,500 (following Taylor et al. 2007). Additionally, declines in
abundance have been observed or are suspected, and continued declines
are expected due to the ongoing and projected expansion of identified
threats throughout the species' range (Austin 2023). Bycatch in
fisheries, which is considered the main cause of these declines, has
not ceased and may be increasing as new fishing areas are targeted and
fishery pressures increase, thus placing additional pressure on already
low and declining Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks.
With fewer than 3,000 individuals likely remaining and available
information indicating that the species consists of small, fragmented
stocks (with some stocks numbering in the tens of individuals), coupled
by observed or suspected declines throughout the species' range, single
mortality events could impact some of the smaller stocks' continued
viability. Furthermore, the species' low abundance and fragmented and
narrow distribution greatly increases the impact of anthropogenic
perturbations (e.g., coastal development and anthropogenic underwater
noise) on the species as a whole, and decreases the species' resilience
to environmental change (e.g., climate change) (Davidson et al. 2012;
Collins 2015; Weir et al. 2021; Austin 2023). Overall, the available
information indicates that the Atlantic humpback dolphin's low
abundance poses a high risk (Austin 2023).
Growth Rate and Productivity
Although information on Atlantic humpback dolphin reproduction is
almost completely absent, some data regarding reproductive parameters
for other species in the genus, (e.g., S. chinensis and S. plumbea),
are available. For example, S. chinensis has an annual estimated birth
rate of 0.053 0.025, with an annual recruitment rate of
0.028 0.024, and a calf rate of survival to the age of 1
year of 0.600 0.392, with females experiencing a long
inter-birth interval (4.27 1.06 y) (Zeng et al. 2021). S.
plumbea has a reported ovulation rate of 0.2 with a 5-year calving
interval (Plon et al. 2015). This can be used to infer that S. teuszii
likely has a low reproductive rate as well. S. teuszii's likely low
reproductive rate coupled with a population growth rate (r) of 0.00,
calculated by Taylor et al. (2007), indicates a low intrinsic potential
for population increase (Taylor et al. 2007; Jefferson and Rosenbaum
2014; Collins 2015; Moore 2015). However, it should be noted that the
calculation by Taylor et al. (2007) was based on several reproductive
parameters that are lacking for this species. Thus, this calculation
may not be indicative of the actual population growth rate for this
species (due to data deficiencies) (Austin 2023). Nevertheless, taking
into consideration the information available for closely related
species, a long estimated generation length of about 18 years (Taylor
et al. 2007), as well as ongoing and projected increases of identified
range-wide threats, this species is likely experiencing a low
population growth rate.
Because Atlantic humpback dolphins are thought to consist of small,
fragmented stocks, any mortality over and above natural rates is likely
to lead to appreciable declines in abundance (Pimm et al. 1988). Moore
(2015) estimated that, given an inferred generation time of 25 years
(as estimated for S. chinensis and S. plumbea), an average annual adult
mortality rate of approximately 4 percent across the species' range
would lead to a 50 percent decline over 75 years (i.e., three
generations) (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). The International
Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) assessment for this species
uses Moore's estimate and further notes that a slightly higher adult
mortality rate of 5.3 percent per year (equal to one or two additional
deaths per year per 100 mature individuals) would lead to an 80 percent
decline over 75 years (i.e., three generations) (Moore 2015; Collins et
al. 2017). Data for some areas (e.g., The Republic of the Congo)
indicate that human-caused mortality (particularly via bycatch) is
high, and when those data are considered alongside the scale of other
anthropogenic pressures (e.g., coastal development), a population
decline of 50 percent over three generations is highly likely (Moore
2015; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023). While the actual rate of
decline is unknown, the available abundance and bycatch data (see
Population Abundance and Trends and Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes) suggest the species
is declining throughout its range, and there is no information to
suggest such a trend would likely reverse. Additionally, given the
available information and likely low population growth rate (see Growth
Rate and Productivity), it is likely that the low population growth
rate poses a moderate risk to the species (Austin 2023).
Spatial Structure and Connectivity
The Atlantic humpback dolphin has a restricted range and fragmented
distribution, being a shallow water dolphin endemic to (sub)tropical
nearshore waters along the Atlantic coast of Africa, ranging
discontinuously for approximately 7,000 km from Western Sahara in the
north to Angola in the south (Collins 2015; Weir and Collins 2015;
Collins et al. 2017). Within that range, the species' habitat
preferences appear to limit it to habitats shoreward of the 20 m depth
isobaths (Weir and Collins 2015; Weir et al. 2021), and thus they are
often in the immediate vicinity of the coast. Use of nearshore habitat
increases the species' vulnerability to incidental capture (i.e.,
bycatch) in non-selective fishing gears and to habitat-related threats
from human activities (i.e., coastal development). Additionally, the
species' fragmented distribution makes stocks more vulnerable to local
extirpation.
Direct data on connectivity among Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks
are sparse. Although the mitogenome of S. teuszii (n = 1) has been
sequenced, genetic data to assess population structure and connectivity
are not available. Thus, the genetic connectivity across and within
stocks cannot be directly assessed. However, work investigating the
genetic substructure for the Indian Ocean humpback dolphin, S. plumbea
(the species that is geographically and morphologically most similar to
S. teuszii), indicated appreciable genetic divergence between
populations in neighboring regions, and finer scale comparisons have
found less diversity among neighboring populations and low overall
mtDNA diversity (Mendez et al. 2011; Lampert
[[Page 20836]]
et al. 2021). This suggests that similar structuring is possible within
S. teuszii (Collins 2015; Austin 2023).
Research suggests that individuals occur in a series of localized
communities with little interchange identified between them (Maigret
1980a; Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2009;
Collins 2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017; Austin 2023). Movements
on larger scales are rarely documented, but have been inferred (Collins
2015; Austin 2023). While records suggest transboundary movements
between some range countries, such as between Saloum-Niumi (Senegal-The
Gambia), Bijagos (Guinea-Bissau), and across the Gabon/Congo border, it
remains unclear if these individuals range farther afield (Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Weir 2016; Collins et al. 2017).
The threat of habitat loss due to coastal development projects (i.e.,
port development), is widespread and increasing, and frequently
overlaps with the species' preferred habitat (Collins 2015; Austin
2023). Habitat loss due to ongoing and expanding coastal development
projects could also cause additional fragmentation of stocks, thus
increasing the risk of extirpation of stocks in the near future.
Overall, based on the Atlantic humpback dolphin's restricted range
and fragmented distribution, coupled with evidence for the species'
tendency for localized residency, connectivity of S. teuszii is likely
limited. Limited exchange between stocks would reduce the recovery
potential for resident stocks that have experienced severe declines.
Thus, given the available information, we conclude that this
demographic factor poses a moderate risk to the species. However,
additional research on this topic is needed for the Atlantic humpback
dolphin to further elucidate this species' population structure and
genetic diversity (Austin 2023).
Genetic Diversity
As discussed in Austin 2023 and in the above section (see Spatial
Structure and Connectivity), data do not exist to address the genetic
diversity of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. Additionally, most of the
genetic data that have been collected to date for this species were
generated to investigate the overall phylogenetic relationships within
the Sousa genus, and no study has examined S. teuszii population
structure or genetic diversity (CCAHD 2020; Austin 2023). Thus, it is
unclear how much genetic diversity exists within the species as a
whole, whether it occurs as genetically-distinct populations (with
limited inter-population breeding, due to geographic isolation), or if
any connectivity in gene flow exists between those populations (either
at present, or in the past) (CCAHD 2020; Weir et al. 2021).
Consequently, without any genetic analyses to determine diversity or
effective population size for S. teuszii, it is unknown at this time
whether this demographic factor is a threat contributing to the
species' risk of extinction (Austin 2023).
