Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11363 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 

[Docket No. 141219999–5133–01] 

RIN 0648–XD681 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the 

Tanzanian DPS of African Coelacanth 

as Threatened Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a 

comprehensive status review under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the 

African coelacanth (Latimeria 

chalumnae) in response to a petition to 

list that species. We have determined 

that, based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and after 

taking into account efforts being made 

to protect the species, L. chalumnae 

does not meet the definition of a 

threatened or endangered species when 

evaluated throughout all of its range. 

However, we determined that the 

Tanzanian population of the taxon 

represents a significant portion of the 

taxon’s range, is threatened across that 

portion, and is a valid distinct 

population segment (DPS). Therefore, 

we propose to list the Tanzanian DPS of 

L. chalumnae as a threatened species 

under the ESA. We are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat for this DPS 

because the geographical areas occupied 

by the population are entirely outside 

U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not 

identified any unoccupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the DPS. 

We are soliciting comments on our 

proposal to list the Tanzanian DPS of 

the coelacanth as threatened under the 

ESA. 

DATES: Comments on our proposed rule 

to list the coelacanth must be received 

by May 4, 2015. Public hearing requests 

must be made by April 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0024, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0024. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Chelsey Young, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910, USA. 

Instructions: You must submit 

comments by one of the above methods 

to ensure that we receive, document, 

and consider them. 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. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

You can obtain the petition, status 

review report, the proposed rule, and 

the list of references electronically on 

our NMFS Web site at http://www.nmfs.

noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427– 

8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, 

(301) 427–8469. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 15, 2013, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians to 

list 81 marine species as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). This petition 

included species from many different 

taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 

90-day findings in batches by taxonomic 

group. We found that the petitioned 

actions may be warranted for 27 of the 

81 species and announced the initiation 

of status reviews for each of the 27 

species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 

78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 

69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, 

February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, 

February 24, 2014). This document 

addresses the findings for one of those 

27 species: The African coelacanth L. 

chalumnae. Findings for seven 

additional species can be found at 79 FR 

74853 (December 16, 2014). The 

remaining 19 species will be addressed 

in subsequent findings. 

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 consider first 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, 

then whether the status of the species 

qualifies it for listing as either 

threatened or endangered. Section 3 of 

the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ 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.’’ 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 (the DPS Policy; 61 

FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two 

elements that must be considered when 

identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness 

of the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species (or 

subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 

the significance of the population 

segment to the remainder of the species 

(or subspecies) to which it belongs. As 

stated in the DPS Policy, Congress 

expressed its expectation that the 

Services would exercise authority with 

regard to DPSs sparingly and only when 

the biological evidence indicates such 

action is warranted. 

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.’’ 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 in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

When we consider whether species 

might qualify as threatened under the 

ESA, we must consider the meaning of 

the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is 

appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ as the horizon over which 

predictions about the conservation 

status of the species can be reasonably 

relied upon. The foreseeable future 

considers the life history of the species, 

habitat characteristics, availability of 

data, particular threats, ability to predict 

threats, and the reliability to forecast the 

effects of these threats and future events 

on the status of the species under 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

consideration. Because a species may be 

susceptible to a variety of threats for 

which different data are available, or 

which operate across different time 

scales, the foreseeable future is not 

necessarily reducible to a particular 

number of years. Thus, in our 

determinations, we may describe the 

foreseeable future in general or 

qualitative terms. 

NMFS and the USFWS recently 

published a policy to clarify the 

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of the range’’ (SPR) in the ESA 

definitions of ‘‘threatened’’ and 

‘‘endangered’’ (76 FR 37577; July 01, 

2014). The policy consists of the 

following four components: 

(1) If a species is found to be 

endangered or threatened in only an 

SPR, the entire species is listed as 

endangered or threatened, respectively, 

and the ESA’s protections apply across 

the species’ entire range. 

(2) A portion of the range of a species 

is ‘‘significant’’ if its contribution to the 

viability of the species is so important 

that without that portion, the species 

would be in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. 

(3) The range of a species is 

considered to be the general 

geographical area within which that 

species can be found at the time USFWS 

or NMFS makes any particular status 

determination. This range includes 

those areas used throughout all or part 

of the species’ life cycle, even if they are 

not used regularly (e.g., seasonal 

habitats). Lost historical range is 

relevant to the analysis of the status of 

the species, but it cannot constitute an 

SPR. 

(4) If a species is not endangered or 

threatened throughout all of its range 

but is endangered or threatened within 

an SPR, and the population in that 

significant portion is a valid DPS, we 

will list the DPS rather than the entire 

taxonomic species or subspecies. 

We considered this policy in 

evaluating whether to list the coelacanth 

as endangered or threatened under the 

ESA. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us 

to determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened due to any 

one or a combination of the following 

five threat 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 (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 being made by any state 

or foreign nation to protect the species 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). 

In making a listing determination, we 

first determine whether a petitioned 

species meets the ESA definition of a 

‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available 

information gathered during the status 

review for the species, we complete a 

status and extinction risk assessment 

across the range of the species. In 

assessing extinction risk, we consider 

the demographic viability factors 

developed by McElhany et al. (2000) 

and the risk matrix approach developed 

by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to 

organize and summarize extinction risk 

considerations. The approach of 

considering demographic risk factors to 

help frame the consideration of 

extinction risk has been used in many 

of our status reviews, including for 

Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound 

rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and black abalone 

(see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

species/ for links to these reviews). In 

this approach, the collective condition 

of individual populations is considered 

at the species level according to four 

demographic viability factors: 

Abundance, growth rate/productivity, 

spatial structure/connectivity, and 

diversity. These viability factors reflect 

concepts that are well-founded in 

conservation biology and that 

individually and collectively provide 

strong indicators of extinction risk. 

We then assess efforts being made to 

protect the species, to determine if these 

conservation efforts are adequate to 

mitigate the existing threats. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary, when making a listing 

determination for a species, to take into 

consideration those efforts, if any, being 

made by any State or foreign nation to 

protect the species. We also evaluate 

conservation efforts that have not yet 

been fully implemented or shown to be 

effective using the criteria outlined in 

the joint NMFS/USFWS Policy for 

Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE; 

68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), to 

determine their certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness. The 

PECE is designed to ensure consistent 

and adequate evaluation of whether any 

conservation efforts that have been 

recently adopted or implemented, but 

not yet demonstrated to be effective, 

will result in improving the status of the 

species to the point at which listing is 

not warranted or contribute to forming 

the basis for listing a species as 

threatened rather than endangered. The 

two basic criteria established by the 

PECE are: (1) The certainty that the 

conservation efforts will be 

implemented; and (2) the certainty that 

the efforts will be effective. We consider 

these criteria, as applicable, below. We 

re-assess the extinction risk of the 

species in light of the existing 

conservation efforts. 

If we determine that a species 

warrants listing as threatened or 

endangered, we publish a proposed rule 

in the Federal Register and seek public 

comment on the proposed listing. 

Status Review 

We conducted a status review for the 

petitioned species addressed in this 

finding (Whittaker, 2014), which 

compiled information on the species’ 

biology, ecology, life history, threats, 

and conservation status from 

information contained in the petition, 

our files, a comprehensive literature 

search, and consultation with experts. 

We also considered information 

submitted by the public in response to 

our petition finding. The draft status 

review report was also submitted to 

independent peer reviewers; comments 

and information received from peer 

reviewers were addressed and 

incorporated as appropriate before 

finalizing the draft report. 

The status review report provides a 

thorough discussion of demographic 

risks and threats to the particular 

species. We considered all identified 

threats, both individually and 

cumulatively, to determine whether the 

species should reasonably be expected 

to respond to the threats in a way that 

causes actual impacts at the species 

level. The collective condition of 

individual populations was also 

considered at the species level, 

according to the four demographic 

viability factors discussed above. 

The status review report is available 

on our Web site (see ADDRESSES

section). The following section 

describes our analysis of the status of 

the African coelacanth, L. chalumnae. 

Species Description 

Latimeria chalumnae, a fish 

commonly known as the African 

coelacanth, belongs to a very old lineage 

of bony fish, the class Sarcopterygii or 

lobe-finned fishes, which includes the 

coelacanths, the lungfish, and very early 

tetrapods. Most species of lobe-finned 

fish are extinct. Among the lobe-finned 

fishes, L. chalumnae is one of only two 

living species belonging to the order 

Coelacanthiformes. The belief that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11365 

coelacanth had gone extinct over 65 

million years ago made the discovery of 

a living specimen off the coast of South 

Africa in 1938 particularly sensational 

(McAllister, 1971). Latimeria 

chalumnae inhabits coasts along the 

western Indian Ocean, while Latimeria 

menadoensis, commonly known as the 

Indonesian coelacanth, observed for the 

first time in 1997, appears to be 

restricted to Indonesian waters, but 

might also occur along the coastal 

islands in the eastern Indian Ocean 

(Erdmann et al., 1998; Erdmann, 1999; 

Springer, 1999; Fricke et al., 2000b, 

Hissman pers. com.). Latimeria 

chalumnae and L. menadoensis are 

genetically and geographically distinct 

(Pouyaud et al., 1999; Holder et al., 

1999; Inoue, 2005). While genetically 

distinct, the Indonesian and African 

coelacanth species exhibit overlapping 

morphological traits, which makes it 

difficult to differentiate between them 

based on morphology alone. 

The coelacanth has a number of 

unique morphological features. Most 

obvious are its stalked dorsal, pelvic, 

anal, and caudal fins. In the water, 

under camera observation, the body of 

the fish appears iridescent dark blue, 

but its natural color is brown (Hissman 

pers. com.); individuals have white 

blotches on their bodies that have been 

used for identification in the field. 

When individuals die, their color shifts 

from blue to brown. The name 

‘‘coelacanth’’ comes from the Greek 

words for ‘hollow’ and ‘spine,’ referring 

to the fish’s hollow oil-filled notochord, 

which supports the dorsal and ventral 

caudal fin rays (Balon et al., 1988). This 

notochord is composed of collagen 

which is stiffened under fluid pressure 

(Balon et al., 1988). Coelacanth species 

have a unique intracranial joint 

allowing them to simultaneously open 

the lower and upper jaws, possibly an 

adaptation for feeding (Balon et al., 

1988). Coelacanths undergo 

osmoregulation via retention of urea 

(Griffith, 1991). Their swim bladder is 

filled with wax-esters used to passively 

regulate buoyancy, allowing the fish to 

reach depths of 700 meters during 

nightly feeding excursions (Hissmann et 

al., 2000). Males and females exhibit 

sexual dimorphism in size, with females 

larger than males (Bruton et al., 1991b). 

The natural range of the African 

coelacanth L. chalumnae was once 

thought to be restricted to the Comoro 

Island Archipelago, located in the 

Western Indian Ocean between 

Madagascar and Mozambique. For many 

years, specimens caught off South 

Africa, Mozambique, and Madagascar 

were thought to be strays from the 

Comoro population (Schliewen et al., 

1993; Hissmann et al., 1998). However, 

between 1995 and 2001, catches and 

observations of coelacanths from the 

coasts of Kenya (De Vos et al., 2002), 

Tanzania (Benno et al., 2006), South 

Africa (Hissmann et al., 2006), and 

Madagascar (Heemstra et al., 1996) 

suggested that the species was more 

widespread than previously thought, 

occupying deep water coastal habitat in 

several locations throughout the 

Western Indian Ocean. The range extent 

of the coelacanth remains unclear, as 

direct observations of established 

populations rely on dedicated deep 

water canyon surveys, or bycatch 

observations from gillnets and artisanal 

handlines (Hissmann et al., 2006). 

Today, three established coelacanth 

populations have been confirmed by 

survey efforts, inhabiting deep-water 

caves off the coast of the Comoros, 

South Africa, and the coast of Tanzania. 

The coelacanth is known to inhabit 

waters deeper than 100m, making 

surveys difficult and reliant upon 

sophisticated technology including 

submersibles and remotely operated 

vehicles (ROVs), or highly-trained 

divers using special gas mixtures. To 

date, the best data addressing 

coelacanth habitat use come from in situ 

observations of the fish off the steep 

volcanic coasts of Grand Comoro Island; 

two decades of coelacanth observation 

there demonstrate that the coelacanth 

inhabits deep submarine caves and 

canyons which are thought to provide 

shelter from predation and ocean 

currents (Fricke et al., 2011). The fish 

aggregate in these caves in groups of up 

to 10 individuals. Retreat into these 

caves after nightly feeding activity is 

most likely a key factor for coelacanth 

survival, allowing the fish to rest and 

conserve energy in a deep-water, lowprey environment (Fricke et al., 1991a). 