Summary and Analysis of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting the Atlantic
Humpback Dolphin
As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any
one or a combination of the following factors: the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting
its continued existence. We evaluated whether and the extent to which
each of the foregoing factors contributes to the overall extinction
risk of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. In short, we found that the best
scientific and commercial data available indicate that overutilization
of the species (e.g., fisheries bycatch) and the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or
range (e.g., coastal development) contribute significantly to the
species' risk of extinction. We also determined that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to address these threats is also
contributing significantly to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's
extinction risk. We determined that the other factors, including
disease and predation, and other natural or manmade factors affecting
the species' continued existence, are not contributing significantly to
the species' risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. See
Austin (2023) for additional discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1)
threat categories. Additional information regarding each of these
threats is summarized below according to the factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
We assessed three potential threats that fall under the factor
category, present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. These threats include coastal
development, contaminants and pollutants, and climate change. Among
these threats, coastal development was the only threat which poses a
high risk (Austin 2023). We discuss this threat in detail below. We
also considered the potential effects of contaminants and pollutants on
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's habitat as well as potential habitat-
related impacts stemming from climate change, such as food
availability. However, due to the paucity of data, the degree to which
these threats contribute to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's extinction
risk, now or in the foreseeable future, is unknown (Austin 2023).
Additional information on the other threats (i.e., contaminants and
pollutants and climate change) can be found in the draft status review
report (Austin 2023).
As previously discussed in the Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use
section of this proposed rule, the Atlantic humpback dolphin is
considered an obligate coastal and shallow water nearshore species
preferring dynamic habitats strongly influenced by tidal patterns
(International Whaling Commission 2011; 2017; Taylor et al. 2020;
Austin 2023). Additionally, the species has a restricted geographic
range, being endemic to the tropical and subtropical nearshore waters
along the Atlantic African coast from Western Sahara in the north to
the southern region of Angola (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015;
Weir and Collins 2015). Within that range, the species' habitat
preferences restrict it to a relatively narrow ecological niche (Austin
2023). Thus, the nearshore habitat requirements increase the
vulnerability of Atlantic humpback dolphins to a range of human
activities and anthropogenic disturbances (Collins et al. 2017).
The destruction, deterioration, or fragmentation of the nearshore
habitats relied upon by Atlantic humpback dolphins is likely to be a
range-wide issue (Li 2020; Weir et al. 2021). A variety of
anthropogenic activities may adversely impact the capacity of nearshore
habitats to support the dolphins, including direct habitat loss to
coastal development projects (e.g., construction and expansion of
ports, liquefied natural gas plants, and mining), damage to benthic
[[Page 20837]]
environments from trawling and dredging, alterations to water flow and
quality from upstream activities such as deforestation and damming,
reduction of available prey due to destruction of mangroves, and marine
pollution originating from terrestrial, atmospheric, and shipping
sources (International Whaling Commission 2011, 2017; PWC 2018;
International Whaling Commission 2020a, b; Li 2020; Weir et al. 2021).
The latter potentially includes runoff of agricultural contaminants,
discarding of mining aggregates and other industrial wastes, oil
spills, and lack of adequate waste disposal for sewage (introducing
bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens into the Atlantic humpback
dolphins' habitat).
As noted above, habitat loss can result from a variety of coastal
development activities within the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range.
Increasing coastal development is a potential concern within the
eastern tropical Atlantic (ETA), a biogeographic realm that extends
from Mauritania to southern Angola, overlapping with much of this
species' range (Weir and Pierce 2013). Approximately 40 percent of the
human population inhabiting the ETA region is concentrated in coastal
areas (Ukwe 2003; Ukwe and Ibe 2010). For example, 42 percent of
Ghana's population lives within 100 km off the coast, while 20 percent
of Nigeria's population lives in large coastal cities (Ukwe and Ibe
2010; Weir and Pierce 2013). The human population of most ETA countries
is expanding by 2-3 percent annually (Weir and Pierce 2013), and
populations in coastal areas are set to double within 20-25 years (Ukwe
and Ibe 2010). Additionally, the coastal zone is the site of all ports
and most airports along the Atlantic coast of Africa, as well as
factories for processing food and raw materials (e.g., petroleum and
metals), industrial production of fertilizer, pesticides,
pharmaceuticals, paper and plastic, and the agriculture, mining,
forestry, and tourism industries (Weir and Pierce 2013).
A number of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are also
major oil producers, specifically, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,
Cameroon, Nigeria, and the Republic of the Congo (Ukwe and Ibe 2010;
Minton et al. 2017; PWC 2018). Additionally, smaller oil fields exist
in several other countries such as Senegal, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana,
and S[atilde]o Tom[eacute] and Pr[iacute]ncipe (Weir and Pierce 2013).
Thus habitat loss as a result of coastal construction (due to
development of platforms, ports, pipelines, liquefied natural gas
plants) and degradation (e.g., due to discharges, accidental oil
spills, gas flaring, seismic exploration and explosives used during
installation and decommissioning, and high-amplitude sound associated
with shipping) can all negatively impact S. teuszii habitat. Impacts on
marine environments are already evident in some areas. For example, in
the Niger Delta, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)
indicates that approximately 300 oil spills occurred annually from 1975
to 1995 causing pollution in the marine environment and fish mortality
(Osuagwu and Olaifa 2018). It has been suggested by Van Waerebeek et
al. (2004) that S. teuszii most likely inhabited the Niger Delta before
large-scale oil exploration and extraction altered the coastal
environment (International Whaling Commission 2011). Oil-producing
companies from Guinea-Bissau to Angola are estimated to discharge 710
tons of oil annually into the coastal and marine environment; a further
2,100 tons originates from oil spills (Ukwe and Ibe 2010). Impacts on
small cetaceans, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin, potentially
include ingestion of contaminated prey, irritation of skin and eyes,
inhalation of toxic fumes causing lung congestion, neurological damage
and liver disorders, and displacement from habitat essential to the
species (Geraci 1990; Reeves et al. 2003; Takeshita et al. 2017).
Port developments and other urban construction projects are
particularly widespread throughout the Atlantic humpback dolphin's
range (Austin 2023), and preferred sites for such developments and
projects frequently overlap with S. teuszii habitat (Collins 2015).
With economic growth of sub-Saharan Africa increasing from 2.6 percent
in 2017 to 3.9 percent in 2022 (PWC 2018; IMF 2022), port developments
have increased over the years with the potential for continued
expansion. At least three ports that have recently undergone or are
undergoing expansion are close to the locations of recent sightings of
Atlantic humpback dolphins (Rogers 2017). These include Badagry
(Nigeria) which is close to the location of recent sightings of S.
teuszii near Lagos (CCAHD unpublished data), Kamsar Port (Guinea)
within the R[iacute]o Nu[ntilde]ez Estuary (Weir 2015), and the deep-
sea port of Kribi (Cameroon) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). The scale of
some ports suggests that they present effective physical barriers and
thus have potential for disrupting Atlantic humpback dolphin longshore
movements (Austin 2023). Indirect or ``non-lethal'' disturbances are
likely during port construction, and may become more permanent if
maintenance (e.g. dredging) and urban development occurs at port sites
(Jefferson et al. 2009; Collins 2015).
Habitat loss resulting from mangrove destruction and altered river
sediment loads have also been documented in Guinea-Bissau and Senegal.
For example, mangrove habitat loss (i.e. 29 percent in one protected
area) occurred in Guinea-Bissau due to agricultural practices and
firewood collection (Vasconcelos et al. 2002; Weir and Pierce 2013).