At night, coelacanths occupy deeper 

waters to actively feed, spending the 

majority of their time between 200 and 

300 m (Fricke et al., 1994; Hissmann et 

al., 2000). Larger individuals are known 

to venture below 400 m, with the 

deepest observation at 698 m (Hissmann 

et al., 2000). 

South African coelacanth habitat has 

also been studied, although to a lesser 

extent than in the Comoro Islands 

(Venter et al., 2000; Hissmann et al., 

2006; Roberts et al., 2006). In the deep 

canyons off the coast of South Africa, 

suitable coelacanth caves have been 

found at depths of 100–130 m, whereas 

at Grand Comoro Island, most caves are 

in depths of 180–230 m (Heemstra et al., 

2006). In general, it is thought that the 

deep overhangs and caves found off the 

shelf of South Africa provide suitable 

shelter and refuge for coelacanths. 

Habitat off of Tanzania consists of 

rocky terraces occurring between 70– 

140 m depth; the water temperature at 

coelacanth catch depths is around 20 °C 

(Nyandwi, 2009). A large number (n = 

19) of Tanzanian coelacanths have been 

caught in the outer reefs near the village 

of Tanga. In this region, some 

coelacanth catches have been reported 

to occur at 50–60 m; however, the 

validity of these reports is questionable 

(Benno et al., 2006; Nyandwi, 2009, 

Hissman pers. com.). These incidents 

may indicate a shallower depth 

preference for Tanzanian coelacanths 

than that exhibited by Comoran 

coelacanths; however, more surveys are 

needed to better understand coelacanth 

habitat use in this region (Benno et al., 

2006). The benthic substrate off the 

coast of Tanzania is sedimentary 

limestone rather than the volcanic rock 

of the Comoros. In this habitat, 

coelacanths are thought to use 

submarine cavities and shelves that 

have eroded out of the limestone 

composite for shelter. 

Coelacanths demonstrate strong site 

fidelity with relatively large overlapping 

home ranges, greater than 8 km, as 

demonstrated at Comoro and South 

African sites where expeditions have 

tracked individual movements using 

ultrasonic transmitters (Fricke et al., 

1994; Heemstra et al., 2006). Surveys off 

Grand Comoro over 21 years 

demonstrate that individual coelacanths 

may inhabit the same network of caves 

for decades; for example, 17 individuals 

originally identified in 1989 were resighted in 2008 in the same survey area 

(Fricke et al., 2011). 

Temperature use for the Comoran 

coelacanth, based on survey 

observations, was found to be between 

16.5 and 22.8 °C (Fricke et al., 1991b). 

Surveys of South African coelacanth 

habitat off of Sodwana Bay confirm this 

temperature use across a broad portion 

of its range (Hissmann et al., 2006). This 

corresponds to estimates of thermal 

requirements based on the temperaturedependent oxygen saturation of their 

blood, with an optimum at 15 °C and an 

upper threshold at 22–23 °C (Hughes et 

al., 1972). Thus, the coelacanth depends 

on cooler waters to help maintain its 

oxygen demands. Most likely, the depth 

distribution of coelacanth depends 

partly on this temperature requirement. 

The coelacanth’s ecological niche is 

likely shaped by this narrow 

temperature requirement, prey 

abundance, and the need for shelter and 

oxygen. 

It is thought that sedimentation and 

siltation act as a negative influence on 

coelacanth distribution. This is 

supported by a hypothesis surrounding 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the split between the two living 

coelacanth species estimated to have 

occurred 40–30 million years ago (Mya), 

corresponding with the collision 

between India and Eurasia (50 Mya), 

which created high levels of siltation 

and isolated individuals to the east and 

west of India (Inoue et al., 2005). This 

hypothesis has been supported by some 

surveys off Sodwana Bay where it was 

observed that some canyons, despite 

offering suitable habitat requirements, 

were not occupied by coelacanths; it 

was concluded that the turbidity of the 

water in these caves discouraged 

coelacanth habitation, as nearby 

canyons not affected by turbidity were 

occupied by coelacanths (Hissmann et 

al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2006). 

Coelacanths are considered 

ovoviviparous, meaning the embryos are 

provided a yolk sac and develop inside 

the adult female until they are delivered 

as live births; coelacanth embryos are 

not surrounded by a solid shell. 

Embryos remain in gestation for 3 years; 

this period of embryogenesis has been 

determined by scale rings of embryo and 

newborn coelacanth specimens (Froese 

et al., 2000). The coelacanth gestation 

period is considered the longest of any 

vertebrate (Froese et al., 2000). It has 

been hypothesized that the coelacanth 

may live upwards of 40 or 50 years, and 

even up to 100 years (Bruton et al., 

1991a, Fricke et al., 2011, Hissman per. 

com.). Coelacanth generation times are 

long. In fact, they are expected to reach 

reproductive maturity between 16 and 

19 years of age (Froese et al., 2000). 

Coelacanth fecundity is not well known; 

26 embryos were found within one 

female caught in 2001 from off of 

Mozambique, and other known 

fecundities are 5, 19, and 23 pups 

(Fricke et al., 1992). 

Coelacanths are extremely slow drifthunters. They descend at least 50 to 100 

m below their daytime habitat to feed at 

night on the bottom or near-bottom, and 

are thought to consume deep-water 

prey, or prey found at the bottom of the 

ocean (Uyeno et al., 1991; Fricke et al., 

1994). Stomach content analysis has 

revealed a variety of prey items 

including deepwater fishes ranging from 

cephalopods (including cuttlefish) to 

eels such as conger eels (Uyeno et al., 

1991). The fish exhibits low-energy drift 

feeding behavior, which is thought to 

conserve energy and oxygen for the fish. 

Metabolic demands have been studied 

in the coelacanth, and demonstrate that 

they have one of the lowest resting 

metabolisms of all vertebrates (Hughes 

et al., 1972; Fricke et al., 2000a). The 

coelacanth’s gill surface area is much 

smaller than other fishes of similar size; 

this morphological feature is a factor 

thought to heavily limit their growth 

rate and productivity due to its control 

over oxygen utilization (Froese et al., 

2000). Studies of the fish’s blood 

physiology have demonstrated that the 

oxygen dissociation curve is 

temperature dependent, and shows an 

affinity for oxygen at lower 

temperatures (15 °C). Small gill surface 

area and blood physiology are thought 

to influence the coelacanth’s restriction 

to cold deep water habitat, and may 

correlate with their low metabolic rates, 

meager food consumption and generally 

slow growth and maturation (Froese et 

al., 2000). 

Population Abundance, Distribution, 

and Structure 

It was once thought that coelacanths 

were restricted to the Comoro Island 

Archipelago, and that individuals 

caught in other locations in the Western 

Indian Ocean were strays. However, 

growing evidence suggests that L. 

chalumnae consists of several 

established populations throughout the 

Western Indian Ocean (Schartl et al., 

2005). Two resident and scientifically 

surveyed coelacanth populations exist 

in waters off South Africa and the 

Comoro Islands (Hissmann et al., 2006; 

Fricke et al., 2011). Increases in 

coelacanth catch off the coast of 

Tanzania during the last decade and 

genetic analysis of individuals caught 

there demonstrated that an established 

population exists there as well, as 

confirmed by the observance of 9 

coelacanth individuals during a 2007 

survey off the Tanzanian coast (Nikaido 

et al., 2011). Additional coelacanth 

catches have been recorded off 

Madagascar, Mozambique, and Kenya, 

but these regions have not yet been 

surveyed (Nulens et al., 2011) so their 

status is unclear. What is known of the 

coelacanth’s distribution is largely 

based on bycatch data. Thus, the true 

number of established coelacanth 

populations, and the extent of the 

species’ range across the Western Indian 

Ocean remain uncertain. 

Insufficient data exist to 

quantitatively estimate coelacanth 

population abundance or trends over 

time for the majority of its range. 

Population abundance estimates are 

greatly challenged by sampling and 

survey conditions wherein deep 

technical scuba or submersibles are 

necessary to reach and document the 

coelacanth in its natural habitat. 

Quantitative estimates of coelacanth 

abundance have been made only for the 

Comoro Islands. Coelacanth population 

abundance estimates for the western 

coastline of Grand Comoro were 

initially made in the late 1980s by 

Fricke et al. (1991a) and updated to 

include survey data from 1991 (Fricke et 

al., 1994). The survey area during this 

time covered 9 percent of the projected 

coelacanth habitat along the western 

coast of Grand Comoro (Hissmann et al., 

1998). These estimates showed a 

relatively stable population ranging 

between 230–650 individuals (Fricke et 

al., 1994). Surveys conducted in 1994 

across the southwestern coast of Grand 

Comoro (the same sample area as in 

earlier surveys) revealed a 68 percent 

decrease in cave inhabitants and a 32 

percent decrease in the total number of 

coelacanths encountered as compared to 

a 1991 survey that covered the same 

area at the same time of year (Hissmann 

et al., 1998). Three additional surveys of 

the western coast of Grand Comoro 

occurred in the 2000s, and are 

summarized in Fricke et al. (2011). 

These survey methods and area were 

consistent with earlier surveys 

occurring in the late 1980s and 1990s. 

During surveys between 2000 and 2009, 

several marked individuals not sighted 

in 1994 re-appeared, and cave 

occupancy rates in these later surveys 

were similar to surveys of the early 

1990s (Fricke et al., 2011). In total, nine 

dedicated coelacanth surveys have 

occurred in this area since 1986 (Fricke 

et al., 2011). Estimates of population 

abundance along the western coast of 

Grand Comoro, based on repeated 

surveys over almost 2 decades, are 

between 300 and 400 individuals, with 

145 individuals identifiable via unique 

markings (Fricke et al., 2011). The 1994 

survey showing population declines is 

thought to be an anomaly driven by 

higher water temperature, as later 

surveys demonstrate that the local 

population of western Grand Comoro 

has remained stable since the 1980s 

(Fricke et al., 2011). Some local 

Comoran fishermen have suggested that 

seasonal abundance patterns may exist 

for the coelacanth as they do for the 

locally-targeted oilfish, but there are 

insufficient data to address this 

phenomenon (Stobbs et al., 1991). 

Across the coelacanth’s range, 

juveniles (<100 cm) are largely absent 

from survey and catch data, suggesting 

that earlier life stages may exhibit 

differences in distribution and habitat 

use (Fricke et al., 2011). Length at birth 

is assumed to be 40 cm (Bruton et al., 

1991a). Size classes between 40 and 100 

cm are largely absent from surveys of 

the Comoros, South Africa, and 

Tanzania; these smaller sizes are also 

absent from shallower water, suggesting 

that they inhabit deeper water than 

older individuals (Fricke et al., 2011). In 

general, the distribution and relative 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11367 

abundance of juveniles across the 

coelacanth’s range remains unknown. 

Population estimates have not been 

conducted in other parts of the 

coelacanth’s range, and it is possible 

that undiscovered populations exist 

across the Western Indian Ocean 

because coelacanths have been caught 

(in low numbers) off the coast of 

Madagascar, Kenya and Mozambique. 

Based on current understanding, 

coelacanth habitat and distribution is 

determined by the species’ need for cool 

water and structurally complex caves 

and shelf overhangs for refuge. Using 

these requirements, Green et al. (2009) 

conducted a bathymetric survey using 

data coverage of the Western Indian 

Ocean in order to identify potential 

habitat for coelacanth populations, 

beyond occupied habitat already 

identified. The authors identified 

several locations off Mozambique and 

South Africa that met characteristics of 

coelacanth habitat. Lack of adequate 

data coverage for Tanzania and 

Madagascar precluded thorough 

analyses of these regions, so the authors 

did not rule out these locations as 

suitable coelacanth habitat. Although 

this bathymetric study did not lead to 

any additional surveys to confirm its 

findings, the analysis demonstrates the 

presence of suitable habitat throughout 

the Western Indian Ocean, and thus the 

potential for yet-undiscovered 

coelacanth populations. Based on the 

data presented, populations that have 

been surveyed appear to be stable with 

unknown abundance and trends 

elsewhere. 

Genetic data on coelacanth 

population structure are limited and 

known distribution of coelacanth 

populations is potentially biased by 

targeted survey efforts and fishery catch 

data. However, recent whole-genome 

sequencing and genetic data available 

for multiple coelacanth specimens can 

be used to cautiously infer some 

patterns of population structure and 

connectivity across the coelacanth’s 

known range (Nikaido et al., 2011; 

Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et al., 

2013). Currently, whole-genome 

sequences exist for multiple individuals 

from Tanzania, the Comoros, and from 

the Indonesian coelacanth L. 

menadoensis. 

Significant genetic divergence at the 

species level has been demonstrated to 

exist between L. chalumnae and L. 

menadoensis (Inoue et al. 2005) as 

described above. 

Intraspecific population structure has 

been examined using L. chalumnae 

specimens from Tanzania, the Comoros, 

and southern Africa (Nikaido et al., 

2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido et 

al., 2013). These studies suggest that L. 

chalumnae comprises multiple 

independent populations distributed 

across the Western Indian Ocean. 

However, based on limited samples, the 

geographic patterns and relatedness 

among coelacanth populations are not 

well understood. Using mitochondrial 

DNA analyses, Nikaido et al. (2011) 

demonstrated that individuals from 

northern Tanzania differ from those 

from southern Tanzania and the 

Comoros. In fact, this study estimated 

that a northern Tanzanian population 

diverged from the rest of the species an 

estimated 200,000 years ago. Nikaido et 

al. (2011) hypothesized that 

differentiation of individuals from 

northern Tanzania may relate to 

divergence of currents in this region, 

where hydrography limits gene flow and 

reduces the potential for drifting 

migrants. More recent data reflecting a 

greater number of samples and higherresolution population analyses do not 

support a genetic break between 

individuals from north and south 

Tanzania. Instead, this more robust 

population-genetics approach reveals 

significant divergence among 

individuals from South Africa, 

Tanzania, and two populations which 

diverged but are co-existing within the 

Comoros; the mechanism of divergence 

between the two co-existing populations 

of the Comoros remains unclear 

(Lampert et al., 2012). All studies are 

consistent in that they demonstrate low 

absolute divergence among populations, 

which either relates to extremely low 

evolutionary rates in L. chalumnae, or 

recent divergence of populations after 

going through a bottleneck (such as a 

founding effect) (Lampert et al., 2012). 

Information derived from unique 

sequences of mitochondrial DNA 

support the Comoros as an ancestral 

population to other populations 

distributed throughout the Western 

Indian Ocean, because this population 

appears to have a greater number of 

ancestral haplotypes (Nikaido et al., 

2011). 

All coelacanth populations 

demonstrate the common characteristic 

of low diversity, but the Comoros 

population is the least diverse (Nikaido 

et al., 2011, Nikaido et al., 2013). 

Genetic evidence for inbreeding has 

been observed in investigations of 

coelacanth mitochondrial DNA and 

DNA fingerprinting, where high bandsharing coefficients showed significant 

inbreeding effects (Schartl et al., 2005). 

The species L. chalumnae exhibits 

significantly lower levels of genetic 

divergence than its sister species L. 

menadoensis (Nikaido et al., 2013). 

Because rates of molecular substitution 

and evolution are thought to be similar 

for these two species, the significantly 

lower diversity measures for L. 

chalumnae points to smaller 

populations (as compared to L. 

menadoensis) or the occurrence of 

repeated genetic bottlenecks, rather than 

slow evolution rate alone (Inoue et al., 

2005, Nikaido et al., 2013). Low 

diversity within populations and 

evidence for inbreeding suggest that 

populations are independent and small. 

While population structure is not 

clearly resolved across the region, 

available genetic data suggest the 

following: (1) Oceanographic and 

environmental conditions may cause 

uneven gene flow among coelacanth 

populations across the region; (2) 

populations across the Western Indian 

Ocean are independent, and do not 

represent strays from the Comoros, or a 

panmictic population (or a population 

in which all individuals are potential 

mates); (3) Evolutionary rates of 

coelacanths are extremely slow, and 

lower diversity in L. chalumnae as 

compared with L. menadoensis points 

to smaller population sizes and/or 

genetic bottleneck effects. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

African Coelacanth 

Available information regarding 

current, historical, and potential threats 

to the coelacanth was thoroughly 

reviewed (Whittaker, 2014). Across the 

species’ range, we found the threats to 

the species to be generally low, with 

isolated threats of overutilization 

through bycatch and habitat loss in 

portions of its range. Other possible 

threats include climate change, 

overutilization via the curio trade, and 

habitat degradation in the form of 

pollution; however, across the species’ 

full range we classify these threats as 

low. We summarize information 

regarding each of these threats below 

according to the factors specified in 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Available 

information does not indicate that 

neither disease nor predation is 

operative threats on this species; 

therefore, we do not discuss those 

further here. See Whittaker (2014) for 

additional discussion of all ESA section 

4(a)(1) threat categories. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

There is no evidence curtailment of 

the historical range of L. chalumnae has 

occurred throughout its evolutionary 

history, either due to human 

interactions or natural forces. Genetic 

data and geological history suggest that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the split between L. chalumnae and its 

Indonesian sister species L. 

menadoensis occurred 40–30 Mya, and 

that the genus was previously 

distributed throughout the coasts of 

Africa and Eurasia (Springer, 1999; 

Inoue et al., 2005). However, no data are 

available to inform an understanding of 

historical changes in the range of the 

species L. chalumnae. Although the 

order Coelacanthiformes was deemed to 

have become extinct 65 million years 

before the 1938 discovery in South 

Africa, this surprising encounter cannot 

be used as evidence for a curtailment of 

the species’ range from historical levels 

given lack of any historical data on the 

species prior to its discovery. The 

species is naturally hidden from human 

observation, and therefore, highly 

technical diving, deep water survey 

equipment, or unique fishing techniques 

(such as hand lines) are required to 

reach the fish’s cavernous, structurally 

complex, and deep habitat; thus, the 

contemporary and historical extent of its 

range remains unclear. 

Due to its occurrence in deep water 

(>100 meters), the coelacanth may be 

particularly buffered from human 

disturbance (Heemstra et al., 2006). 

Nonetheless, increases in human 

population and development along the 

coastline of the Western Indian Ocean 

could impart long-term effects on the 

fish throughout its range. World human 

population forecasts predict that the 

largest percentage increase by 2050 will 

be in Africa, where the population is 

expected to at least double to 2.1 billion 

(Kincaid, 2010). The result of increased 

population density on coastal 

ecosystems of East Africa may include 

increased pollution and siltation, which 

may impact the coelacanth despite its 

use of a deep and relatively stable 

environment. 

Human population growth will likely 

lead to increases in agricultural 

production, industrial development, 

and water use along the coast of the 

Western Indian Ocean; these land use 

changes may increase near shore 

sedimentation, possibly affecting 

coelacanth habitat. As described earlier, 

sedimentation is theorized to negatively 

impact coelacanth distribution 

(Springer, 1999). The coelacanth has 

been shown to avoid caves with turbid 

water, even if other preferred conditions 

of shelter and food are present 

(Hissmann et al., 2006). Many East 

African countries are still developing, 

and the population is growing. 

Increased food demand may lead to 

changes in land and water use, and an 

increase in agriculture and thus run-off 

and siltation to the coast. It is possible 

that, if increases in siltation occur, 

coelacanth habitat may be affected, and 

range reduced. However, the nature of 

these economic and land use changes, 

as well as their direct effect on 

sedimentation and subsequent impact 

on coelacanth habitat, remain highly 

uncertain. 

Pollution of coastal African waters 

does not currently pose a direct threat 

to the coelacanth. A review of heavy 

metals in aquatic ecosystems of Africa 

showed generally low concentrations, 

close to background levels, and much 

lower than more industrial regions of 

the world (Biney et al., 1994). Yet, 

surprisingly, a toxicological study of 

two coelacanth specimens detected 

lipophilic organochlorine pollutants 

such as polychlorinated biphenyl 

(PCBs) and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

(Hale et al., 1991). Levels ranged from 

89 to 510 pg kg¥l for PCB and 210 to 

840 pg kg¥l for DDT concentration, and 

were highest in lipid-rich tissues such 

as the swim bladder and liver (Hale et 

al., 1991). The coelacanth has high lipid 

content, and its trophic position may 

increase the probability of toxic 

bioaccumulation. Insufficient data are 

available to determine the impact of 

these toxins on coelacanth health and 

productivity. 

Direct habitat destruction is likely to 

impact coelacanths off the coast of 

Tanga, Tanzania. Plans are in place to 

build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani 

Bay, 8 km south of the original Tanga 

Port. The construction of the Mwambani 

port is part of a large project to develop 

an alternative sea route for Uganda and 

other land-locked countries that have 

been depending on the port of 

Mombasa. Development of the port 

would include submarine blasting and 

channel dredging and destruction of 

known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity 

of Yambe and Karange islands—the site 

of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth 

catches (Hamlin, 2014). The new port is 

scheduled to be built in the middle of 

a newly-implemented Tanga Coelacanth 

Marine Park. The plans for Mwambani 

Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear 

to be ongoing, despite conservation 

concerns. If built, the port would likely 

disrupt coelacanth habitat by direct 

elimination of deep-water shelters, or by 

a large influx of siltation that would 

likely result in coelacanth displacement. 

Habitat destruction in the form of 

nearshore dynamite fishing on coral 

reefs may indirectly impact the 

coelacanth due to a reduction in prey 

availability, but these impacts are highly 

uncertain. As a restricted shallow-water 

activity, this destructive fishing would 

not impact the coelacanth’s deep (+100 

m) habitat directly. However, coral reefs 

in this region provide essential fish 

nursery habitat and are hot spots for 

biodiversity (Salm, 1983). Loss of 

nearshore coral habitat may negatively 

impact pelagic fish species due to loss 

of nursery habitat; it is highly uncertain 

how these impacts may affect the prey 

availability for the coelacanth. Dynamite 

fishing in the Comoros was observed 

recently by researchers (Fricke et al., 

2011). While this method is not 

widespread throughout the Comoros, 

reduction in the sustainability of 

nearshore or pelagic fish populations 

may encourage fishermen to increase 

use of these new methods. Dynamite 

fishing in Tanzania is widespread, and 

has led to destruction of nearshore coral 

reefs and disruption of essential fish 

habitat (Wells, 2009). Destructive 

fishing practices occur throughout coral 

reefs along the coast of the Western 

Indian Ocean (Salm, 1983). The true 

extent to which the destruction of near 

shore coral habitat may affect the 

coelacanth remains uncertain, 

especially as the fish is thought to 

consume primarily deep-water prey 

(Uyeno, 1991; Uyeno et al., 1991). 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Bycatch 

Since its discovery in 1938, all known 

coelacanth catches are considered to 

have been the result of bycatch. 

Particularly in the Comoro Islands, 

where the highest number of coelacanth 

catches has occurred, researchers have 

found no evidence of a targeted 

coelacanth fishery given that methods 

do not exist to directly catch the deepdwelling fish (Bruton et al., 1991c). The 

coelacanth meat is undesirable, and 

thus the fish is not consumed by 

humans (Fricke, 1998). 

Out of 294 coelacanth catches since 

its 1939 discovery, the majority of 

catches (n = 215 as of 2011) have been 

a result of bycatch in the oilfish, or 

Revettus, artisanal fishery occurring 

only in the Comoro Island archipelago 

(Stobbs et al. 1991; Nulens et al. 2011). 

The Comoros oilfish fishery uses 

unmotorized outrigger canoes (locally 

called galawas). The fish are caught 

using handlines and hooks close to 

shore at depths as great as 800m (Stobbs 

et al., 1991). This traditional fishery is 

known locally as maze ́ fishing, and 

coelacanth catches have only occurred 

on Grand Comoro and Anjouan Islands 

(Stobbs et al., 1991). Oilfish are 

traditionally caught at night, an act 

considered locally to be very dangerous 

(Stobbs et al., 1991). Often, this artisanal 

fishing is performed only on dark 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11369 

moonless calm nights. In general, 

subsistence fishing in the region is 

limited by weather conditions, and 

often disrupted by monsoon or tropical 

storms. This fishery is also limited by a 

tradition of social pressure which 

restricts fishing to offshore waters 

adjacent to each fisherman’s village 

(Stobbs et al., 1991). 