Additionally, the completion of the Diama dam on the Senegal River in
1985 resulted in topographical and hydrological changes to the Senegal
Delta, with associated ecological changes (e.g. in zooplankton
communities) (Champalbert et al. 2007). These activities may directly
and indirectly (via changes in prey) affect Atlantic humpback dolphins,
which regularly inhabit estuarine areas (Collins 2015).
Overall, widespread coastal development results in extensive damage
to benthic environments and alterations to water flow and quality, all
of which degrade or eliminate the already restricted nearshore habitat
of the Atlantic humpback dolphin. Oil and gas development and
extraction activities occur in the central and southern portions of the
species' range, resulting in an increase in port facilities and other
coastal development projects (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017).
Additionally, habitat fragmentation resulting from these activities,
has serious implications for a species already restricted to narrow
geographic and ecological niches consisting of small, fragmented
stocks. Coastal development activities have increased over the past
decade, with little indication that these activities will decline or
cease in the foreseeable future. Additionally, port developments are
widespread throughout the species' range and preferred port sites often
overlap with the habitats of these coastal dolphins (Austin 2023). It
has also been noted in the Niger Delta that populations of S. teuszii
may have been displaced due to altered coastal environments from large
scale oil exploration and extraction activities, suggesting a link
between coastal oil and gas activities and the species' decline in this
area (International Whaling Commission 2011; Austin 2023). Thus, the
impacts of coastal development activities on the Atlantic humpback
dolphin will likely continue and may intensify in the foreseeable
future. Because of the possible species' displacement in the Niger
Delta coupled by habitat fragmentation resulting from
[[Page 20838]]
coastal development activities (which has serious implications for a
species already restricted to narrow geographic and ecological niches),
the destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat in the form
of coastal development contribute to a high risk of extinction (Austin
2023), and this risk will be exacerbated in the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We assessed four potential threats that may contribute to the
overutilization of the species: fisheries bycatch, use and trade,
depletion of prey resources, and ecotourism. Of these four threats, the
primary threat facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin is fisheries
bycatch, specifically in artisanal gillnets. This type of
overutilization is considered widespread throughout the species' range,
and is considered to be causing population declines. Thus, fisheries
bycatch was determined to pose a high risk (Austin 2023). The use of
stranded or bycaught Atlantic humpback dolphins for human consumption
or fishing bait, which has been documented throughout the species'
range (Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Weir and Pierce 2013; Collins
2015), was also determined to pose a high risk (Austin 2023). Depletion
of prey resources resulting from intensive and unsustainable commercial
and artisanal exploitation of fish stocks is another factor
contributing to declining Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks (Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011), and was determined to pose a
moderate risk. We discuss these three threats in detail below. While
ecotourism is increasing in some countries within the species' range,
and the activities associated with ecotourism may affect the Atlantic
humpback dolphin and its habitat, it is currently unknown if ecotourism
is a threat that contributes to the Atlantic humpback dolphin's
extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future (Austin 2023).
The best scientific and commercial data indicate that the primary
threat facing the Atlantic humpback dolphin is bycatch in artisanal
gillnets. Bycatch in artisanal gillnets is considered widespread
throughout the species' range and has been documented in Mauritania,
Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Cameroon, and the Republic of
the Congo (Campredon and Cuq 2001; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins
2015; Collins et al. 2017; Brownell et al. 2019; Jefferson 2019; Weir
et al. 2021).
A study by Weir and Pierce (2013) summarizing historical accounts
of bycaught and hunted cetaceans in the ETA, noted that the Atlantic
humpback dolphin was one of four most frequently documented bycaught
species within the ETA (the other three species being the harbor
porpoise, common dolphin, and bottlenose dolphin). Specifically,
Atlantic humpback dolphins were noted to be particularly vulnerable to
bycatch in artisanal gillnets: out of 16 reported bycatch events for
this species, 13 animals died in artisanal gillnets in Mauritania,
Senegal, and the Republic of the Congo, one died in a fish trap in
Guinea-Bissau, and two were taken in unspecified fishing gear (possibly
also gillnets) in Senegal and Guinea (Weir and Pierce 2013;
International Whaling Commission 2020a; Austin 2023). Weir et al.
(2011) notes that gillnet density is high in parts of the Atlantic
humpback dolphin's range (e.g. in Angola). Furthermore, Leeney et al.
(2015) reports that there are at least 4,700 artisanal fishers in The
Gambia, 59,500 in Senegal, and 4,141 in Guinea-Bissau, and potentially
a lot more in other countries along the Atlantic Coast of Africa within
the species' range. However, Notarbartolo di Sciara (1998) notes that
the species has also been ``fatally entangled in octopus line'', and
observations of foraging individuals taken near the stern wake of
trawlers indicate potential for bycatch in other fisheries.
Work in Conkouati-Douli National Park (Republic of the Congo)
provides some indication of the potential scale of S. teuszii bycatch
and substantial bycatch risk for the species (Collins 2015). An
intensive monitoring, enforcement, and cooperative (incentivized)
reporting program identified 19 dolphins that were caught as bycatch
over 5 years across all artisanal landing sites (n = 14) along a 60-km
stretch of protected beach (Collins 2015). Out of the 19 dolphins
caught as bycatch, 10 were identified as S. teuszii, and the testimony
of fishers showed that all were caught in gillnets less than 1 km from
shore (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). More recently, CCAHD
partners in Renatura, Congo documented two adult S. teuszii caught in
fishing gear in May, 2021 in the village of Bellelo just south of
Conkouati-Douli National Park, Congo (CCAHD).
In northern Guinea, bycatch (mostly gillnet entanglements) of
Atlantic humpback dolphins has also occurred in small-scale local
fisheries surrounding the Marine Protected Area of the Tristao Islands
until at least 2017 (Bamy et al. 2010; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Bamy
et al. 2021) with documented S. teuszii specimens bycaught in low
frequency in 2002 (n=1) and in slightly higher frequency from 2011-2012
(n=5) (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin 2023).
In Cameroon, a capture of an Atlantic humpback dolphin was reported
(supported by photographs), landed by small-scale fishers at Campo in
southern Cameroon on an unspecified date in 2012 (Ayissi et al. 2014).
Additionally, Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) reported an adult specimen
landed at Londji fish landing site (near Kribi) that became
accidentally entangled in an artisanal gillnet in Douala-Edea Fauna
Reserve on March 22, 2014 (Austin 2023). In the neighboring country of
Nigeria, there have been reports of Atlantic humpback dolphins killed
in artisanal gillnets off Brass Island (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017;
Austin 2023). Both individuals were killed for human consumption. Even
though mortality figures have also been reported for other areas,
including Banc d'Arguin and the Saloum Delta (Campredon and Cuq 2001),
these mortality figures are based on single studies, and there are no
formal ongoing monitoring programs for cetacean bycatch in these
aforementioned areas or anywhere else in the species' range (Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). Thus, the
reported bycatch figures are likely to be underestimates of the true
level of mortality.
There is some evidence that beach seines may also contribute to
dolphin mortality. The first S. teuszii specimen records for Togo were
two incidentally bycaught individuals found killed in a beach seine at
Agbodrafo along Togo's eastern coast (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Austin
2023). Additionally, in December 2021, eight S. teuszii individuals
were trapped in a beach seine near Port Gentil, Gabon, and subsequently
were released through the collaborative efforts of local fishers,
National Parks Agency staff, and a local non-government organization
(NGO) (CCAHD; Austin 2023).
Although there is no evidence of any organized, directed fisheries
for S. teuszii, there is a concern that bycatch can develop into what
is known as ``directed entanglement'' or ``non-target-deliberate
acquisition'', where fishers may intentionally try to catch Atlantic
humpback dolphins in gillnets originally intended for other species
(especially if there is a market for such catches) (Clapham and Van
Waerebeek 2007; Collins 2015). While the scale of this practice is
unknown, the use of cetaceans for human consumption has been documented
in 15 (71 percent) of the 21 countries bordering the ETA (Weir and
Pierce 2013). These countries
[[Page 20839]]
provide a potential market for cetacean products (Van Waerebeek et al.