Since its discovery in the Comoros (in 

1938), coelacanth catch rate has been 

very low, between 2–4 individuals per 

year. Coelacanth catch rate in the 

Comoros shows no significant trend 

over time; however, it has fluctuated 

historically with changes in fishing 

technology and shifts in the ratio 

between artisanal and more modern 

pelagic fishing methods (Stobbs et al., 

1991; Plante et al., 1998). From a 

broader temporal perspective, there was 

an increasing but insignificant change in 

coelacanth catch from the Comoros from 

1954 to 1995 (Plante et al., 1998). 

However, between 1995 and 2008, the 

number of galawas in the Comoros has 

declined steadily, corresponding with a 

steady increase in motorized boats 

(Fricke et al., 2011). The most recent 

update of coelacanth catch inventory 

indicates that catch rates in the Comoro 

archipelago have declined and 

stabilized over the past decade (Nulens 

et al., 2011). In fact, between 2000 and 

2008, catch rates were the lowest ever 

observed, likely due to the increase in 

motorized boats and decreased artisanal 

handline fishing over the past decade 

(Fricke et al., 2011). Today, maze ́

fishing is going out of favor in the 

Comoros (Plante et al., 1998; Fricke et 

al., 2011); this trend is expected to 

continue into the future, and reduces 

fishing pressure on the coelacanth in 

this region, most likely explaining the 

reduction in coelacanth catch over the 

past decade (Stobbs et al., 1991; Plante 

et al., 1998; Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens 

et al., 2011). Fishing mortality has been 

determined to be negligible in the 

Comoros population, likely relating to 

its population stability over time 

(Bruton et al., 1991a; Fricke et al., 2011). 

Outside of the Comoros, coelacanths 

have been caught in Tanzania, 

Madagascar, Mozambique, Kenya, and 

South Africa (Nulens et al., 2011). 

Historically, far fewer coelacanth 

catches have occurred outside of the 

Comoros Islands. However, over the 

past decade, the trend in coelacanth 

catches shows a drastic increase in 

catch rate off Tanzania via shark gillnets 

(Fricke et al., 2011; Nulens et al., 2011). 

Hand line maze ́ fisheries are absent 

outside of the Comoros, thus catches 

across the rest of the Western Indian 

Ocean have occurred using different 

gear—deep-set shark gillnets and trawls. 

Trawls have been the mechanism for 

only 3 total coelacanth catches; minimal 

catch through trawling is thought to 

relate to the coelacanth’s preferred 

rocky steep cavernous habitat, substrate 

not suitable for trawling activity (Benno 

et al., 2006). The first confirmed 

coelacanth catches using shark gillnets 

occurred in Madagascar in 1995 and in 

Tanzania in 2003, although a few earlier 

unconfirmed catches in these locations 

may have occurred as early as 1953 

(Benno et al., 2006). The first Tanzanian 

catch in 2003 followed the introduction 

of shark gillnets in the region in 2001 

(Benno et al., 2006). As of September 

2003, the capture of coelacanths has 

been dominated by those caught in 

Tanzania (Nulens et al., 2011). Since the 

first 2003 catch in Tanzania, over 60 

catches via deep water gillnets have 

been reported, with over 12 fish caught/ 

year between 2003 and 2008 (Benno et 

al., 2006; Nulens et al., 2011). These 

shark gillnets are set at depths between 

50 and 150m, and it is thought that 

accidental coelacanth catches in 

Tanzania occur when coelacanths leave 

their caves for nighttime hunting 

(Nyandwi, 2009). 

Expansion of the shark gillnet fishery 

across the Western Indian Ocean may 

result in increased bycatch of the 

coelacanth, as has been observed off the 

coast of Tanzania, but the potential for 

such an increase is uncertain. Available 

information suggests that shark fishing 

effort has been increasing off the coast 

of east Africa, including the coelacanth 

range countries of Mozambique, 

Madagascar, Kenya, and South Africa 

(Smale, 2008). Techniques for catching 

sharks in this region include deep-set 

shark gillnets, such as those responsible 

for the commencement of coelacanth 

bycatch in Tanzania in 2003 (Nulins et 

al., 2011). Shark gillnet fishing is used 

in other East African countries, such as 

Mozambique, where these fisheries are 

highly profitable, and are driven by the 

demand for fin exports, with evidence 

for frequent illegal export occurring 

(Pierce et al., 2008). Despite the use of 

gillnet fishing practices elsewhere in 

East Africa, other areas have not shown 

a similar spike in coelacanth bycatch as 

has been observed in Tanzania. 

Quantification of effort from the shark 

gill net fishery in South Africa has been 

challenging due to high levels of illegal 

or unreported fishing occurring; for 

example, as little as 21 percent of the 

actual catch for shark gillnet and seine 

fisheries may be reported in South 

Africa (Hutchings et al., 2002). 

Nonetheless, shark fisheries in this 

region are thought to be overexploited, 

which may lead to an increase in future 

effort due to sustained global demand 

(Hutchings et al., 2002). It is reasonable 

to conclude that the use of shark gillnets 

will continue or increase in Tanzania 

and will continue to expand throughout 

the Western Indian Ocean; however, 

whether this trend will result in an 

increased threat of coelacanth bycatch is 

uncertain, especially given the 

uncertainty over the fish’s range and 

habitat use throughout the coast of East 

Africa. 

Commercial Interest 

The coelacanth is not desirable 

commercially as a traditional food 

source or for artisanal handicrafts. 

Targeted methods of fishing the 

coelacanth have never been developed, 

and local cultures do not value the 

coelacanth commercially or for 

subsistence purposes (Fricke, 1998). 

In the Comoros, the coelacanth has 

become a source of pride and national 

heritage (Fricke, 1998). However, 

cultural interest in the coelacanth does 

not put the fish at risk, and on the 

contrary, may encourage its 

conservation. Commercial interest 

through tourism to the coelacanth’s 

habitat is not a realistic threat either, as 

the deepwater habitat is largely 

inaccessible. In the 1980s there was a 

rumor that Japanese scientists were 

attempting to develop a new anti-aging 

serum using the coelacanth notochord 

oil. Although these claims made 

international headlines, the rumor has 

since been rejected. As Fricke pointed 

out (Fricke, 1998), the unsubstantiated 

rumor of the ‘fountain of youth’ serum 

had an unexpected result of stirring 

publicity and conservation interest in 

the fish. Interest in the coelacanth 

notochord oil for medicinal purposes 

does not pose a threat to the species, as 

claims of its life extending properties 

are unsubstantiated. 

Interest in coelacanth specimens on 

the black market is a possible threat to 

the species. The concern mostly 

surrounds a curio trade rather than a 

potential aquarium trade. Because the 

fish is deep-water dependent, it survives 

for only a short period of time at the 

surface, and thus far, is not maintained 

in aquariums. Several attempts have 

been made to keep the coelacanth alive 

in captivity, but these attempts have 

demonstrated that the deep water fish is 

fragile and that it has been shown to 

survive at the surface for less than 10 

hours (Hughes et al., 1972); the cause of 

death is thought to be a combination of 

capture stress and overheating resulting 

in asphyxiation. Comment threads 

found on the popular Web site Monster 

Fish Keepers, a forum for private 

aquarium and fish hobbyists, reveal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

widespread knowledge of the 

coelacanth’s fragility; these hobbyists 

express general understanding that the 

coelacanth’s life can be sustained at 

surface depth no longer than a few 

hours (Hamlin, 1992; Monsterfish, 

2007). Thus, black market trade of the 

coelacanth for private aquaria is not a 

realistic threat. However, the blackmarket curio trade may be a source of 

exploitation. The same fish hobbyist 

forums reveal general interest in the fish 

as a curio specimen, and willingness to 

pay large sums relative to the typical 

Comoran income for a dead specimen 

(Monsterfish, 2009). Thus, black market 

curio trade may provide an economic 

incentive for capture of the fish. 

However, we did not find data 

suggesting that a black market curio 

trade is currently active. 

Scientific Interest 

Since discovery of the species in 

1938, international scientists and 

researchers have cherished the 

coelacanth as the only representative of 

an important evolutionary branch in the 

tree of life. This has led to a long history 

of surveys to better understand the fish’s 

ecology, habitat, distribution, and 

evolution. A tissue library from 

bycaught specimens is maintained at the 

Max Planck Institute in Germany, which 

provides the opportunity for scientific 

use of samples derived from these 

accidental coelacanth catches (Fricke, 

1998). Coelacanth specimens have been 

used by more than 30 laboratories. In 

earlier years of coelacanth research, a 

reward of US$300–400 was offered to 

fishermen for each coelacanth caught 

(Fricke, 1998). However, those rewards 

have not been offered for decades. Prior 

to strict regulations on coelacanth trade, 

the global museum trade offered 

between US$400 and US$2000 for each 

specimen caught. Today, trade of the 

coelacanth is prohibited by the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species (CITES) because the 

coelacanth is listed as an Appendix I 

species; however, some transfer of 

specimens for scientific study is 

permitted. We did not find any evidence 

that targeted coelacanth catch for 

scientific purposes is occurring. Thus, 

the demand for specimens for scientific 

research is not considered a threat. 

In the future, scientific interest and 

study may be used as a basis for the 

public display of the coelacanth. The 

public display of the fish would be of 

high commercial value, and efforts to 

keep the coelacanth in captivity have 

already been made. In the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, American and Japanese 

aquariums attempted to directly capture 

and bring the coelacanth into captivity 

(Suzuki et al., 1985; Hamlin, 1992). 

These attempts were not successful; it 

was determined that coelacanth cannot 

be directly caught, and that they only 

survive for a few hours outside of their 

deep water environments (Hamlin, 

1992). In the future, larger aquariums 

may pursue the use of pressurized tanks 

to keep the coelacanth alive in captivity, 

but their success is uncertain given the 

challenge of transporting a fish from its 

native habitat, and then maintaining it 

in an aquarium environment. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Their Continued Existence 

Climate Change 

Coelacanth habitat preference and 

distribution is dictated by specialized 

requirements for appropriate shelter 

(caves, caverns, and shelves), prey 

availability, and a combination of depth 

and temperature that meets the fish’s 

need for oxygen (relating to optimal 

blood saturation at 15 °C) (Hughes, 

1972). Evidence from coelacanth 

habitation in South Africa is 

particularly useful in demonstrating the 

trade-offs among these important 

characteristics: There, coelacanths 

occupy depths of 100–140 m. The 

optimal temperature for the uptake of 

oxygen (15 °C) occurs at lower depths of 

200 m, where fewer caves exist. It is 

thought that the occupation of shallower 

depths is a trade-off between the need 

for shelter and optimal oxygen uptake; 

increases in oceanic temperature as is 

expected in connection with climate 

change may disrupt the tight balance 

between coelacanths’ metabolic needs 

and the need for refuge (Roberts et al., 

2006). 

Across the globe, ocean temperature is 

increasing at an accelerated rate (IPCC, 

2013). The extent of this warming is 

reaching deeper and deeper waters 

(Abraham et al. 2013). Increase of global 

mean surface temperatures for 2081– 

2100 relative to 1986–2005 is projected 

to likely be in the ranges derived from 

the concentration-driven CMIP5 model 

simulations by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that is, 

0.3 °C to 1.7 °C (RCP2.6), 1.1 °C to 2.6 

°C (RCP4.5), 1.4 °C to 3.1 °C (RCP6.0), 

or 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C (RCP8.5) (IPCC, 2013). 

While these predictions relate to surface 

ocean temperatures, evidence from 

deep-water ocean measurements and 

models suggest that heat flux to the 

deep ocean has accelerated over the last 

decade (Abraham et al., 2013). If deepwater warming continues to keep pace 

with (or exceed the pace of) surface 

warming, even the most conservative 

IPCC scenarios may mean a warming of 

current coelacanth habitat. 

The coelacanth is typically observed 

at 15–20 °C, with upper thermal 

preferences of 22–23 °C (Hughes et al., 

1972). The effect of these thermal 

boundaries on the coelacanth’s 

distribution has been demonstrated by a 

1994 survey of the Comoro Islands, 

which revealed a 68 percent decrease in 

cave inhabitants and a 32 percent 

decrease in the total number of 

coelacanths encountered as compared to 

a 1991 survey (Hissmann et al., 1998). 