2004; Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Collins 2015; Leeney et al. 2015;
Brownell et al. 2019; Jefferson 2019; Ingram D.J. et al. 2022).
Throughout the ETA, declining fisheries resources and rising human
populations have accelerated the displacement of a number of
communities from their traditional food sources, resulting in new forms
of aquatic meat consumption, as well as the rise of illegal local and
international trade to generate revenue (Balinga and Dyc 2018).
Consequently, this aquatic harvest is impacting large aquatic mammal,
reptile, and avian fauna in the region, including S. teuszii (Balinga
and Dyc 2018; Ingram D.J. et al. 2022). Furthermore, some of the main
factors contributing to declines in fish biomass are inadequate
policies and institutional frameworks and inadequate enforcement of
existing laws and regulations to address illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing, bycatch, and harvesting activities
throughout much of the species' range countries (Balinga and Dyc 2018;
Weir et al. 2021). The sale of dolphin meat (from various species) for
either human consumption or bait has been documented or suspected from
a number of S. teuszii range countries. Evidence for use of S. teuszii
for bait, consumption, and sale has been reported from Ghana,
Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Cameroon, and the
Republic of the Congo (Cadenat 1956; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins
2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Van Waerebeek et
al. 2017; International Whaling Commission 2020a; Weir et al. 2021).
Furthermore, the use of Atlantic humpback dolphins as bait in some of
the aforementioned countries has been documented in longline fisheries
targeting sharks (Van Waerebeek et al. 2017). Stranded or bycaught
Atlantic humpback dolphin carcasses are routinely utilized by local
communities for fishing bait, primarily targeting sharks (Van Waerebeek
et al. 2017; Weir et al. 2021). Individual dolphin carcasses are those
from either stranded individuals found dead on the shore (primarily
having been bycaught in beach seines), or individuals that are found
dead after being bycaught in artisanal gillnets offshore and then
subsequently brought to shore for use (Weir and Pierce 2013; CCAHD
2020; Weir et al. 2021).
Weir and Pierce (2013) documented instances of human consumption of
cetaceans, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin, in 15 of the 21
countries bordering the ETA (Mauritania to Angola). In The Gambia, an
unidentified dolphin (either bottlenose or Atlantic humpback) found
alive in a fishing net in 1996 was killed and butchered (Weir and
Pierce 2013). Off the coast of Fadiouth, Senegal, the meat of an
Atlantic humpback dolphin caught (capture method unknown) in June 1997
was sold and the remains dumped (Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004). In Guinea, an Atlantic humpback dolphin was
found for sale at the Dixinn fish landing site on March 13, 2002 (Bamy
et al. 2010). Additionally, Van Waerebeek et al. (2017) noted that when
locals in Guinea, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Togo were queried, they
typically admitted that dolphins were butchered and fully utilized (and
many of these instances involve the incidental use of stranded or
bycaught dolphins) (Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017; Weir et al.
2021).
In the Republic of the Congo, there have been 30 cases of small
cetacean carcasses being used for human consumption (30 of 34
bycatches, or 88.2 percent of cases), most of which were identified as
Atlantic humpback dolphins (n=18) and bottlenose dolphins (n=7)
(Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). In the Tristao Islands region of
northern Guinea, Bamy et al. (2021) noted the use of cetaceans for
human consumption is synchronous with and thought to be related to
declining fish stocks.
In The Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau, a survey conducted by
Leeney et al. (2015) between 2007 and 2012, reported that at least a
quarter of respondents in each country stated they had accidentally
caught a dolphin at least once, and greater proportions of interviewees
stated that other fishers sometimes caught dolphins. Furthermore, while
bycaught animals in The Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau were usually
distributed within the community as food, Leeney et al. (2015) found
that the meat and oil of dolphins were also used to treat various
illnesses. Overall, this survey's results suggested that although
dolphin meat was not a major source of income for communities in
Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, and the Saloum Delta, it did provide a
supplementary source of food.
Clapham and Van Waerebeek (2007) noted that market surveys
conducted in ETA coastal nations indicated that the sale and
consumption of cetacean products is common. Additionally, these sales
contribute to the economic viability of gillnet fisheries in Ghana,
which includes the killing of live entangled animals, and using dolphin
meat as bait (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Clapham and Van Waerebeek
2007; Collins 2015). However, it is important to note that captures may
be concealed because of legal prohibitions, and, therefore, acquiring
reliable data from surveys remains a challenge in some areas (Van
Waerebeek et al. 2004; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017).
The depletion of prey resulting from intensive and unsustainable
commercial and artisanal exploitation of fish stocks is also considered
a potential contributing factor to declining Atlantic humpback dolphin
populations (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011). As noted in the
Diet and Feeding section of this proposed rule, knowledge of the
species' diet is limited. However, some fish consumed by Atlantic
humpback dolphins (e.g. mullet, Mugil spp.) are also targeted by
coastal fisheries (Cadenat 1956; Maigret 1980b; Weir 2016).
Additionally, within Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries, there
is a high level of reliance on artisanal fishing for the protein intake
and livelihoods of impoverished coastal communities (Weir et al. 2021).
Senegal, Mauritania, Liberia, Ghana, and Sierra Leone are among the
countries most affected by IUU fishing (Balinga and Dyc 2018), and the
presence of S. teuszii has been documented in Senegal and Mauritania.
Generally, IUU fishing is widespread throughout the species range
(Brashares et al. 2004), including within protected marine areas such
as Conkouati-Douli National Park in the Republic of the Congo (Collins
2015). Fish biomass in nearshore and offshore waters off the Gulf of
Guinea has declined by at least 50 percent since 1977 due to
unsustainable fishing by foreign and domestic fleets (Brashares et al.
2004). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, 68 percent of the main
fisheries are considered to be either at full capacity or in decline
(Weir and Pierce 2013). Overall, fish biomass in the northwest region
of Africa declined by a factor of 13 between 1960 and 2001 (Christensen
et al. 2004). Consequently, declines in fish biomass may affect
Atlantic humpback dolphin populations by increasing artisanal fishing
effort and pressure, leading not only to increased bycatch risk but
also potentially reduced prey availability for the species (Collins
2015; Collins et al. 2017).
Overall, as noted in the Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use
section of this proposed rule, the habitat preferences of the Atlantic
humpback dolphin increases its susceptibility and exposure to inshore
artisanal and commercial fisheries and associated gears, such as
artisanal gillnets, beach seines, and octopus line (Austin 2023).
[[Page 20840]]
As discussed in depth in the draft status review report (Austin 2023),
bycatch in fisheries has not ceased and may intensify in the
foreseeable future as new fishing areas are targeted and fishing
pressure increases. The use of stranded or bycaught Atlantic humpback
dolphins for human consumption or fishing bait has also been documented
throughout the species' range (Clapham and Van Waerebeek 2007; Weir and
Pierce 2013; Collins 2015; Van Waerebeek et al. 2017; Ingram D.J. et
al. 2022). While there is some indication of secondary (i.e. non-
targeted) use of dolphin bycatch, it is evident that the species has
been, and is directly and increasingly being targeted for food in many
areas across its range (Weir and Pierce 2013; Collins 2015; Leeney et
al. 2015). In addition, effective bycatch monitoring and mitigation has
not been documented in most S. teuszii range countries (Austin 2023;
see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms), and the lack of
effective monitoring and enforcement to protect the species from
targeted hunting throughout much of the species' range places
additional pressure on already small, likely fragmented, and declining
Atlantic humpback dolphin stocks (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022;
Minton et al. 2022). Furthermore, the depletion of prey resulting from
intensive and unsustainable commercial and artisanal exploitation of
fish stocks (Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir 2011) is likely to
increase in the foreseeable future, as some fish predated by Atlantic
humpback dolphins are also targets of coastal fisheries. Resource
competition between dolphin and human communities will continue for the
foreseeable future due to a high reliance on artisanal fishing for the
protein intake and livelihoods of impoverished coastal communities
within the range countries (Weir et al. 2021). Thus, we determined that
overutilization of the species in the form of fisheries bycatch and
human use contributes to a high risk of extinction, and depletion of
prey resources contributes to a moderate risk of extinction (Austin
2023). These risks will be exacerbated in the foreseeable future
(Austin 2023).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
We assessed existing regulatory mechanisms to determine whether
they may be inadequate to address threats to the Atlantic humpback
dolphin from bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries as well as
coastal development. We determined that inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, particularly due to lack of enforcement,
resources, implementation, and/or effectiveness within each range
country, contributes to a high risk of extinction (Austin 2023). Below
is a description and evaluation of current and relevant international,
regional, and domestic regulatory mechanisms that currently apply to
the Atlantic humpback dolphin. More detailed information on these
regulatory mechanisms can be found in the draft status review report
(Austin 2023).
International Regulatory Mechanisms
A majority of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are members
or signatories to a diverse array of international conventions and
agreements. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) is an environmental treaty of the
United Nations that aims to conserve migratory species, their habitats,
and their migration routes. CMS establishes obligations for each state
joining the convention, promotes collaboration among range states, and
provides the legal foundation for coordinating international
conservation measures throughout a migratory range. Early recognition
of the vulnerability of the Sousa species was indicated by their
inclusion on the CMS Appendix II in 1991 (Weir et al. 2021) and on
Appendix I in 2009, thereby obligating parties to work regionally to
promote their conservation. Parties include all countries that are in
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range except for Sierra Leone and
Western Sahara (Austin 2023). The CMS defines Appendix I species as
those ``that have been assessed as being in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.'' The listing
under Appendix I is the highest level of protection under CMS and is
for species threatened with extinction. The listing obligates the
parties to strive towards protecting these animals (including the
Atlantic humpback dolphin), conserving and restoring their habitats,
mitigating obstacles to migration, and controlling other factors that
might endanger them. However, while 17 out of the 19 range countries of
S. teuszii are parties to CMS, conservation of the Atlantic humpback
dolphin is often not a high priority for governments of range
countries, despite the efforts of the CMS's National Focal Points to
promote the issue. Additionally, relevant government agencies in many
range countries currently lack the resources to monitor and enforce CMS
provisions (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
The CMS has been closely involved with efforts to conserve the
Atlantic humpback dolphin since the early 1990s and has funded two West
African Cetacean Research and Conservation Programme (WAFCET) projects
during the late 1990s to collect information on this (and other)
species, and to stimulate regional involvement in conservation efforts
(Van Waerebeek et al. 2000; Van Waerebeek et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et
al. 2004; Weir et al. 2021). A series of CMS meetings was held on West
African cetaceans and culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and
Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia in 2008 (CMS 2008).
This MoU came into effect on October 3, 2008, and will remain open for
signature indefinitely. It aims to achieve and maintain a favorable
conservation status for manatees and small cetaceans of West Africa and
Macaronesia (including the Atlantic humpback dolphin) and their
habitats to help safeguard the associated values of these species for
the people of the region. Thus far, 17 West African and Macaronesian
range states and 6 collaborating organizations have signed the MoU.
This includes 12 of the countries within the Atlantic humpback
dolphin's range (Austin 2023), thereby obligating the signatories to
conserve manatees and small cetaceans in West Africa (including the
Atlantic humpback dolphin). In 2017, a CMS Concerted Action was adopted
specifically for the Atlantic humpback dolphin; the CMS Concerted
Action required a meeting of delegates from countries within the
species range and the formulation of an action plan covering the years
2018-2023 (Austin 2023). However, progress on its implementation was
substantially delayed, and another CMS Concerted Action was adopted in
2020 to revise the action plan's timeline to 2021-2025 (Weir et al.
2021). As such, very little progress has been made in applied
conservation of the Atlantic humpback dolphin across its range.
Additionally, as part of the work on the Atlantic humpback dolphin
action plan required by the 2020 Concerted Action, a formal review of
the legal status and protections for the species in each range country
is also underway (CMS 2022). Based on currently available information,
it seems that the species is legally protected under general categories
such as ``marine mammals,'' ``aquatic animals,'' or ``Family
Delphinidae'' in most range countries, but species-specific protections
are
[[Page 20841]]
lacking (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). However, many range countries lack
resources to effectively monitor and mitigate bycatch, design and
implement other research and conservation measures, or enforce laws
relating to retention and use of bycaught individuals (CMS 2022; Minton
et al. 2022; Austin 2023).
In 2002, the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Small
Cetacean Sub-Committee identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as a
priority for research, spurring a genus-wide review, and in 2010, it
identified a range of specific research and conservation objectives for
the Atlantic humpback dolphin (IWC 2011). In 2015, the Small Cetaceans
Sub-Committee identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as one of the
cetacean species with high priority for designation of task teams for
the potential development of Conservation Management Plans (Genov et
al. 2015). These objectives incorporated expert scientific opinion and
considered earlier conservation agreements and strategies, including
the Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Small Cetaceans
of Western African and Macaronesia (Van Waerebeek and Perrin 2007; CMS
2008; Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, the IWC's Bycatch Mitigation
Initiative (BMI) is focused on raising awareness of the issue of
cetacean bycatch and available approaches and solutions for assessing,
monitoring, and reducing bycatch (Austin 2023). Specifically, the IWC's
BMI is focused on bycatch in gillnets, particularly in small-scale
fishing fleets, which include the fleets of Atlantic humpback dolphin
range countries (CCAHD 2020). While a number of S. teuszii range
countries are IWC member nations and thus are party to the conservation
initiatives set forth under the IWC, effective bycatch mitigation and
monitoring programs have not been documented in most S. teuszii range
countries. Additionally, the objectives set forth under the IWC's BMI
are either at the planning or pilot project stage, and full
implementation of this initiative (and subsequent results) has not been
completed within S. teuszii range countries (CCAHD 2020; Austin 2023).
The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an
intergovernmental treaty, which provides the framework for national
action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use
of wetlands and their resources. As of October 2021, there are 172
parties, which includes 18 out of 19 range countries of S. teuszii and
2,347 designated sites (Austin 2023). One of these is the Saloum Delta,
Senegal, which is listed as a Wetland of International Importance under
the Convention on Wetlands, and is known to host possibly the largest
known population of S. teuszii. While the Convention on Wetlands
provides indirect benefits to the species by providing protection of
key habitat areas along the west coast of Africa, the level of
protection varies at each site (Collins 2013; Weir and Pierce 2013;
Taylor et al. 2020).
Regional Regulatory Mechanisms
The Abidjan Convention covers the marine environment, coastal
zones, and related inland waters from Mauritania to Namibia, which
covers much of the Atlantic humpback dolphin's range. The Abidjan
Convention is an agreement for the protection and management of the
marine and coastal areas that highlights sources of pollution,
including pollution from ships, dumping, land-based sources,
exploration and exploitation of the sea-bed, and pollution from or
through the atmosphere. The Abidjan Convention also identifies where
co-operative environmental management efforts are needed. These areas
of concern include coastal erosion, especially protected areas,
combating pollution in cases of emergency, and environmental impact
assessment. Additionally, the Abidjan Convention promotes scientific
and technological collaboration (including exchanges of information and
expertise) as a means of identifying and managing environmental issues.