Temperature is thought to have directly 

led to this decline in coelacanth 

observations; in 1994, temperature of 

the survey region was 25.1 °C, the 

warmest ever recorded by researchers 

there (Hissmann et al., 1998). However, 

it is important to note that individuallyidentifiable coelacanths had returned to 

their previous habitat in subsequent 

surveys (Fricke et al., 2011); this 

suggests that the warm conditions in 

1994 led to a displacement of 

coelacanth habitat, but did not lead to 

extirpation of that population, or a 

reduction in the population abundance. 

This information suggests that warming 

may impact coelacanth distribution, but 

there may be suitable habitat to 

accommodate a displacement of 

populations, where warming may not 

lead to decreases in population sizes or 

extirpation of populations. Despite deep 

water warming that has occurred over 

the last decade, the surveyed coelacanth 

population in the Comoros is described 

as stable, and not declining (Fricke et 

al., 2011). 

Based on the majority of climate 

model predictions, it is likely that 

current coelacanth habitat will reach 

temperatures exceeding the fish’s 

thermal preferences by 2100 (IPCC, 

2013). It is unlikely that the lowdiversity fish with long generation times 

will physiologically adapt to withstand 

the metabolic stress of a warming ocean. 

However, the fish may be able to move 

to suitable habitat outside of its current 

range, thus adapting its range to avoid 

the warming deep water conditions. If 

the fish is displaced based on its need 

for cooler waters, but complex cave 

shelters are not available, local 

extirpation or range restriction may 

occur. However, currently, these 

impacts and responses are highly 

uncertain. Thus, it is reasonable to 

conclude that a warming ocean may 

impact the fish’s distribution, but the 

impact of warming on the future 

viability of the species is uncertain. Due 

to the coelacanth’s temperaturedependent oxygen demand, coupled 

with a highly specific need for deep 

structurally complex cave shelter, 

warming oceanic waters may pose a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11371 

threat to the coelacanth and 

displacement of populations, but the 

impact of this threat on the future 

viability of the species is highly 

uncertain, and climate change threats 

have not been clearly or mechanistically 

linked to any decline in coelacanth 

populations. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

CITES Appendix I regulates trade in 

species in order to reduce the threat 

international trade poses to those 

species. The coelacanth is included in 

CITES-Appendix I. Appendix I 

addresses those species deemed 

threatened with extinction by 

international trade. CITES prohibits 

international trade in specimens of 

these species except when the purpose 

of the import is not commercial, meets 

criteria for other types of permits, and 

can otherwise be legally done without 

affecting the sustainability of the 

population, for instance, for scientific 

research. In these exceptional cases, 

trade may take place provided it is 

authorized by the granting of both an 

import permit and an export permit (or 

re-export certificate). We found no 

evidence of illegal trade of the 

coelacanth. Trade is limited to the 

transfer of specimens for scientific 

purposes. There is no evidence that 

CITES regulations are inadequate to 

address known threats such that they 

are contributing to the extinction risk of 

the species. 

The coelacanth is also listed as 

Critically Endangered on the 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red 

List. The IUCN is not a regulatory body, 

and thus the critically endangered 

listing does not impart any regulatory 

authority to conserve the species. 

The threat to the coelacanth stemming 

from anthropogenic climate change 

includes elevated ocean temperature 

reaching its deep-water habitat and 

resulting in decreased fitness or 

relocation of populations based on 

elimination of suitable habitat, which 

may become restricted due to the tight 

interaction between the coelacanth’s 

thermal requirements and need for 

highly complex cave shelter and prey. 

Impacts of climate change on the marine 

environment are already being observed 

in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere 

(Hoerling et al., 2004; Melillo et al., 

2014) and the most recent IPCC 

assessment provides a high degree of 

certainty that human sources of 

greenhouse gases are contributing to 

global climate change (IPCC, 2013). 

Countries have responded to climate 

change through various international 

and national mechanisms, including the 

Kyoto Protocol of 2007. Because climate 

change-related threats have not been 

clearly or mechanistically linked to 

decline of coelacanths, the adequacy of 

existing or developing measures to 

control climate change threats is not 

possible to fully assess, nor are 

sufficient data available to determine 

what regulatory measures would be 

needed to adequately protect this 

species from the effects of climate 

change. While it is not possible to 

conclude that the current efforts have 

been inadequate such that they have 

contributed to the decline of this 

species, we consider it likely that 

coelacanth will be negatively impacted 

by climate change given the predictions 

of widespread ocean warming (IPCC, 

2013). 

Extinction Risk 

In general, demographic 

characteristics of the coelacanth make it 

particularly vulnerable to exploitation. 

While coelacanth abundance across its 

entire range is not well understood, it is 

likely that population sizes across the 

Western Indian Ocean are small, as 

described in Whittaker (2014). The 

likelihood of low abundance makes 

coelacanth populations more vulnerable 

to extinction by elevating the impact of 

stochastic events or chronic threats 

resulting in coelacanth mortality. Their 

growth rate and productivity is 

extremely limited. The coelacanth has 

one of the slowest metabolisms of any 

vertebrate, and this relates to their 

meager demand for food, slow swim 

speed and passive foraging, need for 

refuge to rest, and small gill surface area 

which limits their absorption of oxygen. 

In addition, their gestation period is 

longer than any vertebrate (3 years), 

although their fecundity is moderate. 

They are long-lived species, with long 

generation times. The extremely long 

gestation period and late maturity 

makes the coelacanth particularly 

vulnerable to external threats such as 

bycatch, possibly impeding recovery 

from mortality events (Froese et al., 

2000). Genetic data suggest that the 

coelacanth comprises independent and 

isolated populations, originating in the 

Comoros, but fully established around 

the Western Indian Ocean. The small 

and isolated nature of coelacanth 

populations, only three of which are 

confirmed to exist, increases 

vulnerability by preventing their 

replacement and recovery from external 

threats and mortality events, and 

increases the potential for local 

extirpations. Finally, the species 

exhibits extremely low levels of 

diversity (Schartl et al., 2005). Low 

levels of diversity reflect low adaptive 

and evolutionary potential, making the 

coelacanth particularly vulnerable to 

environmental change and episodic 

events. These events may reduce 

diversity further, and result in a 

significant change or loss of variation in 

life history characteristics (such as 

reproductive fitness and fecundity), 

morphology, behavior, or other adaptive 

characteristics. Due to their low 

diversity, coelacanth populations may 

be at an increased risk of random 

genetic drift and could experience the 

fixing of recessive detrimental genes 

that could further contribute to the 

species’ extinction risk (Musick, 2011). 

While demographic factors increase 

the coelacanth’s vulnerability, the status 

review classified the risk of threats 

across its range as low or very low 

(Whittaker, 2014). We found that, in 

general, the coelacanth is largely 

buffered from habitat impacts due to its 

occurrence in deep water. Thus, the 

threats of dynamite fishing, pollution, 

land-use changes, and sedimentation are 

considered low-risk. The direct loss of 

coelacanth habitat may occur if the deep 

port of Mwambami Bay is developed off 

the coast of Tanzania. However, 

whether plans to build this port will 

come to fruition remains uncertain, and 

the effects will impact a small portion 

of the coelacanth’s range. The threat of 

port development does not represent a 

widespread threat to the species, and 

the port of Mwambami Bay is the only 

large coastal development project (that 

we found) that would directly impact 

the fish. 

As for impacts from overutilization, 

bycatch has historically been thought to 

pose the greatest threat to the 

coelacanth, but survey data show there 

is no observed link between coelacanth 

bycatch and population decline. A 

decade ago, the Comoros oilfish fishery 

was responsible for the highest rate of 

coelacanth bycatch. Historically, the 

Comoran fishery was responsible for 

catch rates of about 3 fish per year, and 

is not thought to have contributed to 

declines in population abundance. 

While the Comoran oilfish fishery has 

seen recent declines in effort and has 

never contributed to population decline 

of the coelacanth, a greater threat of 

bycatch has emerged in Tanzania over 

the last decade. As evidenced by high 

rates of coelacanth bycatch via the shark 

gillnet fishery, which began in 2001 in 

Tanzania, this fishing method has the 

potential to impact the coelacanth. 

Since 2003 in Tanzania, coelacanth 

catch rates have been more than 3 times 

greater than ever observed in the 

Comoros, at over 10 fish per year. It is 

unclear whether this catch rate is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

unsustainable due to limited 

information on trends and abundance of 

the Tanzanian population. While 

traditional Comoran handline fishing is 

no longer the most pressing bycatch 

threat to the fish, data suggest that the 

expansion of a shark gill net fishery 

throughout the Western Indian Ocean 

could result in additional coelacanth 

bycatch. The reduction of sustainable 

fisheries throughout the east African 

and South African coastline may 

encourage shifts to alternative fishing 

methods, such as gillnets, or trawling 

closer to shore, both of which could 

increase the probability of coelacanth 

bycatch. Bycatch in Tanzania is an 

ongoing threat, and potential for 

additional coelacanth bycatch across the 

fish’s range poses a potential but 

uncertain threat to the fish’s persistence 

into the foreseeable future. Coelacanth 

population abundance in Tanzania, and 

whether current bycatch rates are 

sustainable, is unknown. Thus, the risk 

of bycatch across the species’ entire 

range is generally low. There is no real 

indication that overutilization for 

scientific purposes, public display, or 

the curio trade is occurring; thus we do 

not consider these factors as 

contributing a risk to the future 

persistence of the species across its 

range. 

Because threats are low across the 

species’ range, we have no reason to 

consider regulatory measures 

inadequate in protecting the species. 

Regarding other natural or manmade 

factors, the threat of climate change via 

ocean warming may work 

synergistically to enhance all other 

threats to the coelacanth across its 

range, but the nature of these impacts is 

highly uncertain as described in 

Whittaker (2014). The extent of this 

impact on the coelacanth remains 

uncertain, and there has been no clear 

or mechanistic link between climate 

change or temperature warming and 

coelacanth population declines. Thus, 

the threat of climate change poses a low 

risk to the coelacanth. 

Overall, the fish’s demographic 

factors make it particularly vulnerable 

to ongoing and future threats, but 

existing threats pose a generally low 

risk. Thus, we find that the coelacanth 

is at a low risk of extinction due to 

current and projected threats to the 

species. 

Protective Efforts 

Since its discovery, much debate has 

surrounded the need to conserve the 

coelacanth, as an evolutionary relic and 

for its value to science. The long history 

of this debate was summarized by 

Bruton (1991). The international 

organization the Coelacanth 

Conservation Council (CCC) has been 

the primary body advocating for 

coelacanth conservation over the years 

since 1987. 

The CCC has its headquarters in 

Moroni, Comoros, and the Secretariat is 

currently in Grahamstown, South Africa 

with branches in Canada, the United 

Kingdom, the United States, Germany 

and Japan. The CCC has set forth general 

objectives of promoting coelacanth 

research and conservation, along with 

establishing an international registry of 

coelacanth researchers and the 

compilation of a coelacanth inventory 

and bibliography, which were published 

for the first time in 1991 and recently 

updated in 2011 (Bruton et al., 1991b; 

Nulens et al., 2011). 

Several conservation initiatives were 

implemented in the Comoros in the 

1990s to reduce coelacanth bycatch. For 

instance, fishing aggregation devices 

were installed to encourage pelagic 

fishing and reduce pressure on the 

coelacanth from nearshore handline 

fishing. During this time, the use of 

motorized boats was encouraged for the 

same purpose, in order to direct fishing 

off-shore and reduce the use of artisanal 

handlines. Initially, there were some 

challenges, including lack of 

infrastructure preventing the repair of 

motors. However, the fishing trend 

today in the Comoros shows a clear shift 

to motorized pelagic fishing, and 

reduced interest in traditional handline 

fishing; this trend is occurring due to a 

natural shift in social perspectives and 

local economic trends. 

A supporter of coelacanth 

conservation and member of the U.S. 