The action plan and the Abidjan Convention were adopted by the
participating governments in March, 1981; the Abidjan Convention
entered into force on August 5th, 1984 (Austin 2023). The contracting
parties that have ratified the Abidjan Convention are: Benin, Cameroon,
Republic of the Congo, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, South Africa and Togo, which includes 15 out of the 19 range
countries of S. teuszii (Austin 2023). The remaining 4 range countries
including Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Equatorial
Guinea are located in the Abidjan Convention area but have not yet
ratified the convention; and Western Sahara is not a signatory of the
Abidjan Convention (Austin 2023). While the Abidjan Convention provides
a framework within which broad conservation and environmental
protection objectives may be pursued collaboratively among African
countries on a regional scale, it does not specifically address
Atlantic humpback dolphin conservation. Furthermore, relevant
government agencies in many range countries lack the resources to
effectively implement conservation measures resulting from the Abidjan
Convention (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
In 1998, the environmental ministers of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Ghana,
Togo, Benin, Nigeria, and Cameroon signed the Accra Declaration to
strengthen regional capacity to prevent and correct pollution in the
Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem (GOG-LME) and prevent and correct
degradation of critical habitats. The ministers identified the living
resources and management problems in the area. The countries decided to
undertake a detailed survey of industries, defined regional effluent
standards, instituted community based mangrove restoration activities,
and created a campaign for the reduction, recovery, recycling, and re-
use of industrial wastes (Austin 2023). In 2006, the Guinea Current LME
Project expanded the project scope to 10 neighboring countries (Guinea-
Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and Angola) (Austin 2023). The Guinea Current LME Project
includes 15 out of the 19 countries within the Atlantic humpback
dolphin's range and is a regional effort to assess, monitor, and
restore the ecosystem and enhance its sustainability, with the aim of
conserving and preventing the degradation of the nearshore habitats
along portions of the Atlantic Coast of Africa. However, government
agencies in many range countries lack the resources to effectively
implement conservation measures resulting from this declaration
(Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS 2022; Minton et al. 2022).
The Revised African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (Revised African Convention) was adopted by the
Assembly of the African Union on July 11, 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique
and entered into force on July 23rd, 2016 (Austin 2023). The Revised
African Convention is the result of a thorough revision of the original
Algiers Convention (adopted in 1968) (Austin 2023). The Revised African
Convention is a comprehensive regional treaty on environment and
natural resources conservation, and the first to deal with an array of
sustainable development matters, including quantitative and qualitative
management of natural resources such as soil and land, air and water,
and biological resources (Austin 2023). The contracting parties that
are signatories to
[[Page 20842]]
the Revised African Convention are: Angola, Mauritania, Senegal,
Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, The Gambia, Guinea, Togo, Benin, Gabon, Republic of the Congo,
Sierra Leone, Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Ghana; this includes 17
out of the 19 range countries of S. teuszii (Austin 2023). As of
February, 2022, 7 of these range countries (Angola, The Gambia, Benin,
Republic of the Congo, Liberia, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Ghana) have
officially ratified the Revised African Convention (Austin 2023). While
the Revised African Convention provides a framework within which broad
conservation and sustainable development objectives may be pursued to
provide environmental regulation at the regional level, it does not
specifically address Atlantic humpback dolphin conservation.
Furthermore, financing the Revised African Convention has been a
challenge and is crucial to implementation of its provisions as well as
management of compliance of its parties. The provisions of the 2003
Revised African Convention emphasize the need for its member states to
mobilize financial resources individually or jointly from bilateral or
multilateral funding sources (Erinosho 2013). While the financial
provisions of the 2003 Revised African Convention are an improvement
over the 1968 African Convention (which was silent on issues of
funding), the funding provisions are largely generic (Erinosho 2013).
The successful implementation of the Revised African Convention is
dependent on its procedures for implementation and compliance which are
only made possible with adequate financial backing from its parties.
This remains a challenge for a number of African countries that are
signatories to the Revised African Convention, as resources to fully
implement the treaty are currently lacking (Erinosho 2013).
Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms
Information on the existence of domestic laws or regulations of
range countries that specifically apply to the Atlantic humpback
dolphin is limited. However, two countries within the species' range,
Senegal and Gabon, have laws and measures in place that are intended to
reduce cetacean bycatch (CMS 2022; Austin 2023).
In Senegal, monofilament nets are officially banned in coastal
waters (Belhabib et al. 2014). However, this prohibition is not well
enforced and gillnets are still widely used in Senegalese waters in
nearshore areas (Belhabib et al. 2014; Thiao et al. 2017). This is
largely because Senegal has neither the resources nor the capacity to
enforce fishing regulations (Diedhiou and Yang 2018).
In Gabon, there is a ban for setting gillnets in estuaries under
Law No. 042/2018 of July 5, 2019, in the Penal Code in the Gabonese
Republic and under the Gabonese Decree 0579/PR/MPE of November 30, 2015
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023). However, this law and decree are not well
enforced (Austin 2023). Additionally, although a local agreement on
beach seine practices is intended to reduce bycatch in Gabon, limited
progress is being made regarding bycatch mitigation (Austin 2023).
While a majority of Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries are
members or signatories to a diverse array of international and regional
conventions and agreements that would require them to take concrete
measures to protect the Atlantic humpback dolphin and mitigate threats
(Austin 2023), such as protections afforded to CMS Appendix I species,
few such countries have adopted specific protections for the species,
and effective bycatch mitigation has not been documented in most S.
teuszii range countries (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). This is a serious
concern, given that bycatch is considered linked to the species'
population decline and poses an immediate range-wide threat (Brashares
et al. 2004; Van Waerebeek and Perrin 2007; Ayissi et al. 2014;
Belhabib et al. 2014; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). Additionally,
domestic, regional, and international regulatory mechanisms that
currently exist are not adequately enforced or do not address the
species' primary threats. Furthermore, government agencies in many
range countries lack the resources to effectively monitor and mitigate
threats and design and implement research and conservation measures
specific to the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Doumbouya et al. 2017; CMS
2022; Austin 2023). Thus, we determined that inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address the risks posed by bycatch and coastal
development, due to lack of enforcement, resources, implementation,
and/or effectiveness within each range country, contributes to a high
risk of extinction (Austin 2023).
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Under this category, we assessed the potential threat posed by
anthropogenic underwater noise on the Atlantic humpback dolphin. We
determined that anthropogenic underwater noise poses a moderate risk
(Austin 2023). We discuss this threat in detail below.
Knowledge about this species indicates that sound is important to
Atlantic humpback dolphin functioning and survival. Small odontocete
cetaceans, which have a similar hearing range as that of the Atlantic
humpback dolphin, rely upon a highly developed acoustic sensory system
and rely on echolocation to navigate, feed, and communicate with
conspecifics in the marine environment (Weilgart 2017; Stevens et al.
2021). It is also widely recognized that anthropogenic sound sources
and the resulting anthropogenic underwater noise can have potential
impacts on cetaceans' welfare including stress/physiological effects
(such as hearing loss, tissue damage, and respiration rates) as well as
behavioral impacts (such as shifts in migration, reduced group
cohesion, reduced foraging, changing dive patterns, masking of
communication sounds, displacement from important habitats, and even
cognition when the added noise exceeds the threshold levels of the
species) (Wartzok and Ketten 1999; Whittaker and Young 2018; Erbe et
al. 2019; Stevens et al. 2021). Additionally, anthropogenic underwater
noise has been shown to elicit a variety of stress responses from other
cetacean species, such as the bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale
(Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop 1996; Richardson and Wursig 1997;
Nowacek et al. 2007; Whittaker and Young 2018).
Underwater noise from coastal development activities such as
drilling, pile-driving, explosions, and dredging are likely to affect
many of the coastal habitats relied upon by Atlantic humpback dolphins
(Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, engine noise and sonar from different
vessel types (e.g. pirogues, dredgers, trawlers and tankers) may reach
sufficient amplitude and duration such that the health and/or behavior
of coastal marine mammals in the area (including Atlantic humpback
dolphins) are negatively affected (Whittaker 2018; Erbe et al. 2019;
Weir et al. 2021). Additionally, there is a possible link between
anthropogenic underwater noise and higher likelihood in occurrence of
strandings of cetaceans (Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop 1996;
Richardson and Wursig 1997; Nowacek et al. 2007; Whittaker and Young
2018). Hydrocarbon exploration using high-amplitude impulsive sounds
may also affect Atlantic humpback dolphins, as has been noted in other
cetaceans (Cerchio et al. 2014; Weir et al. 2021).
[[Page 20843]]
Small odontocete cetaceans use clicks and whistles to communicate
with other individuals, and are strongly dependent on echolocation for
navigation, foraging, and predator avoidance (Reeves et al. 2003;
Stevens et al. 2021). Although studies in this species have been
scarce, there are acoustic recordings of the species made in Namibe
province, Angola (Weir 2010). The whistles of the Atlantic humpback
dolphin were found to be comparable to S. chinensis, and are composed
of generally low frequencies with a 92 percent occurrence of harmonics
(Weir 2010). Given the increasing development activities within the
dolphin's habitat along the west coast of Africa, particularly related
to coastal construction activities (especially port construction and
expansion) and the oil and gas industry (e.g. development of platforms,
ports, pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants), anthropogenic
underwater noise levels are likely to increase. Thus, potentially
negative effects from noise to the Atlantic humpback dolphin are likely
to increase in the future as well.
Overall, anthropogenic underwater noise is a serious concern for
the Atlantic humpback dolphin, because (like other odontocete species)
it is strongly dependent on sound for critical life functions, such as
maintaining social bonds, communicating, navigating, finding food, and
avoiding predators (Reeves et al. 2003; Stevens et al. 2021). While
there are no studies analyzing the impacts of anthropogenic underwater
noise on Atlantic humpback dolphins, anthropogenic underwater noise has
been found to disrupt the behavior and affect the functioning and
survival of other dolphin species (Ketten 1995; Gordon and Moscrop
1996; Richardson and Wursig 1997; Nowacek et al. 2007; Weilgart 2017;
Whittaker and Young 2018; Erbe et al. 2019). This threat is likely to
increase in the foreseeable future due to the projected increase of
activities within the Atlantic humpback dolphin's habitat that
contribute to underwater noise, such as port construction, vessel
traffic, and other coastal development. Thus, we determined that
anthropogenic underwater noise contributes a moderate risk of
extinction (Austin 2023).
Overall Extinction Risk Summary
We identified several threats that are likely affect the continued
survival of the Atlantic humpback dolphin, including destruction,
modification, and curtailment of its habitat (e.g., coastal development
projects), overutilization of the species via fisheries bycatch
(particularly in artisanal gillnets), depletion of prey resources,
human use, anthropogenic underwater noise, and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (the lack of enforcement, resources, and
implementation, and the lack of effectiveness of such mechanisms to
address the other identified threats). Of these threats,
overutilization of the species in the form of fisheries bycatch and
human use, as well as destruction, modification, and curtailment of
habitat resulting from coastal development, and the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to address the threat of overutilization
and threats to the species' habitat, all contribute significantly to
the Atlantic humpback dolphin's risk of extinction. These threats are
immediate and range-wide, and their intensity is likely to increase in
the future throughout the species' range. Few countries within the
species' range have specific protections for the Atlantic humpback
dolphin, and effective bycatch mitigation has not been documented in
most range countries.
Analysis of demographic factors identified several characteristics
that elevate the population's vulnerability to these threats. For
example, observed or suspected population declines of already small,
likely fragmented stocks throughout the species' range drastically
elevates the impact of single mortality events. In addition, continued
declines are highly likely given the projected increase of identified
threats that affect most of the species' known range (e.g., coastal
development and fisheries bycatch). Furthermore, the species'
restricted geographic range along the Atlantic coast of Africa and
reliance on nearshore habitat make it highly vulnerable to human
activities. The limited, available evidence also suggests that there is
limited connectivity between stocks within the species' range, which
would reduce the recovery potential for resident stocks that have
experienced severe declines (i.e. Dakhla Bay). Finally, it is likely
that the Atlantic humpback dolphin exhibits a naturally low
reproductive rate and thus a low intrinsic potential for population
increase. Given the immediacy and prevalence of threats range-wide, and
demographic characteristics increasing the species' vulnerability, we
conclude that the Atlantic humpback dolphin currently faces an overall
high risk of extinction throughout its range.
Conservation Efforts
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a
listing determination for a species, to take into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect
the species. In addition to the regulatory measures discussed in the
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section of this proposed
rule, we considered whether such protective efforts, as summarized
below, alter the extinction risk for the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
Early recognition of the vulnerability of the Sousa species was
indicated by their inclusion on Appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) \2\ in 1979, as a species threatened with extinction for which
trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances (Austin 2023).
Additionally, CMS has been closely involved with efforts to conserve
Atlantic humpback dolphins since the 1990s. The species was also listed
on CMS Appendix II in 1991 and on Appendix I in 2007, thus obligating
parties to work regionally to promote Atlantic humpback dolphin
conservation (which includes 17 out of 19 countries within the species
range) (Austin 2023). The CMS funded two WAFCET projects during the
late 1990s to collect information on this species and stimulate
regional involvement in conservation efforts (Weir et al. 2021). This
culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning
the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa
and Macaronesia in 2008 (Weir et al. 2021). In 2017, a CMS Concerted
Action was adopted specifically for the Atlantic humpback dolphin and
required a meeting of delegates from countries within the species range
and the formulation of an action plan for 2018-2023. However, progress
on its implementation was substantially delayed, and a Concerted Action
was adopted in 2020 to change the action plan's timeline to 2021-2025
(Weir et al. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 18 out of the 19 Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries
are a party to CITES. However, since there is a lack of documented
trade for this species, NMFS has no information to conclude that the
CITES listing has lead to efforts to protect the species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IUCN's Cetacean Specialist Group (IUCN-CSG) has also expressed
concern regarding the status of the Atlantic humpback dolphin,
highlighting the species as a priority for research (Reeves et al.
2003; Taylor et al. 2020). The IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species
(the ``Red List'') global conservation assessments carried out for this
species by the IUCN-CSG reveal a steady deterioration in status over
time, from early assessments that underlined the
[[Page 20844]]
paucity of information (1994: Insufficiently Known; 1996: Data
Deficient), to those reflecting growing concern about potential decline
(2008 and 2012: Vulnerable), and culminating in the most recent
assessment which classified this species into the Red List category of
``Critically Endangered'' in 2017 (Collins et al. 2017; Weir et al.
2021).
The Atlantic humpback dolphin's concerning conservation status has
been discussed and described in several reviews over the past two
decades (Reeves et al. 2003; Van Waerebeek et al. 2004; Weir et al.
2011; Collins 2015; Collins et al. 2017). However, very little progress
has been made in applied conservation of the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
Recognition of this lack of progress led to a meeting in December 2019
at the World Marine Mammal Conference in Barcelona, Spain, to discuss
how research and conservation efforts for the species could be
reinvigorated (Weir et al. 2021). Outputs from this meeting evolved
into the formation of a new organization, the Consortium for the
Conservation of the Atlantic Humpback Dolphin (CCAHD), in 2020. The
CCAHD brings together national partner organizations and individuals
from countries within the species range, and a number of international
conservation management bodies and species experts, to work
collaboratively towards the long-term sustainability of Atlantic
humpback dolphin populations and their habitats (Weir et al. 2021). The
CCAHD aims to work alongside the CMS to optimize the implementation of
the draft Concerted Action plan for the Atlantic humpback dolphin. It
also works alongside the IWC's bycatch and stranding initiatives
following IWC meetings that identified the Atlantic humpback dolphin as
a priority for research, and worked with the IUCN-CSG, which
highlighted the species as a priority in their ``Integrated
Conservation Planning for Cetaceans'' initiative (Weir et al. 2021).
On August 15, 2016, NMFS published the final rule on fish and fish
product import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA
import rule) (81 FR 54389), which establishes criteria and a formal
process for evaluating foreign fisheries and their frequency of
incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.
Specifically, the MMPA import rule requires that the Unites States ban
imports of commercial fish or fish products caught in commercial
fisheries resulting in the incidental killing or serious injury
(bycatch) of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards. The rule also
establishes criteria for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory
program for reducing marine mammal bycatch. A number of Atlantic
humpback dolphin range countries are included on the List of Foreign
Fisheries as having fisheries that export to the United States, with
particular fisheries that are associated with marine mammal bycatch
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023). The Atlantic humpback dolphin is listed as a
possible bycatch species for some of these fisheries in relation to
their overlap with the dolphin's habitat (CMS 2022; Austin 2023). Thus,
the MMPA import rule may help to provide external motivation for
Atlantic humpback dolphin range countries with fisheries exports to the
United States to invest more in the accurate assessment of marine
mammal populations in their waters and the possible impacts of
fisheries on these populations, including the Atlantic humpback dolphin
(CMS 2022; Austin 2023).
Significant conservation concerns for the Atlantic humpback dolphin
have been raised for decades, and since 2020 international and regional
collaboration to increase awareness and promote conservation efforts
has intensified. However, there is no indication that these
conservation efforts are ameliorating threats, particularly the threats
of fisheries bycatch and coastal development, such that the extinction
risk of the species is reduced. Therefore, we conclude that these
conservation efforts do not alter the extinction risk for the Atlantic
humpback dolphin. We are not aware of any other conservation measures
for this species, and we are soliciting additional information on any
relevant conservation efforts through the public comment process on
this proposed rule (see Public Comments Solicited on Listing below).
Proposed Listing Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information, including the petition, public
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (86 FR 68452; December 2,
2021), the draft status review report (Austin 2023), and other
published and unpublished information, and we have consulted with
species experts and individuals familiar with the Atlantic humpback
dolphin. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine
whether it contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the
species on its own. We also considered the combination of those factors
to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to the
extinction risk of the species. Therefore, our determination set forth
below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing
information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the
status of the species throughout its range.
We conclude that the Atlantic humpback dolphin is presently in
danger of extinction throughout its range. We summarize the factors
supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) the best available
information indicates that the species has a low abundance, with fewer
than 3,000 dolphins likely remaining, with observed or suspected
population declines increasing the risk of local extirpation for
extremely small stocks (e.g. Dakhla Bay and Angola) in the near future;
(2) continued declines in abundance are expected given the ongoing and
projected increase of identified range-wide threats (specifically
fisheries bycatch and coastal development), suggesting that the species
will continue to decline in the absence of interventions; (3) the
Atlantic humpback dolphin has a fragmented distribution with limited
connectivity between stocks; (4) the Atlantic humpback dolphin has a
restricted geographic range, being endemic to the tropical and
subtropical waters along the Atlantic African coast where ongoing
habitat destruction (including coastal development) contributes to a
high risk of extinction; (5) the species' preference for nearshore
habitat increases its vulnerability to incidental capture (i.e.
fisheries bycatch) which also contributes to a high risk of extinction;
and (6) existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for addressing
the most important threats of fisheries bycatch and coastal
development.
As a result of the foregoing findings, which are based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Atlantic
humpback dolphin is presently in danger of extinction throughout its
range. Accordingly, the Atlantic humpback dolphin meets the definition
of an endangered species, and thus we are proposing to list it as an
endangered species.
Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
[[Page 20845]]
threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of
recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); a requirement that
Federal agencies consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure
their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse
modification or destruction of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C.
1536); and, for endangered species, prohibitions on the import and
export of any endangered species; the sale and offering for sale of
such species in interstate or foreign commerce; the delivery, receipt,
carriage, shipment, or transport of such species in interstate or
foreign commerce and in the course of a commercial activity; and the
``take'' of such species within the United States, within the U.S.
territorial sea, or on the high seas (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of
the species' imperiled status through listing may also promote
conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities,
private groups, and individuals.
Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS
regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require Federal agencies to confer with
NMFS on actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species
proposed for listing, or that are likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of those species.
If a proposed species is ultimately listed, under section 7(a)(2) (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and the NMFS/USFWS regulations (50 CFR
part 402), Federal agencies must consult on any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or
its critical habitat to ensure that such actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be
designated. It is unlikely that the listing of this species under the
ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because this
species occurs outside of the United States and is unlikely to be
affected by Federal actions.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1532(5)) as: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at
which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent
prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently
with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat cannot be
designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S.
jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)). The Atlantic humpback dolphin is
endemic to coastal Atlantic waters of western Africa and does not occur
within areas under U.S. jurisdiction, which are in different
biogeographic regions and well outside the natural range of this
species. Therefore, we do not intend to propose any critical habitat
designations for this species.
Public Comments Solicited on Listing
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be accurate and based on the best available data, we solicit
comments from the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, environmental groups, and any other interested
parties on the draft status review report and this proposed rule. See
DATES and ADDRESSES for information on how to submit comments.
Promulgation of any final regulation to list this species will take
into consideration the comments and any additional data we receive
during the comment period, and this process may lead to a final
regulation that differs from this proposal. Specifically, we are
interested in new or updated information regarding: (1) the range,
distribution, and abundance of the Atlantic humpback dolphin; (2) the
genetics and population structure of the Atlantic humpback dolphin; (3)
habitat within the range of the Atlantic humpback dolphin that was
present in the past, but may have been lost over time; (4) any threats
to the Atlantic humpback dolphin (e.g., fisheries bycatch, coastal
development, etc.); (5) current or planned activities within the range
of the Atlantic humpback dolphin and their possible impact on the
species; (6) recent observations or sampling of the Atlantic humpback
dolphin; and (7) conservation efforts that are addressing threats to
the Atlantic humpback dolphin.
We request that all data and information be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. Please send any comments in
accordance with the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section
above.
Role of Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and
applies to influential scientific information or highly influential
scientific assessments disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To
satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we solicited peer
review comments on the draft status review report (Austin 2023) from
four independent scientists selected from the academic and scientific
community. We received and reviewed comments from these scientists. All
peer reviewer comments, which are publically available (see ADDRESSESS)
were addressed prior to dissemination of the draft status review report
and publication of this proposed rule.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be
considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon
which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in Pacific Legal
Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded
that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental
assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA,
[[Page 20846]]
economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a
species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed
rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism
assessment is not required. Given that this species occurs entirely
outside of U.S. waters, there will be no federalism impacts because
listing the species will not affect any state programs.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: April 3, 2023.
Kelly Denit,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50
CFR part 224 as follows:
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 224.101, in the table in paragraph (h), add the entry,
``Dolphin, Atlantic humpback'', in alphabetical order by common name
under ``Marine Mammals'' to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing
Description of determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name listed entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Marine mammals:
* * * * * * *
Dolphin, Atlantic humpback.... Sousa teuszii........ Entire species...... [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER NA................... NA.
page where the document
begins], [date of
publication when
published as a final
rule].
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991).
[FR Doc. 2023-07286 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P