Explorer Club, Jerome Hamlin, author 

and curator of the Web site 

DINOFISH.com, has encouraged the use 

of a ‘Deep Release Kit’ for coelacanth 

conservation when bycaught. The Deep 

Release Kit was created in response to 

the ‘Save the Coelacanth Contest’ 

sponsored by DINOFISH.com (Hamlin, 

2014). The kit consists of a barbless 

hook attached to a sack. The fisherman 

puts some of his sinker stones in the 

sack, places the hook in the lower jaw 

of the fish he has just caught with the 

shank pointing down to the sack, and 

releases the fish to the bottom where it 

frees itself. The purpose of the Deep 

Release procedure is to get the fish 

quickly to the cold bottom water with 

no further exertion on its part. A surface 

release (in theory) leaves the fish 

without the strength to get back down 

to depth. Hundreds of these devices 

have been distributed in the Comoros 

and Tanzania. These kits are some of the 

only direct coelacanth conservation 

measures in the Comoros or Tanzania. 

Yet, it is unclear whether these have 

been used at sea, their success is 

unproven, and it is unknown whether 

the method has been adopted by local 

fishermen. 

Ongoing scientific research on the 

coelacanth may play a role in 

coelacanth conservation, as 

management of the species can improve 

with a more complete understanding of 

its biology and natural history. In 2002, 

South Africa instituted its African 

Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme, 

which has coordinated an extensive 

array of research including bathymetric 

surveys, taxonomic studies, and 

observational expeditions. This program 

is funded by the Global Environment 

Facility of the World Bank and it is in 

its third phase, taking an ecosystembased approach to understanding 

coelacanth distribution and habitat 

utilization across the Western Indian 

Ocean, and providing deep-water 

research tools and resources for this 

research. 

Local efforts for marine conservation 

exist in the Comoros. For example, the 

Mohe ́li Marine Park takes a comanagement approach to stop some 

destructive fishing and conserve marine 

habitat using a series of no-take 

reserves. The park encompasses 212 

km2, and was set up during a 5-year 

biodiversity conservation project which 

began in 1998, funded by the World 

Bank’s Global Environment Facility; the 

goals of the project were to address the 

loss of biodiversity in Comoros and 

develop local capacity for natural 

resource management (Granek et al., 

2005). However, no alternative revenuegenerating activities have been 

provided, making life difficult for some 

fishermen. The World Bank’s Global 

Environment Facility biodiversity 

management project in the Park ended 

in 2003, and there has been no source 

of additional financing to continue the 

resource co-management. The Moheli 

Park has brought together some key 

institutions to encourage sustainable 

management and monitoring of marine 

habitat of the Comoros; however, 

specific laws have not been enacted, 

and existing legislation has not been 

enforced (Ahamada et al., 2002). No 

coelacanths have ever been caught off 

the island of Moheli, so the park’s 

impact on bycatch of the species is not 

applicable. 

Other conservation efforts in the form 

of marine parks distributed throughout 

the Western Indian Ocean may benefit 

the coelacanth by reducing habitat 

destruction and improving prey 

availability; however, the direct impacts 

of these conservation efforts on the 

species is difficult to evaluate. Efforts to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11373 

improve marine resource management 

and conservation in developing nations 

of east Africa have increased in the past 

decade. Today, 8.7 percent of the 

continental shelf in Kenya, 8.1 percent 

in Tanzania, and 4.0 percent in 

Mozambique have been designated as 

marine protected areas (Wells et al., 

2007). Many of these parks intersect 

with known coelacanth habitat, or are in 

range countries where coelacanths have 

been caught and potential populations 

exist. However, in many areas, ongoing 

socioeconomic challenges have 

precluded effective management of 

these regions (Francis et al., 2002). 

Analysis of east African Marine 

Protected Area (MPA) management has 

demonstrated that socio-economic 

barriers make it more difficult to reach 

conservation goals (Tobey et al., 2006). 

Because of this, much effort has gone 

into creating community-based 

conservation planning in recent years 

(e.g., Harrison (2010)). Management 

constraints still remain. First, there are 

large gaps in ecosystem knowledge 

surrounding these marine parks; for 

instance, many vital habitats and 

species are not yet fully represented by 

MPAs in place today (Wells et al., 2007). 

Next, monitoring is not widely 

implemented and data are not available 

to determine whether biodiversity or 

socio-economic goals are being met 

(Wells et al., 2007). 

A new marine park in Tanga, 

Tanzania has been put in place, and was 

prompted by increases in coelacanth 

catch in the region. The Tanga 

Coelacanth Marine Park is located on 

the northern coastline of Tanzania, 

extending north of the Pangani River 

estuary 100 km along the coastline 

towards Mafuriko village just north of 

Tanga city. The park covers an area of 

552 km2, of which 85 km2 are terrestrial 

and 467 km2 are marine. The plans for 

the park were announced in 2009, and 

a general management plan published in 

2011 (Parks; MPRU, 2011). The goal of 

the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park is to 

conserve marine biodiversity, resource 

abundance, and ecosystem functions of 

the Park, including the coelacanth and 

its habitat; and enable sustainable 

livelihoods and full participation of 

local community users and other key 

stakeholders. The plans for the park, 

specific to the coelacanth, are to restrict 

fishing within its boundaries, including 

fishing with deep-set shark gillnets, the 

primary source of coelacanth bycatch in 

the area. Additional restrictions against 

destructive fishing and development 

practices have been set forth in the 

park’s 2011 general management plan 

(MPRU, 2011). Partnership and 

guidance from the IUCN has encouraged 

plans for community-based and 

adaptive park management (Harrison, 

2010). 

Applying the considerations 

mandated by our PECE policy, we 

determine that the implementation and 

enforcement of the park’s regulations 

and goals are unclear and untested; 

further, there are several reasons to 

believe that infrastructure, funding, and 

park management may not be adequate 

to fully prevent coelacanth bycatch 

within the park’s boundaries: For one, 

illegal fishing off the coast of Tanzania 

is high (Tobey et al., 2006; Hempson, 

2008; Wells, 2009). Widespread poverty 

and other regional socio-economic 

challenges in the region have reduced 

the effectiveness and implementation of 

other east African marine parks, and it 

is likely that the Tanga Coelacanth 

Marine Park will face similar challenges 

(Toby, 2006; Wells, 2012). Although 

recommendations and goals are set in 

place to increase tourism to the Park as 

an economic offset for stricter fishing 

regulations, the economic infrastructure 

and incentives needed for this shift are 

not in place or have not yet been proven 

to be effective. Next, there are plans to 

build a new deep-sea port in Mwambani 

Bay, just 8 km south of the original old 

Tanga Port, which would include 

submarine blasting and channel 

dredging and destruction of known 

coelacanth habitat in the vicinity of 

Yambe and Karange islands—the site of 

several of the Tanzanian coelacanth 

catches. The new port is scheduled to be 

built in the middle of the Tanga 

Coelacanth Marine Park. The 

construction of Mwambani port is part 

of a large project to develop an 

alternative sea route for Uganda and 

other land-locked countries which have 

been depending on the port of 

Mombasa. The plans for Mwambani 

Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear 

to be ongoing, despite conservation 

concerns. It is unclear whether this port 

will be built, but its presence would 

negate many of the benefits (even now, 

unproven) of the Park. The general 

management plan for the park will be 

fully evaluated every 10 years, with a 

mid-term review every 5 years. The 

effectiveness of Tanga Coelacanth 

Marine Park is not yet known, and for 

reasons described above, we do not 

consider this park to provide certain 

conservation measures that would 

alleviate extinction risk to the species. 

Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis 

As noted above, we find that the 

species is at a low risk of extinction 

throughout its range. In other words, our 

range-wide analysis for the species does 

not lead us to conclude that the species 

meets the definition for either an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species based on the rangewide 

analysis. Thus, under the final 

Significant Portion of Its Range (SPR) 

policy announced in July 2014, we must 

go on to consider whether the species 

may have a higher risk of extinction in 

a significant portion of its range (79 FR 

37577; July 1, 2014). 

The final policy explains that it is 

necessary to fully evaluate a portion for 

potential listing under the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ authority only if 

information indicates that the members 

of the species in a particular area are 

likely both to meet the test for biological 

significance and to be currently 

endangered or threatened in that area. 

Making this preliminary determination 

triggers a need for further review, but 

does not prejudge whether the portion 

actually meets these standards such that 

the species should be listed: 

To identify only those portions that 

warrant further consideration, we will 

determine whether there is substantial 

information indicating that (1) the portions 

may be significant and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction in those portions or 

likely to become so within the foreseeable 

future. We emphasize that answering these 

questions in the affirmative is not a 

determination that the species is endangered 

or threatened throughout a significant 

portion of its range—rather, it is a step in 

determining whether a more detailed 

analysis of the issue is required. 

79 FR 37586. 

Thus, the preliminary determination 

that a portion may be both significant 

and endangered or threatened merely 

requires NMFS to engage in a more 

detailed analysis to determine whether 

the standards are actually met (Id. at 

37587). Unless both are met, listing is 

not warranted. The policy further 

explains that, depending on the 

particular facts of each situation, NMFS 

may find it is more efficient to address 

the significance issue first, but in other 

cases it will make more sense to 

examine the status of the species in the 

potentially significant portions first. 

Whichever question is asked first, an 

affirmative answer is required to 

proceed to the second question. Id. (‘‘[I]f 

we determine that a portion of the range 

is not ‘‘significant,’’ we will not need to 

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened there; if we 

determine that the species is not 

endangered or threatened in a portion of 

its range, we will not need to determine 

if that portion was ‘‘significant.’’). Thus, 

if the answer to the first question is 

negative—whether that regards the 

significance question or the status 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

question—then the analysis concludes 

and listing is not warranted. 

After a review of the best available 

information, we identified the 

Tanzanian population of the African 

coelacanth as a population facing 

concentrated threats because of 

increased catch rates in this region since 

2003, and the threat of a deep-water port 

directly impacting coelacanth habitat in 

this region. Due to these concentrated 

threats, we found that the species may 

be at risk of extinction in this area. 

Under the policy, if we believe this 

population also may constitute a 

‘‘significant’’ portion of the range of the 

African coelacanth, then we must go on 

to a more definitive analysis. We may 

either evaluate the extinction risk of this 

population first to determine whether it 

is threatened or endangered in that 

portion or first determine if it is in fact 

‘‘significant.’’ Ultimately, of course, 

both tests have to be met to qualify the 

species for listing. 

We proceeded to evaluate whether 

this population represents a significant 

portion of the range of the African 

coelacanth. The Tanzanian population 

is one of only three confirmed 

populations of the African coelacanth, 

all considered to be small and isolated. 

Because all three populations are 

isolated, the loss of one would not 

directly impact the other remaining 

populations. However, loss of any one 

of the three known coelacanth 

populations would significantly 

increase the extinction risk of the 

species as a whole, as only two small 

populations would remain, making 

them more vulnerable to catastrophic 

events such as storms, disease, or 

temperature anomalies. Tanzanian and 

Comoran populations are approximately 

1,000 km apart, ocean currents are 

thought to have led to their divergence 

over 200,000 years ago, and connectivity 

between them is not thought to be 

maintained (Nikiado et al., 2011). The 

South African population is separated 

from the Comoran and Tanzanian 

populations by hundreds of miles. The 

Tanzanian population exhibits the 

greatest genetic divergence from the 

other populations, suggesting that it 

may be the most reproductively isolated 

among them (Lampert et al., 2012). 

Potential catastrophic events such as 

storms or significant temperature 

changes may affect the Comoran and 

Tanzanian populations simultaneously, 

due to their closer geographic 

proximity. The South African 

population, while not as genetically 

isolated, may experience isolated 

catastrophic events due to its geographic 

isolation. This reasoning supports our 

conclusion that the Tanzanian 

population comprises a significant 

portion of the range of the species 

because this portion’s contribution to 

the viability of the African coelacanth is 

so important that, without the members 

in this portion, the African coelacanth 

would be likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future, 

throughout all of its range. 

Because the Tanzanian population of 

the coelacanth was determined to 

represent a significant portion of the 

range of the species, we performed an 

extinction risk assessment on the 

Tanzanian population by evaluating 

how the demographic factors 

(abundance, productivity/growth rate, 

spatial structure/connectivity, and 

diversity) of the species would be 

impacted by the ESA section 4(a)(1) 

factors, considering only those factors 

affecting the Tanzanian population. 

Coelacanth abundance across its 

entire range is not well understood, and 

no abundance estimates exist for the 

Tanzanian population. Based on general 

knowledge of the African coelacanth, 

the Tanzanian population is likely 

associated with very restricted and 

specific habitat requirements and low 

growth rates. We conclude that it is 

likely that the population size of the 

Tanzanian population is small for the 

same reasons described above for the 

species as a whole: It exhibits low levels 

of diversity (Nikaido et al., 2013), long 

generation times, and restricted habitat 

(Hissmann et al., 2006; Fricke et al., 

2011). The likelihood of low abundance 

makes the Tanzanian population more 

vulnerable to extinction by elevating the 

impact of stochastic events or chronic 

threats resulting in coelacanth mortality. 

Growth rate and productivity for the 

Tanzanian population is thought to 

exhibit similar characteristics to other 

populations of the species. The species 

as a whole has one of the slowest 

metabolisms of any vertebrate. The 

extremely long gestation period and late 

maturity makes the Tanzanian 

population particularly vulnerable to 

external threats such as bycatch, 

possibly impeding recovery from 

mortality events (Froese et al., 2000). 

The Tanzanian population is thought 

to represent a single isolated population 

of the species. It has been estimated that 

this population diverged from the rest of 

the species 200,000 years ago (Nikaido 

et al., 2011). Differentiation of 

individuals from the Tanzanian 

population may relate to divergence of 

currents in this region, where 

hydrography limits gene flow and 

reduces the potential for drifting 

migrants. The isolated nature of the 

Tanzanian population lowers the 

potential for its recovery from external 

threats; the population is not thought to 

maintain connectivity with other 

populations, and thus has no source for 

replacement of individuals lost outside 

of its own reproductive processes. Fastmoving currents along the Eastern coast 

of Africa are thought to prevent 

connectivity among populations in the 

region (Nikaido et al., 2011). This may 

be particularly true for Tanzania. We 

consider current evidence for the 

Tanzanian population’s high isolation 

from the rest of the species to contribute 

to a moderate risk of extinction, as these 

are natural factors (relevant under 

section 4(a)(1)(E)) that may increase 

vulnerability of this population by 

preventing its replacement and recovery 

from external threats and mortality 

events, and increase the potential for 

extinction. 

Genomic analyses of individuals from 

the Tanzanian population and other 

representatives of the species reveal that 

divergence and diversity within and 

among populations is very low (Nikaido 

et al., 2013). Low levels of diversity 

reflect low adaptive and evolutionary 

potential, making the Tanzanian 

population particularly vulnerable to 

environmental change and episodic 

events. These events may reduce 

diversity further, and result in a 

significant change or loss of variation in 

life history characteristics (such as 

reproductive fitness and fecundity), 

morphology, behavior, or other adaptive 

characteristics. Due to the Tanzanian 

population’s low diversity, this 

population may be at an increased risk 

of random genetic drift and could 

experience the fixing of recessive 

detrimental genes that could further 

contribute to the species’ extinction risk 

(Musick, 2011). 

Regarding habitat threats to the 

Tanzanian population, loss and 

degradation of coelacanth habitat can 

take the form of pollution, dynamite 

fishing, sedimentation, and direct loss 

through development. Future human 

population growth and land use changes 

off the coast of Tanzania increase these 

threats to the Tanzanian population, but 

their trends and impacts are highly 

uncertain. In general, the coelacanth is 

largely buffered from habitat impacts 

due to its occurrence in deep water, and 

general effects of pollution and 

development are similar to those 

described for the rest of the species. 

However, specifically related to the 

Tanzanian population, direct loss of 

habitat is likely to occur if the deep port 

of Mwambami Bay is developed. The 

port is planned to be built just 8 km 

south of the original old Tanga Port, and 

this would include submarine blasting 

and channel dredging and destruction of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11375 

known coelacanth habitat in the vicinity 

of Yambe and Karange islands—the site 

of several of the Tanzanian coelacanth 

catches. The new port is scheduled to be 

built in the middle of the Tanga 

Coelacanth Marine Park. The 

construction of Mwambani port is part 

of a large project to develop an 

alternative sea route for Uganda and 

other land-locked countries that have 

been depending on the port of 

Mombasa. The plans for Mwambani 

Bay’s deep-sea port construction appear 

to be ongoing, despite conservation 

concerns, and thus it is reasonable to 

conclude that it poses a likely threat to 

the species. Whether plans to build this 

port will come to fruition remains 

uncertain, but if built, the deep port 

could significantly impact the 

Tanzanian population of coelacanths by 

destroying habitat directly. For the 

Tanzanian population, the construction 

of this deep-water port could be 

catastrophic, and it is clear that the 

boundaries of the new Tanga Marine 

Park are insufficient in halting plans for 

the port’s development. 

As for impacts from overutilization, 

bycatch has historically been thought to 

pose the greatest threat to the 

coelacanth. While survey data from the 

Comoros show there is no observed link 

between coelacanth bycatch and 

population decline, since 2003 in 

Tanzania, coelacanth catch rates have 

been more than 3 times greater than ever 

observed in the Comoros, at over 10 fish 

per year. It is unclear whether this catch 

rate is sustainable due to limited 

information on trends and abundance of 

the Tanzanian population. The further 

expansion of a shark gill net fishery in 

Tanzania, as has been observed over the 

last decade, could result in additional 

coelacanth bycatch. Bycatch in 

Tanzania is an ongoing threat. While 

direct data assessing Tanzanian 

coelacanth population decline are not 

available, the relatively high and 

persistent catch rate in this region has 

the potential to deplete this small and 

isolated population, which has life 

history characteristics that greatly 

impede its recovery and resiliency to 

mortality. 

We consider the threat of 

overutilization for scientific purposes, 

public display, or for the curio trade as 

low for reasons described above, as they 

apply to the rest of the species. 

We consider the threat of inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms as low for the 

Tanzanian population for the same 

reasons described above for the rest of 

the species. Additionally, we classify 

the risk of climate change as low for the 

Tanzanian population for the same 

reasons described above for the rest of 

the species. 

Overall, the Tanzanian population’s 

demographic factors make it particularly 

vulnerable to ongoing and future 

threats, which pose a moderate risk to 

the species. Based on the best available 

information, threats of bycatch to the 

Tanzanian population appear to be 

persistent, and the potential 

development of a deep port within this 

population’s habitat could be 

catastrophic to the population in the 

foreseeable future. Thus, we find that 

the Tanzanian population is at a 

moderate risk of extinction due to 

current and projected threats. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

Tanzanian population is at moderate 

risk of extinction in a significant portion 

of the African coelacanth’s range of the 

species. 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis 

In accordance with the SPR policy, if 

a species is determined to be threatened 

or endangered in a significant portion of 

its range, and the population in that 

significant portion is a valid DPS, we 

will list the DPS rather than the entire 

taxonomic species or subspecies. 

Because the Tanzanian population 

represents a significant portion of the 

range of the species, and this population 

is at a moderate risk of extinction, we 

performed a DPS analysis on that 

population. 

As defined in the ESA (Sec. 3(15)), a 

‘‘species’’ includes 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. The 

joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) policy on identifying 

distinct population segments (DPS) (61 

FR 4722; February 7, 1996) identifies 

two criteria for DPS designations: (1) 

The population must be discrete in 

relation to the remainder of the taxon 

(species or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the population must be 

‘‘significant’’ (as that term is used in the 

context of the DPS policy, which is 

different from its usage under the SPR 

policy) to the remainder of the taxon to 

which it belongs. 

Discreteness: A population segment of 

a vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the 

following conditions: (1) ‘‘It is markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

same taxon as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors. Quantitative 

measures of genetic or morphological 

discontinuity may provide evidence of 

this separation’’; or (2) ‘‘it is delimited 

by international governmental 

boundaries within which differences in 

control of exploitation, management of 

habitat, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms exist that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)’’ 

of the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 

1996). 

Significance: If a population segment 

is found to be discrete under one or both 

of the above conditions, then its 

biological and ecological significance to 

the taxon to which it belongs is 

evaluated. This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to: (1) 

‘‘Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that the loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 

that the discrete population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historic range; 

and (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics’’ (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). 

Discreteness 

The Tanzanian population cannot be 

differentiated from other populations 

based on its morphology. In fact, no 

coelacanth population exhibits 

significant distinguishing morphological 

characteristics, and morphological 

differences within the Latimeria genus 

as a whole have been debated (Pouyad 

et al., 1999, Holder et al., 1999; 

Erdmann et al., 1999). No unique 

behavioral, physical, or ecological 

characteristics have been identified for 

the Tanzanian population to set it apart 

from the rest of the taxon. Only a single 

dedicated survey of the Tanzanian 

population is available; thus, future 

surveys may reveal distinguishing 

ecological features of the population. 

As stated above, genetic data on 

coelacanth population structure are 

limited and known distribution of 

coelacanth populations is potentially 

biased by targeted survey efforts and 

fishery catch data. However, recent 

whole-genome sequencing and genetic 

data available for multiple coelacanth 

specimens can be used to cautiously 

infer some patterns of population 

structure and connectivity across the 

coelacanth’s known range (Nikaido et 

al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2012; Nikaido 

et al., 2013). Intraspecific population 

structure has been examined using L. 

chalumnae specimens from Tanzania, 

the Comoros, and southern Africa 

(Nikaido et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 

2012; Nikaido et al., 2013). These 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

studies suggest that L. chalumnae 

comprises multiple isolated and 

reproductively independent populations 

distributed across the Western Indian 

Ocean, only three which have been 

confirmed (inhabiting waters off of 

Tanzania, the Comoros, and South 

Africa). 

While population structure of the 

taxon, described earlier, is not fully 

resolved, all genetic data available 

suggest that the Tanzanian population 

represents a single isolated population 

of the species. Multiple genetic studies 

corroborate a significant divergence 

between Tanzanian individuals, and 

individuals from the South African and 

Comoros populations (Nikaido et al.; 

2011, Lampert et al., 2012). This 

includes evidence from both nuclear 

and mitochondrial DNA (Nikaido et al., 

2011, Lampert et al., 2012, Nikaido et 

al., 2013). The Tanzanian population is 

the most diverged of all coelacanth 

populations (Lampert et al., 2012). 

Differentiation of individuals from the 

Tanzanian population may relate to 

divergence of currents in this region, 

where hydrography limits gene flow and 

reduces the potential for drifting 

migrants (Nikaido et al., 2011). All 

available data suggest that the 

Tanzanian population does not likely 

maintain connectivity with other 

populations, and likely has no source 

for replacement of individuals outside 

of its own reproductive processes. 

The Tanzanian population is 

geographically isolated from the 

Comoran and South African 

populations. The Tanzanian population 

is approximately 1,000 km away from 

the Comoran population and over 4,000 

km away from the South African 

population, with oceanic currents 

further reducing their potential for 

connectivity. While it is thought that the 

Comoran population is the source of 

other populations along the Western 

Indian Ocean, the Tanzanian and South 

African populations may have been 

established as many as 200,000 years 

ago, as genetic data suggest (Nikaido et 

al., 2011). 

Based on genetic evidence, and the 

clear geographic isolation of the 

Tanzanian population, we determined 

that the Tanzanian population of L. 

chalumnae is discrete from other 

populations within the species. 

Significance 

The Tanzanian population does not 

persist in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon. Although the 

Tanzanian individuals are thought to 

inhabit limestone ledges rather than 

volcanic caves where Comoran and 

South African individuals are found, the 

depth, prey, temperature, and shelter 

requirements are remarkably similar 

among the known coelacanth 

populations (Hissman et al., 2006). We 

found no evidence to suggest that 

differences in the ecological setting of 

the Tanzanian population have led to 

any adaptive or behavioral 

characteristics that set the population 

apart from the rest of the taxon, or 

contribute significant adaptive diversity 

to the species. 

The Tanzanian population is one of 

only three known populations within 

the species. Although it is not the only 

surviving natural occurrence of the 

taxon, we determined that loss of this 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the taxon’s range for 

the following reasons: Although 

coelacanth populations are not thought 

to maintain reproductive connectivity, 

loss of one population would make the 

other two populations more vulnerable 

to catastrophic events, as explained 

earlier. The extent of the Tanzanian 

population’s range is not known, but 

given the existence of only three known 

coelacanth populations considered to be 

small and isolated, loss of the 

Tanzanian population would constitute 

a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon, and thus we consider this 

population to be significant to the taxon 

as a whole. 

We determined that the Tanzanian 

population is discrete based on 

evidence for its genetic and geographic 

isolation from the rest of the taxon. The 

population also meets the significance 

criterion set forth by the DPS policy, as 

its loss would constitute a significant 

gap in the taxon’s range. Because it is 

both discrete and significant to the 

taxon as a whole, we identify the 

Tanzanian population as a valid DPS. 

Proposed Determination 

We assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) 

factors and conclude that the species, 

viewed across its entire range, 

experiences a low risk of extinction. 

However, we determined that the 

Tanzanian population constitutes a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species, as defined by the SPR policy 

(79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). The 

Tanzanian population faces ongoing or 

future threats from overutilization and 

habitat destruction, with the species’ 

natural biological vulnerability to 

overexploitation exacerbating the 

severity of the threats. The Tanzanian 

population faces demographic risks, 

such as population isolation with low 

productivity, which make it likely to be 

influenced by stochastic or depensatory 

processes throughout its range, and 

place the population at an increased risk 

of extinction from the aforementioned 

threats within the foreseeable future. In 

our consideration of the foreseeable 

future, we evaluated how far into the 

future we could reliably predict the 

operation of the major threats to this 

population, as well as the population’s 

response to those threats. We are 

confident in our ability to predict out 

several decades in assessing the threats 

of overutilization and habitat 

destruction, and their interaction with 

the life history of the coelacanth, with 

its lifespan of 40 or more years. With 

regard to habitat destruction, we 

evaluated the likelihood of the deep 

water port being constructed. If the port 

is to be developed, the results could 

significantly impact the Tanzanian 

coelacanth population. Evidence 

suggests that the plans for its 

construction are moving forward; its 

construction is not certain, but likely. If 

built, the construction of the port would 

likely occur within the next decade. 

With bycatch, and its interaction with 

the fish’s demographic characteristics, 

we feel that defining the foreseeable 

future out to several decades is 

appropriate. Based on this information, 

we find that the Tanzanian population 

is at a moderate risk of extinction within 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

consider the Tanzanian population to be 

threatened. 

In accordance with the our SPR 

policy, if a species is determined to be 

threatened or endangered across a 

significant portion of its range, and the 

population in that significant portion is 

a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather 

than the entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies. Based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

as presented in the status report and this 

finding, we do not find that the African 

coelacanth L. chalumnae is currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range, nor is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. However, because 

the Tanzanian population represents a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species, and this population is 

threatened, we conclude that the 

African coelacanth is threatened in a 

significant portion of its range. Because 

the population in the significant portion 

of the range is a valid DPS, we will list 

the DPS rather than the entire 

taxonomic species or subspecies. 

Therefore, we propose to list the 

Tanzanian DPS of the African 

coelacanth as threatened under the ESA. 

Similarity of Appearance 

The petition requested that, if the 

African coelacanth were listed under 

the ESA, the Indonesian coelacanth also 

be listed due to its ‘‘similarity of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11377 

appearance.’’ The ESA provides for 

treating any species as an endangered 

species or a threatened species even if 

it is not listed as such under the ESA 

if: (1) Such species so closely resembles 

in appearance, at the point in question, 

a species which has been listed 

pursuant to section 4 of the ESA that 

enforcement personnel would have 

substantial difficulty in attempting to 

differentiate between the listed and 

unlisted species; (2) the effect of this 

substantial difficulty is an additional 

threat to the listed species; and (3) such 

treatment of an unlisted species will 

substantially facilitate the enforcement 

and further the policy of the ESA. 

While the African and Indonesian 

species exhibit morphological 

similarities, they are clearly 

geographically and genetically 

separated. Enforcement personnel 

would have no difficulty in 

differentiating between the Tanzanian 

DPS of the African coelacanth and the 

Indonesian coelacanth because of 

similarity of appearance because their 

geographic separation (in the Western 

Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific, 

respectively) should facilitate regulation 

of taking. The species experience no 

overlap in range and catch of both 

species is relatively low, and welldocumented. We do not deem ESA 

protection for the Indonesian coelacanth 

to be advisable at this time, as the clear 

genetic and geographic differences 

between the two species set them apart 

in a way that allows for easy 

identification, regardless of their similar 

appearance. 

Because we are proposing to list the 

Tanzanian DPS as a threatened species 

under the ESA, we also considered any 

potential similarity of appearance issues 

that may arise in differentiating between 

the proposed DPS and other populations 

of the species. No morphological 

characteristics separate the Tanzanian 

DPS from other populations of the 

species. However, we do not conclude 

that listing the South African or 

Comoran populations based on 

similarity of appearance is warranted. 

First, outside of Tanzania, coelacanth 

catches are infrequent, and well 

documented. Second, the three known 

coelacanth populations do not overlap 

geographically. Differentiation between 

the African and Indonesian coelacanth, 

and likewise between the Tanzanian 

DPS and other populations of the 

species, could potentially pose a 

problem for enforcement of section 9 

prohibitions on trade, should any be 

applied. However, that issue is 

addressed, at least with respect to 

imports and exports, by the inclusion of 

coelacanth in CITES Appendix I. 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 

concurrent designation of critical 

habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) and consistent 

with implementing regulations; Federal 

agency requirements to 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 critical 

habitat should it be designated (16 

U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered 

species, prohibitions on taking (16 

U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species’ 

plight through listing promotes 

conservation actions by Federal and 

state agencies, foreign entities, private 

groups, and individuals. 

Identifying Section 7 Conference and 

Consultation Requirements 

Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) 

of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 

regulations require Federal agencies to 

consult with us to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of 

the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations 

also require Federal agencies to confer 

with us on actions likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of species 

proposed for listing, or that result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat of those 

species. It is unlikely that the listing of 

this DPS under the ESA will increase 

the number of section 7 consultations, 

because the DPS 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 maximum extent 

prudent and determinable, critical 

habitat be designated concurrently with 

the listing of a species. However, critical 

habitat shall not be designated in 

foreign countries or other areas outside 

U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)). 

The best available scientific data as 

discussed above identify the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species as being entirely outside U.S. 

jurisdiction, so we cannot designate 

critical habitat for this species. We can 

designate critical habitat in areas in the 

United States currently unoccupied by 

the species, if the area(s) are determined 

by the Secretary to be essential for the 

conservation of the species. Based on 

the best available information, we have 

not identified unoccupied area(s) in 

U.S. water that are currently essential to 

the species proposed for listing. Thus, 

as we discussed above, we will not 

propose critical habitat for this species. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS 

published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 

requires NMFS to identify, to the 

maximum extent practicable at the time 

a species is listed, those activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation of section 9 of the ESA. 

Because we are proposing to list the 

Tanzanian DPS of the African 

coelacanth as threatened, no 

prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the 

ESA will apply to this species. 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the ESA 

We are proposing to list Tanzanian 

DPS of the African coelacanth, L. 

chalumnae as threatened under the 

ESA. In the case of threatened species, 

ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the 

Secretary’s discretion whether, and to 

what extent, to extend the section 9(a) 

‘‘take’’ prohibitions to the species, and 

authorizes us to issue regulations 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. Thus, we 

have flexibility under section 4(d) to 

tailor protective regulations, taking into 

account the effectiveness of available 

conservation measures. The 4(d) 

protective regulations may prohibit, 

with respect to threatened species, some 

or all of the acts which section 9(a) of 

the ESA prohibits with respect to 

endangered species. These 9(a) 

prohibitions apply to all individuals, 

organizations, and agencies subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. We will consider 

potential protective regulations 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

pursuant to section 4(d) for the 

proposed threatened coelacanth DPS. 

We seek public comment on potential 

4(d) protective regulations (see below). 

Public Comments Solicited 

To ensure that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule to list 

the Tanzanian DPS of the African 

coelacanth will be as accurate and 

effective as possible, we are soliciting 

comments and information from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, and any other interested 

parties on information in the status 

review and proposed rule. Comments 

are encouraged on this proposal (See 

DATES and ADDRESSES). We must base 

our final determination on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. We cannot, for example, 

consider the economic effects of a 

listing determination. Before finalizing 

this proposed rule, we will consider the 

comments and any additional 

information we receive, and such 

information may lead to a final 

regulation that differs from this proposal 

or result in a withdrawal of this listing 

proposal. We particularly seek: 

(1) Information concerning the threats 

to the Tanzanian DPS of the African 

coelacanth proposed for listing; 

(2) Taxonomic information on the 

species; 

(3) Biological information (life 

history, genetics, population 

connectivity, etc.) on the species; 

(4) Efforts being made to protect the 

species throughout its current range; 

(5) Information on the commercial 

trade of the species; 

(6) Historical and current distribution 

and abundance and trends for the 

species; and 

(7) Information relevant to potential 

ESA section 4(d) protective regulations 

for the proposed threatened DPS, 

especially the application, if any, of the 

ESA section 9 prohibitions on import, 

take, possession, receipt, and sale of the 

African coelacanth. 

We request that all information be 

accompanied by: (1) Supporting 

documentation, such as maps, 

bibliographic references, or reprints of 

pertinent publications; and (2) the 

submitter’s name, address, and any 

association, institution, or business that 

the person represents. 

Role of Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing a minimum 

peer review standard. Similarly, a joint 

NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) requires us to solicit independent 

expert review from qualified specialists, 

in addition to a public comment period. 

The intent of the peer review policy is 

to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. We solicited peer review 

comments on the African coelacanth 

status review report, including from: 

Five scientists with expertise on the 

African coelacanth. We incorporated 

these comments into the status review 

report for the African coelacanth and 

this 12-month finding. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this proposed rule is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

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. In keeping with the intent of 

the Administration and Congress to 

provide continuing and meaningful 

dialogue on issues of mutual state and 

Federal interest, this proposed rule will 

be given to the relevant governmental 

agencies in the countries in which the 

species occurs, and they will be invited 

to comment. We will confer with the 

U.S. Department of State to ensure 

appropriate notice is given to foreign 

nations within the range the DPS 

(Tanzania). As the process continues, 

we intend to continue engaging in 

informal and formal contacts with the 

U.S. State Department, giving careful 

consideration to all written and oral 

comments received. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 223 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III. 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 

part 223 as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart 

B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102, amend the table in 

paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for 

one species in alphabetical order under 

the ‘‘Fishes’’ table subheading to read as 

follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11379 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical 

habitat 

ESA 

rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Fishes 

Coelacanth, African 

(Tanzanian DPS).

Latimeria 

chalumnae.

African coelacanth population inhabiting deep waters off the coast of 

Tanzania.

[Insert Federal Register citation and 

date when published as a final 

rule].

NA NA 

*******

1Species 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. 2015–04405 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 141219999–5132–01] 

RIN 0648–XD680 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Common Thresher Shark as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding, request for information, and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 90- 

day finding for a petition to list the 

common thresher shark (Alopias 

vulpinus) as either endangered or 

threatened under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) either worldwide or 

as one or more distinct population 

segments (DPSs) identified by the 

petitioners. We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for the species worldwide. We find that 

the petition fails to present substantial 

scientific or commercial information to 

support the identification of DPSs of the 

common thresher suggested by the 

petitioners, and, as such, we find that 

the petitioned action of listing one or 

more of these DPSs is not warranted. 

Accordingly, we will initiate a review of 

the status of the common thresher shark 

at this time. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding this species. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

May 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0025’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0025. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

Instructions: You must submit 

comments by one of the above methods 

to ensure that we receive, document, 

and consider them. 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. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427– 

8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, 

(301) 427–8469. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 26, 2014, we received a 

petition from Friends of Animals 

requesting that we list the common 

thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six 

distinct population segments (DPSs) of 

the common thresher shark, as 

described in the petition, and list them 

as endangered or threatened. Friends of 

Animals also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for this species in 

U.S. waters concurrent with final ESA 

listing. 

The petitioner states that the common 

thresher shark merits listing as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the ESA because of the following: (1) 

The species faces threats from historical 

and continued fishing for both 

commercial and recreational purposes; 

(2) life history characteristics and 

limited ability to recover from fishing 

pressure makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3) 

there is a lack of regulations that 

specifically protect the common 

thresher shark. 

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy 

Considerations 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 

as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and promptly 

publish the finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

and in our files indicates the petitioned 

action may be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90- 

day finding’’), we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species concerned, which 

includes conducting a comprehensive 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information. Within 12 

months of receiving the petition, we 

must conclude the review with a finding 

as to whether, in fact, the petitioned 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS