Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3131 

(1) A copy of the current cleaning 

plan and previous versions; 

(2) The dates, duration, and 

completion status of equipment and 

area cleaning each time a cleaning plan 

is executed; 

(3) Implementation records 

documenting the initial date of cleaning 

plan implementation; and 

(4) Documentation that instruction 

has been provided to potentially 

exposed persons whose job function 

includes cleaning plan implementation 

or whose job function requires them to 

be present in a regulated area where a 

cleaning plan could be executed. 

(d) Retention. Owners or operators 

must retain the records required in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

for five years from the date that such 

records were generated. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30931 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Parts 205, 260, 261, and 263 

RIN 0970–AC97 

Strengthening Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families (TANF) as a Safety 

Net and Work Program; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

proposed rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on October 2, 2023. 

The proposed rule would have amended 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program regulations to 

strengthen the safety net and reduce 

administrative burden. 

DATES: The Administration for Children 

and Families is withdrawing the 

proposed rule published October 2, 

2023 (88 FR 67697) as of January 14, 

2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Family Assistance, ACF, at 

TANFquestions@acf.hhs.gov or 202– 

401–9275. Deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals may call 202–401–9275 

through their chosen relay service or 

711 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern 

Time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF) published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) related to 

the administration of TANF in the 

Federal Register on October 2, 2023 (88 

FR 67697). The NPRM proposed to (1) 

establish a ceiling on the term ‘‘needy’’; 

(2) clarify when an expenditure is 

‘‘reasonably calculated to accomplish a 

TANF purpose’’; (3) exclude as an 

allowable TANF maintenance-of-effort 

(MOE) expenditures cash donations 

from non-governmental third parties 

and the value of third-party in-kind 

contributions; (4) ensure that excused 

holidays match the number of Federal 

holidays, following the recognition of 

Juneteenth as a Federal holiday; (5) 

develop new criteria to allow States to 

use alternative Income and Eligibility 

Verification System (IEVS) measures; (6) 

clarify the ‘‘significant progress’’ criteria 

following a work participation rate 

corrective compliance plan; and (7) 

clarify the existing regulatory text about 

the allowability of costs associated with 

disseminating program information. 

However, upon further consideration, 

the Department has elected to withdraw 

the Strengthening TANF as a Safety Net 

and Work Program Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on 10/02/2023, effective 

January 14, 2025. The Department 

appreciates the more than 7,000 

comments received from State agencies, 

advocates and a broad range of 

additional stakeholders. In making the 

decision to withdraw the NPRM, the 

Department continues to recognize the 

importance of rulemaking to ensure that 

TANF funds are used in a manner 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

However, the Department has 

determined that it could benefit from 

additional public input and 

consideration on a set of issues relating 

to allowable TANF spending before 

adopting a final rule. With the time left 

in this Administration, the Department 

is focusing on other matters, including 

implementing the TANF provisions of 

the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, 

and it is not feasible to solicit additional 

public comments. The Department has 

concluded that withdrawing the NPRM 

will assure agency flexibility in reexamining and exploring options and 

alternatives with stakeholders in the 

future prior to developing an NPRM that 

could draw from this additional 

stakeholder engagement. For these 

independently sufficient reasons, the 

Department is withdrawing this NPRM. 

The NPRM published on October 2, 

2023, is hereby withdrawn. 

Dated: January 7, 2025. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00537 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–36–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH60 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Status for the 

Florida Manatee and Endangered 

Status for the Antillean Manatee 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the two subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee, the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) and the 

Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus 

manatus), under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We have conducted status reviews for 

the two subspecies, and, as a result, we 

are proposing to list the Florida manatee 

as a threatened species with protective 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

(‘‘4(d) rule’’), and the Antillean manatee 

as an endangered species, under the 

Act. These two listings would replace 

the current threatened species listing of 

the West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus). This determination also 

serves as our 12-month findings on two 

petitions and as our completed 5-year 

review of the West Indian manatee. If 

we finalize this rule as proposed, it 

would remove the West Indian manatee 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List), add the 

Florida manatee and Antillean manatee 

to the List, and extend the Act’s 

protections to the Florida manatee and 

Antillean manatee. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 17, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for an additional 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 28, 2025. 

Public informational meeting and 

public hearing: On February 26, 2025, 

we will hold a public informational 

meeting followed by a public hearing 

from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Eastern-Standard 

time (6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Atlantic-Standard 

time). For more information, see Public 

Hearing, below. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3132 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available on the Service’s website at 

https://www.fws.gov/species/manateetrichechus-manatus, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050, or both. 

Public hearing: We will hold a virtual 

public informational meeting followed 

by a public hearing on this proposed 

rule using the Zoom online video 

platform and teleconference. For more 

information, see Public Hearing, below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gian 

Basili, Deputy State Supervisor, Florida 

Ecological Services Office, 7915 

Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 

Jacksonville, FL 32256–7517; telephone 

904–731–3079; or Lourdes Mena, Field 

Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, 

Boqueron, PR 00622; telephone 352– 

749–2462. Individuals in the United 

States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 

hearing, or have a speech disability may 

dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to 

access telecommunications relay 

services. Individuals outside the United 

States should use the relay services 

offered within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. The 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) defines the 

term ‘‘species’’ as including any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the Florida manatee 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species, and the Antillean 

manatee meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list them as such. We 

proposed to revise and/or designate 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

and Antillean manatee in a recent 

Federal Register publication (89 FR 

78134). Listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species can be 

completed only by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the two accepted 

subspecies of the West Indian manatee, 

the Florida manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris) and the Antillean 

manatee (Trichechus manatus 

manatus), under the Act. We would list 

the Florida manatee as a threatened 

species covered by the ‘‘blanket’’ 

protective regulation at 50 CFR 17.31(a) 

(‘‘blanket 4(d) rule’’), and the Antillean 

manatee as an endangered species. 

These two separate listings would 

replace the current threatened species 

listing of the West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus). Therefore, if we 

finalize this action as proposed, we 

would list both of the accepted 

subspecies of the West Indian manatee, 

and therefore all of Trichechus 

manatus, but with a different listing 

status for each subspecies (threatened 

species status for the Florida manatee 

with the blanket 4(d) rule, and 

endangered species status for the 

Antillean manatee). 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the Florida 

manatee is threatened throughout its 

range due to the following primary 

threats: watercraft collisions, habitat 

loss (including seagrass loss) and 

modification from coastal development, 

unusual mortality events, natural 

processes (including cold weather 

events and harmful algal blooms), 

human interactions, loss of warm-water 

refugia, and climate change. We have 

also determined that the Antillean 

manatee is endangered throughout its 

range due to the following primary 

threats: watercraft collisions, habitat 

loss (including seagrass loss) and 

modification from coastal development, 

natural processes like harmful algal 

blooms, human interactions, poaching, 

low genetic diversity, and climate 

change. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of either subspecies, 

including habitat requirements for 

feeding, breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of either subspecies; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for either subspecies, their 

habitats, or both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting either subspecies, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of either 

subspecies, which may include habitat 

modification or destruction, 

overutilization, disease, predation, the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3133 

mechanisms, or other natural or 

manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to either 

subspecies; and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to either subspecies. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of 

either subspecies. 

(4) Information to assist with applying 

or issuing protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act that may be 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Florida manatee. 

In particular, we seek information 

concerning: 

(a) The extent to which we should 

include any of the Act’s section 9 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the 

Florida manatee; and 

(b) Whether we should consider any 

additional or different exceptions from 

the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the 

Florida manatee. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determinations may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude the 

Florida manatee is endangered instead 

of threatened, that the Antillean 

manatee is threatened instead of 

endangered, or that either subspecies 

does not warrant listing as an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In addition, we may change the 

parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the Act for the Florida manatee if we 

conclude it is appropriate in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions if we conclude that the 

protective regulation as a whole, 

including those additional prohibitions, 

is necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the subspecies. 

Conversely, we may establish additional 

or different exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

subspecies. In our final rule, we will 

clearly explain our rationale and the 

basis for our final decisions, including 

why we made changes, if any, that differ 

from this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. At this time, we have 

preemptively scheduled a public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing on this proposed rule. We will 

hold the public informational meeting 

and public hearing on the date and at 

the time listed above under Public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing in DATES. We are holding the 

public informational meeting and public 

hearing via the Zoom online video 

platform and via teleconference so that 

participants can attend remotely. The 

use of a virtual public hearing is 

consistent with our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

For security purposes, anyone 

intending to listen to and view the 

hearing via Zoom, listen to the hearing 

by telephone, or provide oral public 

comments at the hearing by Zoom or 

telephone must register in advance. For 

information on how to register, or if you 

encounter problems joining Zoom on 

the day of the hearing, visit https://

www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtualpublic-hearing. Registrants will receive 

the Zoom link and the telephone 

number for the public hearing. 

Interested members of the public who 

are not familiar with the Zoom platform 

should view the Zoom video tutorials 

(https://learnzoom.us/show-me) prior to 

the public hearing. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

present verbal testimony (formal, oral 

comments) regarding this proposed rule. 

The public hearing will not be an 

opportunity for dialogue with the 

Service, but rather a forum for accepting 

formal verbal testimony. In the event 

there is a large attendance, the time 

allotted for oral statements may be 

limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to 

make an oral statement at the public 

hearing for the record is encouraged to 

provide a prepared written copy of that 

statement to us through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, or U.S. mail (see 

ADDRESSES, above). There are no limits 

on the length of written comments 

submitted to us. 

Reasonable Accommodation 

The Service is committed to providing 

access to the public hearing for all 

participants. Closed captioning will be 

available during the public hearing. 

Participants will also have access to live 

audio during the public hearing via 

their telephone or computer speakers. 

Persons with disabilities requiring 

reasonable accommodations to 

participate in the hearing should contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business 

days prior to the date of the hearing to 

help ensure availability. An accessible 

version of the Service’s presentation 

will also be posted online at https://

www.fws.gov/project/manatee-virtualpublic-hearing prior to the hearing (see 

DATES, above). See https://www.fws.gov/ 

project/manatee-virtual-public-hearing 

for more information about reasonable 

accommodation. Finally, a full audio 

and video recording and transcript of 

the public hearing will be posted online 

at https://www.fws.gov/project/manateevirtual-public-hearing after the hearing. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Florida manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris), a subspecies of the 

West Indian manatee, was listed as 

endangered in 1967 (see 32 FR 4001, 

March 11, 1967) under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–669; 80 Stat. 926). After adoption 

of the Endangered Species Conservation 

Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–135; 83 Stat. 

275), the Florida manatee listing was 

amended in 1970 to include the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3134 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

throughout its range, including in 

northern South America (see 35 FR 

8491, June 2, 1970). A December 2, 

1970, amendment then added the 

Caribbean Sea to the ‘‘Where found’’ 

information in the listing entry for the 

West Indian (Florida) manatee, which 

added the Antillean manatee to the 

listing (see 35 FR 18319). The West 

Indian manatee was subsequently 

grandfathered into the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

under the Act in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). In 2017, the West Indian 

manatee, including both subspecies, 

was reclassified from endangered to 

threatened (see 82 FR 16668, April 5, 

2017). 

On October 21, 2021, we received a 

petition from Julio C. Colo ́n requesting 

that we list the Puerto Rico population 

of the Antillean manatee as an 

endangered distinct population segment 

(DPS) and that we designate critical 

habitat for this entity under the Act. The 

petition provided substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned entity may qualify as 

a DPS, and we found that the petition 

provided substantial information 

regarding low genetic diversity and 

isolation (Factor E) and boat collisions 

(Factor E) that may be potential threats 

to the Puerto Rico manatee population 

(see 88 FR 70634, October 12, 2023). 

On November 21, 2022, we received 

a petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) and others requesting 

that we reclassify (uplist) the West 

Indian manatee, including its 

subspecies the Antillean manatee and 

Florida manatee, as endangered species 

under the Act. The petition presented 

substantial information on the loss of 

seagrass (Factor A) within the range of 

the Florida manatee, as well as the 

negative impacts of this factor to the 

West Indian manatee’s viability (see 88 

FR 70634, October 12, 2023). 

In response to the October 21, 2021, 

and November 21, 2022, petitions, we 

initiated a status review. To ensure that 

status review was complete, we 

requested new scientific and 

commercial data and other information 

regarding the West Indian manatee 

throughout its range, including 

information specific to the Puerto Rico 

population of Antillean manatee, and 

factors that may affect their status (88 

FR 70634, October 12, 2023). This 

document serves as our 12-month 

findings for those two petitions. 

Peer Review 

Species status assessment (SSA) 

teams prepared SSA reports for the 

Florida manatee (Service 2024a, entire) 

and Antillean manatee (Service 2024b, 

entire). The SSA teams were composed 

of Service biologists, in consultation 

with other species experts. The SSA 

reports each represent a compilation of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available concerning the status of each 

subspecies, including the impacts of 

past, present, and future factors (both 

negative and beneficial) affecting each 

subspecies. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act, we will solicit 

independent scientific review of the 

information contained in the Florida 

manatee and Antillean manatee SSA 

reports during the comment period for 

this proposed rule. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris) is available in its SSA report 

(version 1.1; Service 2024a, pp. 17–33) 

and of the Antillean manatee 

(Trichechus manatus manatus) in its 

SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2024b, 

pp. 15–34). 

West Indian manatees (manatees) are 

large, herbivorous marine mammals 

with short, paired flippers and a distinct 

paddle-shaped tail. Adults average 

about 3.0 meters (m) (9.8 feet (ft)) in 

length and 400 kilograms (kg) (900 

pounds (lb)) in weight, but they may 

reach lengths of up to 4 m (13 ft) (Husar 

1978, p. 1; Reynolds and Odell 1991, p. 

38) and weigh as much as 1,620 kg 

(3,570 lb) (Rathbun et al. 1990, p. 23). 

The two subspecies appear similar, 

share most common morphological 

characteristics, and can typically only 

be distinguished through skeletal 

measurements or genetic analysis. A 

difference commonly reported between 

the two subspecies is size, with the 

Florida manatee larger and heavier than 

the Antillean manatee; however, sizes 

do overlap (Converse et al. 1994, p. 427; 

Wong et al. 2012, p. 5; CastelblancoMartı ́nez et al. 2021, p. 7). 

Manatees use a wide variety of 

freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

habitats for their survival as well as lifehistory needs (i.e., feeding and drinking, 

traveling, resting, thermoregulation, 

cavorting, mating, calving, and nursing). 

Manatees feed on a variety of freshwater 

and marine vegetation, as well as seek 

out sources of fresh drinking water 

when in marine and estuarine habitats. 

Manatees tend to travel along the 

waterward edges of beds of vegetation in 

or near channels, and sometimes along 

coastal beaches. Manatees often use 

secluded canals, creeks, embayments, 

and lagoons, particularly near the 

mouths of rivers and sloughs, for 

feeding, resting, cavorting, mating, and 

calving. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3135 

Florida manatees are found in coastal 

and inland waters in Florida yearround, regularly in Georgia and the 

Carolinas, and in coastal Alabama and 

Louisiana during warmer months; 

vagrants can be found as far north as 

Massachusetts and as far west as Texas 

(see figure 1, above; Gunter 1941, p. 64; 

Lowery 1974, p. 481; Domning and 

Hayek 1986, p. 136; Fertl et al. 2005, p. 

74; Beck 2015, unpubl. data). Florida 

manatees are also known to travel to 

and from the Bahamas, Cuba, and 

Mexico (Odell et al. 1978, p. 289; 

Alvarez-Alema ́n et al. 2010, p. 148; 

Melillo-Sweeting et al. 2011, p. 505). 

Antillean manatees are found in the 

coastal waters of the Greater Antilles 

(i.e., Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, and 

Puerto Rico) and discontinuously along 

the Gulf coast of Mexico, Caribbean 

coast of Central and South America, and 

Atlantic coast of South America as far 

south as Bahia, Brazil (see figure 1, 

above; Self-Sullivan and MignucciGiannoni 2012, p. 36). Except for rare 

sightings, manatees are no longer found 

in the Lesser Antilles (i.e., Caribbean 

islands extending from the U.S. and 

British Virgin Islands to Grenada) 

(Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 425). The few 

individuals that have been reported for 

the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, 

Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands, St. 

Maarten, Curacao, and Bonaire are 

considered vagrant from nearby 

populations (Service 2007, p. 27; SelfSullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, 

p. 40). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP14JA25.038</GPH>
3136 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA reports document the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of each of the 

subspecies, including an assessment of 

the potential threats to each subspecies. 

The SSA reports do not represent our 

decision on whether the subspecies 

should be proposed for listing as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. However, they do provide the 

scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. 

To assess the Florida manatee’s and 

Antillean manatee’s viability, we used 

the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency is 

the ability of the species to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 

warm or cold years); redundancy is the 

ability of the species to withstand 

catastrophic events (for example, 

droughts, large pollution events); and 

representation is the ability of the 

species to adapt to both near-term and 

long-term changes in its physical and 

biological environment (for example, 

climate conditions, pathogens). In 

general, species viability will increase 

with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified each 

subspecies’ ecological requirements for 

survival and reproduction at the 

individual, population, and subspecies 

levels, and described the beneficial and 

risk factors influencing the subspecies’ 

viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

subspecies’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

subspecies’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the subspecies 

arrived at its current condition. The 

final stage of the SSA involved making 

predictions about the subspecies’ 

responses to positive and negative 

environmental and anthropogenic 

influences. Throughout all of these 

stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of the subspecies to sustain 

populations in the wild over time, 

which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

reports; each SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of each subspecies 

and their resources, and the threats that 

influence each subspecies’ current and 

future condition, in order to assess each 

subspecies’ overall viability and the 

risks to that viability. 

Species Needs 

As mentioned above, manatees use a 

wide variety of freshwater, estuarine, 

and marine habitats for their life-history 

needs (i.e., feeding and drinking, 

traveling, resting, thermoregulation, 

cavorting, mating, calving, and nursing). 

For all life stages, manatees require 

access to fresh water for drinking, travel 

corridors during migration to reach 

habitats needed for survival and 

reproduction, and calm waters for 

resting (Ortiz et al. 1999, p. 33; Deutsch 

et al. 2003, entire; Flamm et al. 2005, 

entire; Drew et al. 2012, p. 24; Favero 

et al. 2020, p. 1670; Ross et al. 2020, 

entire). For pregnant females, sheltered 

backwaters with little disturbance are 

required for parturition (Hartman 1979, 

p. 110; Reynolds and Odell 1991, p. 51). 

All manatee life stages require 

appropriate forage and water 

temperatures (Best 1981, p. 7; Irvine et 

al. 1983, p. 323; Smith 1993, entire; 

Rommel et al. 2001, p. 339; Rommel and 

Caplan 2003, p. 343; Reich and Worthy 

2006, p. 304; Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC) 2007, 

p. 2; United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP) 2010, p. 8; Allen et 

al. 2018, p. 1931). Because seagrass is 

one of the largest components of the 

manatee’s diet in coastal areas, healthy 

seagrass ecosystems are critical for the 

species’ survival. Manatees 

predominantly feed on seagrass in nearshore, shallow waters averaging 1 to 3 

meters (3.3 to 9.8 ft) in depth (Smith 

1993, p. 11). Salt marsh vegetation, 

specifically smooth cordgrass (Spartina 

alterniflora), is an important food source 

for manatees in northeastern Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina (Zoodsma 

1991, pp. 54–61). 

The Antillean manatee inhabits the 

southern limits of the manatee’s 

distribution; therefore, the subspecies is 

tropical and does not face cold stress 

risk. Florida manatees may exhibit 

major shifts in distribution during 

different times of the year largely due to 

the subspecies being subtropical and 

cold-intolerant. Because the Florida 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3137 

subspecies occurs in the northern limits 

of the manatee’s range, it requires stable, 

long-term sources of warm water, such 

as natural springs, during colder months 

in order to survive. These warm-water 

sites buffer the lethal effects of cold 

temperatures. Over half of Florida 

manatees are known to use warm-water 

discharges from power plants rather 

than natural springs, thermal basins, or 

other sites (Laist et al. 2013, p. 4; Valade 

et al. 2020, p. 3). Florida manatees in 

the southernmost parts of the range 

depend primarily on industrial warmwater outfalls, while Florida manatees 

in the northernmost parts of the range 

rely almost exclusively on natural 

springs (Laist et al. 2013, p. 4). An 

ambient temperature of 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (20 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

has been identified as the threshold 

when many Florida manatees seek out 

warm-water refugia, although there is 

considerable variability for individual 

tolerance to cold and when individual 

manatees begin to move toward warmer 

waters (Deutsch et al. 2003, pp. 22–25). 

Threats Analysis 

There are many factors affecting the 

viability of manatees; these factors 

include habitat loss (including seagrass 

loss) and modification from coastal 

development, overutilization from 

recreational disturbance by humans, 

disease and predation, pollution and 

harmful algal blooms, collisions from 

boating, entrapment in water control 

structures, loss of warm-water refugia, 

poaching, entanglement in fishing gear 

and marine debris, low genetic 

diversity, and climate change. The 

current and future primary influences 

on the Florida manatee are watercraft 

collisions, habitat loss (including 

seagrass loss) and modification from 

coastal development, unusual mortality 

events (UME), natural processes 

(including cold weather events and 

harmful algal blooms), human 

interactions, loss of warm-water refugia, 

and climate change. The current 

primary influences on the Antillean 

manatee are watercraft collisions, 

habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 

modification from coastal development, 

natural processes like harmful algal 

blooms, human interactions, poaching, 

low genetic diversity, and climate 

change. 

Watercraft Collisions 

Collisions with watercraft are a 

primary threat to both subspecies of the 

manatee. Watercraft-related collisions 

result in direct impacts to manatees in 

the form of lethal and sublethal injuries, 

can lead to orphaning dependent calves 

of mothers that succumb to injuries, and 

can result in additional impacts to 

reproduction. Collisions with watercraft 

can occur rangewide anywhere 

watercraft usage overlaps with 

waterways accessible to manatees, and 

manatees are particularly vulnerable to 

collisions in shallow-water habitats 

(Edwards et al. 2016, p. 8). 

Within the United States, collisions 

with watercraft have been identified as 

the most significant anthropogenic 

threat to Florida manatees (Runge et al. 

2017, p. 37; Service 2023, p. 10), 

causing fatalities, sublethal injuries, and 

the orphaning of dependent calves 

(Service 2023, p. 11). Ninety-six percent 

of Florida manatees have scars from at 

least one watercraft collision, and 25 

percent of adults have scars from 10 or 

more watercraft collisions (Bassett et al. 

2020, entire). From 1990 through 2021, 

watercraft-related collisions were the 

most prevalent cause of death for 

Florida manatees; during that time, 

2,503 Florida manatee deaths (or 19.1 

percent of all documented carcasses) 

were attributed to watercraft-related 

collisions. Both a potential increase in 

the number of manatees and boaters 

would lead to a greater number of 

expected collisions (Martin et al. 2016, 

pp. 43–44). There were 1,029,993 boats 

registered in Florida as of 2022, and an 

unknown number of out-of-State boats 

were brought in by seasonal residents 

and visitors. Florida has the highest 

number of registered boats of any U.S. 

State (FWC 2022, entire), and since 

1990, the number of boats registered in 

Florida has increased by more than 33 

percent, even with the reduced 

registrations accompanying the 

economic recession that began in 2008. 

The human population in Florida is 

expected to grow by millions in the next 

few decades (approximately 3 to 9 

million more people by 2045; Rayer and 

Wang 2020, entire). With an increasing 

human population, the number of boats 

in Florida waters is also expected to 

increase, resulting in more 

opportunities for watercraft-related 

manatee injuries and deaths. 

Watercraft collisions that kill or injure 

manatees are a threat for the Antillean 

manatee as well. However, current 

information on watercraft collisions is 

limited and variable for most of the 

countries within the subspecies’ range. 

This threat is likely widespread in 

portions of the range near human 

populations and has likely been 

increasing in magnitude over the last 

few decades and will continue to 

increase into the future as motorboats 

become more abundant. 

In Puerto Rico, 43 years of manatee 

mortality data from 1980 to 2022 

indicate that a total of 54 manatees are 

known to have died due to watercraft 

collisions (Mignucci-Giannoni et al. 

2000, p. 192; Mignucci-Giannoni 2006, 

p. 2; Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources 

(PRDNER) and Caribbean Manatee 

Conservation Center (CMCC) 2022, 

unpubl. data). This number represents 

approximately 18 percent of the total 

known mortality cases during that time 

(54 out of 308), with a maximum of 

seven manatees in 2021 and usually at 

least one manatee per year. 

Unfortunately, there appears to be a 

recent increasing trend of watercraftrelated mortalities with three cases in 

2020, seven in 2021 (highest on record), 

and three in 2022. In Belize, watercraft 

collisions are the predominant cause of 

death, and strandings due to watercraft 

collisions have been increasing over 

recent decades (UNEP 2010, p. 22; 

Galves et al. 2023, entire; Specially 

Protected Areas and Wildlife Regional 

Activity Center (SPAW–RAC) 2021, p. 

20). In Mexico, watercraft-related 

mortalities do not seem to be a 

significant cause of manatee mortality, 

and there was a recent (March 2020) 

documentation of the first case in 20 

years of a watercraft collision with a 

healthy juvenile female manatee 

(Castelblanco-Martı ́nez et al. 2020, p. 

14). In Brazil, increased boating 

activities have resulted in both lethal 

collisions with manatees and disruption 

of manatee behavior (Self-Sullivan and 

Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, p. 43). 

Habitat Loss and Modification 

Human activities have caused the loss 

and alteration of manatee habitat used 

for breeding, feeding, sheltering, and 

seasonal migration. Seagrass, macroalgae, salt marsh, and freshwater 

vegetation have been affected, leading to 

significant losses of foraging habitat. 

Human activities that can result in the 

loss of aquatic vegetation as food 

resources include dredging, filling, 

boating, eutrophication, and coastal 

development (Zieman and Zieman 1989, 

pp. 88–96; Duarte 2002, p. 194; Orth et 

al. 2006, p. 991; PRDNER 2008, entire; 

PRDNER 2012, entire). Dredging directly 

removes submerged aquatic vegetation 

(SAV), and sediments suspended in the 

water column during dredge and fill 

activities cover adjacent SAV beds 

(Zieman and Zieman 1989, pp. 88–89; 

Auil 1998, p. 9). Boat groundings and 

boat propellers scar seagrass beds when 

boats navigate through seagrass beds in 

water that is too shallow for the draft 

(deepest point) of their boats, and even 

if the areas can eventually recover, the 

process can take many years (Sargent et 

al. 1995, pp. 6, 28; Hallac et al. 2012, 

entire). Additionally, excess nitrogen 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3138 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

and phosphorus that enters the aquatic 

system via septic systems, stormwater 

runoff or outfalls, or industrial and 

agricultural runoff can cause 

eutrophication, which reduces the 

amount of light available for 

photosynthesis, which subsequently 

may increase SAV mortality (Ralph et 

al. 2007, pp. 571–577; Lapointe et al. 

2020, p. 2). Coastal development can 

have numerous negative impacts on 

manatee habitat, including impacts on 

tidal marsh and SAV. The most 

significant impact development has on 

tidal marsh is the direct conversion of 

marsh to development, resulting in a 

direct loss of habitat and forage. 

In Florida, seagrass resources have 

declined along the Atlantic coast since 

2011, most notably in the 156-mile (mi) 

(251-kilometer (km)) Indian River 

Lagoon (IRL), which is considered an 

important area for manatees in Florida 

(Landsberg et al. 2022, p. 1). Loss of 

seagrass is expected to have contributed 

to the unusual mortality event in the 

winter of 2020–2021 that affected IRL 

populations (described below under 

‘‘Unusual Mortality Events’’). Seagrass 

declines have also been observed in 

other locations in southeastern Florida 

estuarine systems, including northern 

and central Biscayne Bay. As of 2015, 

Statewide mapping effort estimated 2.48 

million acres of seagrass coverage in the 

shallow coastal regions of Florida 

(Yarbro and Carlson 2016, p. 5). While 

there have been recent gains or stability 

in seagrass coverage in many areas due 

to improvements in water quality and 

restoration, the total acreage of seagrass 

in Florida today is less than half of what 

it was in the 1950s (Yarbro and Carlson 

2016, p. 3). During the winter of 2022– 

2023, manatees from the upper IRL were 

observed foraging in the central and 

southern Mosquito Lagoon where 

seagrass beds have been reported to be 

in healthier condition, but to access 

forage in that area, manatees are 

traveling more than 20 miles (32 

kilometers) from warm-water sites each 

way. In addition, the St. Johns River 

Water Management District (Saint Johns 

River Water Management District 

(SJRWMD) 2023, entire) reports some 

improvement in the condition of the 

seagrass in the IRL in 2023. 

Anthropogenic activities that result in 

the loss of seagrass also occur in Puerto 

Rico. Although there are no estimates of 

how much seagrass is needed to sustain 

the manatee population in Puerto Rico, 

seagrass abundance is not currently 

considered a limiting factor for the 

Antillean manatee population there 

(Drew et al. 2012, p. 13). Within other 

areas of the Antillean manatee’s range, 

effects of habitat fragmentation from 

agriculture, development, resource 

extraction, and boating contribute to 

habitat loss. In Panama, manatee 

distribution is apparently fragmented 

because of discontinuous and likely 

depleted habitat (Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 

442). In Colombia, Antillean manatees 

have been cut off from important habitat 

by highway construction activities since 

the 1970s (Montoya-Ospina et al. 2001, 

p. 127). Agriculture and development 

have impacted coastal and estuarine 

manatee habitat in Honduras (Cerrato 

1993, in Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 440; 

UNEP 2010, p. 52), Costa Rica (UNEP 

2010, p. 34), Jamaica (UNEP 2010, p. 

55), Trinidad and Tobago (UNEP 2010, 

p. 76), and Mexico and Belize (UNEP 

2010, pp. 23, 58–59). In Cuba, 

agricultural activities directly impacted 

manatees when residues from sugar 

processing killed eight manatees in 1981 

and caused others to abandon Cuba’s 

largest bay (UNEP 2010, p. 37). 

Furthermore, resource extraction and 

seagrass scarring pose a threat to 

manatees in Guatemala (UNEP 2010, pp. 

45–46), while in the northeastern 

estuaries of Brazil, habitat destruction 

and degradation of mangrove forests are 

the main influencing factors for calf 

strandings (Dos Santos-Medeiros et al. 

2021, entire). We anticipate many of 

these factors contributing to habitat 

fragmentation and loss will continue to 

act on both the Florida manatee and 

Antillean manatee into the future. 

Unusual Mortality Events 

Per the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.), an ‘‘unusual mortality event’’ 

(UME) may be declared when there is a 

stranding that is unexpected, involves a 

significant die off of any marine 

mammal population, and demands 

immediate response (16 U.S.C. 

1421h(9)). When a UME is declared by 

the appropriate agency (for the manatee, 

this agency is the Service), the event 

will be investigated, and expertise 

shared through the MMPA-established 

Working Group on Marine Mammal 

Unusual Mortality Events (WGMMUME) 

(16 U.S.C. 1421c). In addition, funds 

may be made available for response and 

investigation through the UME 

Contingency Fund (16 U.S.C. 1421d). 

The first formally designated UME 

affecting Florida manatees occurred in 

1996, with the loss of 149 manatees due 

to red tide toxicity (see ‘‘Pollution and 

Red Tides,’’ below) associated with 

brevetoxins (tasteless, odorless 

neurotoxic compounds) (Bossart et al. 

1998, p. 277). Since that time, there 

have been several red tide-related UMEs 

or ‘‘repeat mortality events’’ (RMEs), as 

well as events in 2010 and 2011 (cold 

temperatures), 2013 (deaths associated 

with a dietary shift or change in gut 

flora), and an ongoing event that started 

in December 2020 (starvation due to loss 

of foraging habitat along the Atlantic 

Coast of Florida) (Barlas et al. 2011, pp. 

iii–vi; Hardy et al. 2019, p. 1). 

Two of the most recent UME events 

have occurred in the IRL area along 

Florida’s Atlantic Coast. A 

‘‘superbloom’’ event of phytoplankton 

in 2011, followed by successive blooms 

in 2016 and 2018, contributed to a 

significant loss of seagrass in this 

estuary (Martin et al. 2017, p. 5; Runge 

et al. 2017, p. 21; Service 2023, p. 47). 

During the winter of 2020–2021, the IRL 

experienced a more substantial collapse 

of almost all forage in Brevard County 

and neighboring counties along the IRL 

(Service 2023, p. 5; SJRWMD 2023, 

unpublished data). This latest UME was 

officially declared in March 2021, and 

encompasses the area of the east coast 

of Florida and the Lower St. Johns River 

north of Putnam County (referred to as 

the Atlantic Management Unit) (Service 

2023, p. 5). The current UME is marked 

by a significant increase in mortality 

and morbidity, with affected animals— 

of which an unusually large proportion 

has been adults—showing similar signs 

of malnutrition and starvation (Service 

2023, p. 17). From December 1, 2020, to 

September 27, 2024, a preliminary total 

of 1,693 carcasses (from all causes of 

death, including watercraft collisions, 

starvation, unknown causes, etc.) have 

been verified from the Atlantic 

Management Unit (FWC Manatee 

Mortality Database 2024, unpaginated). 

During this same period, more than 210 

Florida manatees were rescued for a 

variety of causes, with UME-related 

manatees in need of rescue 

characterized by emaciation, sideways 

swimming, or impaired lung function. 

The long-term implications of this UME 

to the Florida manatee population are 

unknown and will take many years 

post-event to assess. There are no 

documented UMEs for the Antillean 

manatee. 

Pollution and Harmful Algal Blooms 

Exposure to contaminants in the 

water may affect the immune response 

of manatees to environmental stressors. 

Pollution generated from agriculture, 

human wastewater, oil and gas 

production, and general urban runoff 

contribute contaminants that are 

discharged into waterways and become 

integrated into sediments. Some 

contaminants are concentrated near 

industry and human population centers, 

while others are distributed more 

broadly in water. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3139 

Florida manatees in areas with 

widespread use of copper as an aquatic 

herbicide have been found to have high 

concentrations of copper in liver tissues, 

which can lead to jaundice, and toxic 

levels can lead to death (O’Shea et al. 

1984, pp. 741, 746). Even Florida 

manatees in less agricultural outfalls in 

Citrus, Brevard, and Charlotte Counties 

have demonstrated high copper 

concentrations (O’Shea et al. 1984, pp. 

742–743; Takeuchi et al. 2016, p. 447); 

however, because manatees cover such 

great distances in their routine 

migrations, it is challenging to link 

manatee bioaccumulation of copper to 

specific locations. 

Antillean manatees can be directly 

and indirectly exposed to harmful 

toxicants in waterways, which impacts 

individuals’ overall body condition and 

behavior. Exposure to these toxicants 

can alter behavior, reduce immune 

function and reproductive ability, and, 

depending on the magnitude and 

frequency of exposure, result in death. 

Within the Antillean manatee’s range, 

water pollution has been shown to 

occur due to agricultural practices (e.g., 

cane cultivation), development, and 

motorized boats (Corona-Figueroa et al. 

2022, entire). These practices can 

increase runoff (heavy metals, 

pesticides, herbicides, etc.), which is 

harmful to the subspecies and its 

primary food source (i.e., sea grass). 

Contaminants have been implicated in 

the death of one Antillean manatee calf 

in Puerto Rico (from a diesel spill), and 

mortality associated with residues from 

sugar processing may have also 

occurred in Cuba (UNEP 1995, p. 23). 

This contamination is considered a 

rationale for Antillean manatees’ 

abandonment of Bahı ́a de Nipe, Cuba’s 

largest bay (UNEP 1995, p. 23). One 

study from Mexico found metal 

concentrations (arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and 

zinc) within Antillean manatee bones 

higher than for most other marine 

mammals globally, and significantly 

different concentrations between the 

sample from the Gulf of Mexico versus 

the Mexican Caribbean samples 

(Romero-Caldero ́n et al. 2016, p. 9). 

Despite this knowledge, metal toxicity 

thresholds for the Antillean manatee are 

unknown. 

Increases in nutrient and chemical 

runoff may promote harmful algal 

blooms (such as red tides) or damage 

seagrass beds that manatees rely on for 

a food source. During red tide events, 

which occur primarily along Florida’s 

Gulf Coast, phytoplankton (microalgae) 

blooms and high concentrations of the 

marine algae produce brevetoxins, 

which can have debilitating or lethal 

effects on manatees and other aquatic 

life. Observations of red tides and 

accompanying fish kills have been 

recorded in Florida and the Gulf of 

Mexico since at least the 1800s (note 

that fish kills plausibly caused by red 

tides in the Gulf of Mexico have been 

recorded since 1648), and have been 

documented spreading via ocean 

currents up the Atlantic Coast of the 

United States to the Carolinas 

(Steidinger 2009, p. 550; Fleming et al. 

2011, p. 225). Brevetoxins can sicken or 

kill animals, including humans, through 

direct exposure in water, aerosolized 

brevetoxins in the air, or 

bioaccumulation up the food web 

(Landsberg et al. 2009, p. 600; 

Steidinger 2009, p. 550). Brevetoxins 

can also be inhaled or ingested while 

manatees are foraging in seagrass 

communities, and brevetoxins may 

reside in the sediments for extended 

periods of time. Initiation of red tide 

algal blooms occurs in offshore areas, 

after which they are transported closer 

to shore by upwelling ocean currents 

(Weisberg et al. 2016, p. 116). 

These red tide events occur in Florida 

and the Gulf of Mexico, and for the 

Florida manatee, these events have had 

the greatest impacts in southwest 

Florida (Lazensky et al. 2021, p. 1). 

While marine algae have been reported 

from Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Jamaica (Steidinger 2009, pp. 550–551), 

red tide algal blooms are not known to 

be a significant threat to the Antillean 

manatee throughout its range. However, 

between 2018 and 2019 in Mexico, more 

than 50 Antillean manatee deaths were 

attributed to toxicity from algal blooms 

within the wetlands in the Tabasco 

region, but the algal species and cause 

of the bloom were not identified 

(Nu ́n ̃ ez-Nogueira and Uribe-Lo ́pez 2020, 

p. 257). The magnitude, timing, and 

frequency of harmful algal blooms may 

change in the future with a changing 

climate. 

Human Interactions 

The general threat from human 

interaction is widespread throughout 

both subspecies’ ranges and is 

concentrated around human population 

centers and heavily used recreation 

sites. While it is known that interaction 

with and harassment by humans can 

cause manatees to alter their natural 

behavior and habitat use, impacts at the 

population level are not well 

understood. 

Potential overutilization of manatees 

and their habitats for recreational 

purposes may take place during viewing 

activities conducted by commercial tour 

operators and private citizens in the 

southeastern United States, Belize, and 

Mexico, and is becoming more frequent 

in Puerto Rico. People view manatees 

from the water; from boats, kayaks, 

paddleboards, and canoes; and from 

shoreline areas. The presence of 

motorized and nonmotorized watercraft 

and swimmers can disturb manatees 

and cause them to alter their habitat use, 

potentially causing them to leave the 

habitats on which they depend to fulfill 

physiological needs (Buckingham et al. 

1999, entire; Sorice et al. 2003, entire). 

For the Florida manatee, this type of 

activity may be most detrimental when 

manatees are clustered at warm-water 

aggregation areas necessary for survival 

due to their sensitivity to cold. 

Disturbance from recreation can also 

cause manatees to alter behaviors such 

as resting or nursing, and sometimes 

could result in separation of mother/calf 

pairs or interfere with reproduction or 

socialization. There are also frequently 

documented accounts of the public 

touching, pursuing, and offering water 

and food to manatees. Manatees may 

become conditioned to these 

interactions and thus alter their 

behavior such that they may be attracted 

to high human-use areas, posing 

additional risk to manatees especially in 

areas of high boat traffic. This further 

exposes manatees to human-associated 

threats such as watercraft collisions. 

Within the Florida manatee’s range, 

the types of human interaction can vary. 

These include Florida manatee viewing 

from the water or shoreline to 

swimming with manatees. Human 

interaction with manatees may result in 

disruption of the manatee’s natural 

behaviors (such as foraging, resting, 

thermoregulating at warm-water sites, 

and nursing and caring for their young) 

and interfere with mating herds, 

reproduction, or socialization behaviors. 

Some human activities may discourage 

Florida manatees’ use of, or result in 

Florida manatees leaving, vital warmwater habitats necessary for their 

survival. For the Florida manatee, the 

highest levels of human interaction 

often occur during the winter months, 

when hundreds of manatees aggregate at 

warm-water sites, and effects from 

disturbance can be particularly 

detrimental due to the manatee’s 

physiological need for warmth. During 

the rest of the year, many of the same 

types of human interactions occur at 

some level throughout the subspecies’ 

range, but the magnitude of impact of 

these interactions is not well 

understood. For example, areas that are 

frequented by Florida manatees in 

South Carolina have become 

increasingly more well known and 

attract people to view the manatees; 

therefore, human interaction with 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3140 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Florida manatees does not occur only in 

Florida. Many times, these viewing 

opportunities are passive, but there have 

been reports of people touching, 

feeding, providing water to, swimming 

with, or trying to ride on manatees. 

There is evidence that Antillean 

manatees are facing similar human 

interaction pressures throughout their 

range. In Puerto Rico, interaction with 

manatees by kayak and paddleboard 

users, divers, and swimmers occurs in 

several popular beach and coastal 

recreational areas. There is at least one 

case in Puerto Rico in which a person 

may have separated a newborn calf from 

its mother and the calf had to be 

rescued. In Swallow Caye, Belize, 

manatees stopped visiting suitable 

manatee habitat in 1992 after swimwith-the-manatee programs were 

allowed without proper control (Auil 

1998, p. 12). In Costa Rica, manatees 

appear to avoid areas of high-quality 

habitat during the day when they are 

frequented by boats (UNEP 2010, p. 34). 

In Mexico, there is concern over the 

increased boat-based tourism that 

targets manatees and dolphins within 

the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve 

(Catesblanco-Martı ́nez et al. 2019, 

entire). Specific information is lacking 

for other range countries, but Antillean 

manatees are likely influenced by 

human interactions wherever their 

populations overlap with areas of 

human use. It is likely the threat of 

overutilization of manatees and their 

habitats will continue in the future and 

increase in areas with higher human 

populations. 

Poaching 

Historically, manatees were harvested 

for a variety of purposes including meat; 

bones for weapons, medicine, and 

artisanal crafts; hides; oil for cooking; 

and fat for candle-making (Lefebvre et 

al. 2001, p. 426; UNEP 2010, pp. 12, 31, 

40; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 264; SelfSullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, 

pp. 42–45). Now, they are primarily 

hunted for their meat (Jime ́nez 2002, p. 

276). Manatees are particularly 

susceptible to overexploitation because 

of their low reproductive rates, and 

poaching continues to pose a serious 

threat to some Antillean manatee 

populations, especially in those areas 

where few manatees remain (Lefebvre et 

al. 2001, p. 12). 

In the past, poaching has been 

responsible for declining numbers 

throughout much of the Antillean 

manatee’s range (in 17 of 20 range 

countries; Thornback and Jenkins 1982, 

as cited in Lefebvre et al. 2001, p. 426). 

Poaching is still common in areas where 

enforcement is lacking or where local 

people are unaware of laws in place to 

protect Antillean manatees (UNEP 2010, 

entire; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 386). In 

general, the actual level of poaching is 

not well-documented throughout the 

Antillean manatee’s range. Poaching is 

currently not considered a threat in 

Puerto Rico, but it is still considered a 

primary threat to Antillean manatees in 

Cuba (Alvare ́z-Alema ́n et al. 2021, 

entire) and Guatemala (MachucaCoronado et al. 2023, entire). Poaching 

is not considered a threat to the Florida 

manatee. 

Cold Stress and Loss of Warm-Water 

Refugia 

The manatee is a subtropical species 

that has little tolerance for cold. Cold 

stress is not known to affect Antillean 

manatees because they inhabit warmer 

subtropical waters. However, for the 

Florida manatee, past and potential 

future losses of natural and humanmade warm-water habitat coupled with 

cold stress constitute a major threat to 

this subspecies (Runge et al. 2017, p. 26; 

Valade et al. 2020, p. 2). 

Manatees are characterized as having 

low metabolism and poor insulation, 

which inhibit their ability to retain heat 

and thermoregulate (Irvine 1983, entire; 

Worthy et al. 2000, p. 3; Rommel et al. 

2001, p. 339; Bossart et al. 2002, p. 45; 

Rommel et al. 2002, p. 3; Hardy et al. 

2019, p. 2; Martony et al. 2019, p. 86). 

The likelihood of cold stress is highest 

where water temperatures are colder or 

have greater fluctuations (e.g., shallower 

water depths), as well as in areas with 

limited warm-water or foraging habitat. 

Cold stress is only an immediate threat 

during winter but impacts to the overall 

health and fitness of individuals are 

likely to carry over after cold weather 

has passed (Walsh et al. 2005, entire). 

The magnitude of this threat varies 

annually depending on the severity of 

the winter. Cold temperatures limit the 

northern extent of the Florida manatee’s 

winter range and restrict the available 

wintering sites to areas mostly in 

peninsular Florida, although 

anthropogenic thermal discharges have 

extended the winter range of the Florida 

manatee and altered its distribution in 

Florida waters (Laist and Reynolds 

2005a, p. 740). 

Florida’s natural springs have seen 

substantial declines in flows and water 

quality, and many springs have been 

altered (i.e., dammed, silted in, or 

otherwise obstructed) to the point they 

are no longer accessible to manatees 

(Laist and Reynolds 2005b, p. 287; 

Taylor 2006, pp. 5–6; FWC 2007, p. 10). 

Flow declines are largely attributable to 

demands on aquifers (spring recharge 

areas) for potable water or other users 

such as agriculture (Marella 2014, pp. 

1–2). Declining flows can result in fewer 

usable warm-water sites for wintering 

manatees, both in terms of thermal 

quantity and quality. 

In Florida, manatees are known to 

utilize 67 primary and secondary warmwater sites, including 10 power plants, 

23 springs and spring complexes, and 

34 passive thermal basins (Valade et al. 

2020 pp. 2–3, 25–30). Groundwater 

seeps, haloclines, solar radiation, 

thermal inertia, and biodegradation 

provide the source of heated water for 

passive thermal basins (Stith et al. 2012, 

entire; Laist et al. 2013, p. 1). Industrial 

outfalls are the primary warm-water 

sites most heavily used in the two 

largest Florida winter management units 

(Southwest and Atlantic), while Florida 

manatees in the two smallest and more 

northerly winter management units (i.e., 

Upper St. Johns River and Northwest) 

rely almost exclusively on natural 

springs (Laist et al. 2013, p. 4). If power 

plant outflows in the Southwest and 

Atlantic management units are lost, or 

have reduced or unpredictable flows, 

manatees that winter at such sites 

would have to overcome their strong 

site fidelity and shift their distribution 

south in order to convert to using 

passive thermal basins and warm 

ambient waters in southern Florida, or 

they would have to move north to 

utilize the springs in the Upper St. 

Johns River and Northwest winter 

management units. Experience with 

disruptions at sites has shown that some 

manatees can adapt to minor changes at 

these sites; during temporary power 

plant shutdowns, manatees have been 

observed to use less-preferred nearby 

sites when an alternate warm-water 

source was not provided at the primary 

site. 

The potential loss of warm water at 

natural springs, passive thermal basins, 

and power plants in Florida is a 

significant threat to the subspecies, as 

more individuals would be susceptible 

to lethal and sublethal effects of cold 

stress (Service 2001, entire; Laist and 

Reynolds 2005a, 2005b, entire; Service 

2007, entire; Runge et al. 2017, entire). 

Loss of warm-water sites has the 

potential to influence population 

dynamics enough to significantly 

increase the risk of population quasiextinction (Runge et al. 2017, p. 26). 

However, severity and timing of these 

losses and their effect on populations 

are uncertain. In the future, warm-water 

refugia loss is likely to continue to be a 

threat to the Florida manatee and will 

increase over time. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3141 

Low Genetic Diversity 

Low genetic diversity has been 

identified in Antillean manatee 

populations in Puerto Rico, Belize, 

Brazil, Mexico, Panama, and Cuba 

(Hunter et al. 2010, entire; Nourisson et 

al. 2011, p. 833; Hunter et al. 2012, 

entire; Dı ́az-Ferguson et al. 2017, pp. 

383–384; Alvarez-Alema ́n 2019, pp. 

103, 115; Luna et al. 2021, entire). Low 

genetic diversity likely exists elsewhere 

across the Antillean subspecies’ range, 

and genetic diversity is likely lower the 

more isolated a population is. 

Additional research is needed to 

understand whether low genetic 

diversity leads to reduced fitness or 

poses an imminent threat to manatee 

populations. When genetic diversity is 

substantially reduced or slowly eroded 

over time through loss of individuals, it 

can lead to an extinction vortex, which 

results in an inbreeding feedback loop 

and can lead to extinction (Nordstrom et 

al. 2023, p. 2). There is no evidence that 

low genetic diversity is an issue for the 

Florida manatee. 

Climate Change 

Climate change impacts are likely to 

influence the viability of manatees in 

several ways, including temperature 

increases, sea level rise, fluctuations in 

ocean chemistry, hydrological cycle 

deviations, and changes in timing and 

intensity of tropical storms, as well as 

extreme cold events. These large-scale 

impacts may lead to habitat changes, 

increased algal blooms, and new threats 

from diseases (Edwards 2013, pp. 727, 

735; Marsh et al. 2017, entire; Osland et 

al. 2020, entire). The synergism of these 

factors will affect manatee health and 

habitat, and potentially reduce the 

future range of each subspecies. 

More than 90 percent of the excess 

heat accumulated in the climate system 

between 1971 and 2010 has been stored 

in the ocean, particularly near the 

surface (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 40–42; 

IPCC 2019, p. 9). The upper ocean (0– 

700 m, or 0–2,297 ft) has warmed since 

the 1970s due to human-caused carbon 

dioxide emissions (IPCC Sixth 

Assessment Report Summary for 

Policymakers (AR6 SPM) 2021). The 

ocean will continue to warm throughout 

the 21st century, and the strongest 

warming is predicted to occur in 

tropical regions and Northern 

Hemisphere subtropical regions (IPCC 

2014, p. 60). Increasing ocean 

temperatures will affect estuarine and 

freshwater systems, seagrass, and other 

forage plant communities by influencing 

photosynthetic rates and biomass, 

changes in plant communities and 

growth of competitors, changes in 

aspects of life history, or shifts in 

distribution if physiological tolerances 

are exceeded (Short and Neckles 1999, 

pp. 172–175; Bjork et al. 2008, pp. 21– 

23). Influences can be both positive 

(e.g., possible increased photosynthesis 

and growth from increased carbon) and 

negative (e.g., increased growth of 

competitive algae and epiphytes that 

shade seagrass and reduce growth) 

(Short and Neckles 1999, pp. 172–175; 

Bjork et al. 2008, pp. 21–23). Increased 

temperatures can also increase stress on 

plants, decreasing growth and 

reproduction and resulting in less forage 

for manatees (Marsh et al. 2017, p. 343). 

An increase in temperature will likely 

decrease the frequency and intensity of 

cold weather events, which in turn 

would decrease Florida manatees’ 

exposure to cold stress and may reduce 

the time they spend at warm-water sites. 

However, these changes may not 

completely eliminate mortality events 

from cold weather (Osland et al. 2020, 

pp. 3, 13). Conversely, manatees in 

tropical regions may reach upper 

thermal tolerances due to rising water 

temperatures (Marsh et al. 2017, p. 336). 

Due to the projected sea level rise 

(SLR) associated with climate change, 

coastal systems and low-lying areas will 

increasingly experience submergence, 

coastal flooding, and coastal erosion 

(IPCC 2014, p. 17). In response to SLR 

and other climate change impacts, many 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine 

species have shifted their geographic 

ranges, seasonal activities, and 

migration patterns (IPCC 2014, p. 4). 

Increases in sea level have been 

occurring throughout the southeastern 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United 

States, and the overall magnitude of SLR 

in the region has been slightly higher 

than the global average (Mitchum 2011, 

p. 9). At various locations in Florida, 

SLR has averaged about 3.0 millimeters 

(mm) (0.12 inches (in)) per year since 

the early 1990s (Ruppert 2014, p. 2). 

The amount of SLR that will occur in 

the future will depend largely on the 

rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas 

emissions and associated warming. Salt 

marshes may be able to persist with SLR 

by either floodwater sedimentation or 

through landward migration. However, 

future SLR is expected to shift available 

habitat farther inland (in some cases 

closer to developed areas) or the habitat 

will be lost all together. Coastal tidal 

marshes are threatened by this ‘‘coastal 

squeeze,’’ the combination of SLR rise 

and a physical barrier that prevents the 

landward migration of marshes 

(Martinez et al. 2014, p. 180). 

Regarding fluctuations in ocean 

chemistry, rising carbon dioxide levels 

will directly impact seagrasses and 

other aquatic vegetation (Unsworth et al. 

2019, p. 810). As carbon dioxide 

increases in the atmosphere, it will 

continue to increase in the ocean and 

lead to a decrease in pH. Under elevated 

carbon dioxide conditions, seagrass 

growth rates will increase (Koch et al. 

2013, p. 103). An additional 

consequence of fluctuations in ocean 

chemistry from climate change may be 

harmful algal blooms. Increased ocean 

temperatures will influence the range, 

frequency, duration, size, and seasonal 

window of opportunity for harmful algal 

blooms. 

Hydrological cycle deviations are 

another potential consequence of 

climate change, with projections for 

future precipitation trends suggesting 

overall annual precipitation will 

decrease in the southeastern United 

States and Puerto Rico (Carter et al. 

2014, p. 17; Khalyani et al. 2016, pp. 

271–275; Bhardwaj et al. 2018, p. 145). 

Similarly, uncertain predicted changes 

in precipitation in Mexico, Central 

America, and South America indicate 

that the wet season could become drier, 

and the dry season could become either 

wetter or drier depending on the region, 

but primarily drier along the Caribbean 

coast of Central America and most of 

South America (Vera et al. 2006, p. 4; 

Karmalkar et al. 2011, pp. 622–626). 

Climate change could intensify or 

increase the frequency of drought 

events. Frequency, duration, and 

intensity of droughts are likely to 

increase in the southeastern United 

States where Florida manatees primarily 

occur (Thomas et al. 2004, pp. 145–147). 

Overall, the changes in rainfall patterns 

will likely have a geographically uneven 

impact on manatees. 

Tropical cyclones, severe storms, and 

dust storms will bring intense flooding 

that may impact seagrasses and 

manatees through increased runoff and 

turbidity in coastal waters (Marsh et al. 

2017, p. 343). Impacts to manatees from 

tropical storms and hurricanes include 

strandings, debris-related injuries, 

individuals being swept off-shore or 

exceedingly far inshore, entrapment in 

isolated water bodies, and impacts to 

forage (Langtimm and Beck 2003, entire; 

Langtimm et al. 2006, entire; Langtimm 

et al. 2007, p. 192; NOAA 2007, pp. 94– 

96). The Florida manatee survival rate is 

negatively correlated with more intense 

hurricane seasons (Langtimm and Beck 

2003, p. 262). Tropical storms, 

hurricanes, and high tide flooding 

events are already contributing to 

increased Florida manatee rescues as 

manatees are gaining access to areas that 

were previously inaccessible, such as in 

golf course ponds, in culverts, in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3142 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

stormwater retention areas, and behind 

water control structures. In Puerto Rico, 

tropical storms and hurricanes intensify 

heavy surf, and at least one manatee calf 

death was attributed to Hurricane 

Hortense in 1996 (Service 2007, p. 33). 

For the Antillean manatee, hurricane 

events may have a greater impact on 

some populations (Caribbean and Gulf 

of Mexico) than on others (coast of 

South America). 

Other Influences 

Disease and Predation: Numerous 

infectious diseases and parasites have 

been reported in manatees) (Owen et al. 

2018, entire). Papillomaviruses can 

infect individuals with suppressed 

immune systems have been observed in 

manatees and are believed to be spread 

via contact (Bossart et al. 2002, entire; 

Woodruff et al. 2005, entire; Halvorsen 

and Keith 2008, p. 414). However, 

papillomas (epithelial tumors) on 

infected manatees are benign. 

Toxoplasmosis has been identified in 

the Florida manatee and the Antillean 

manatee in Puerto Rico, but cases of the 

disease and evidence of antibodies to 

Toxoplasma gondii were rare in the 

Puerto Rican population (Buergelt and 

Bonde 1983, entire; Smith et al. 2016, 

entire; Bossart et al. 2012, entire). 

There is no evidence that predation is 

a significant threat to the viability of 

either the Florida manatee or the 

Antillean manatee. There have been 

documented interactions with sharks 

and alligators on manatees, but these 

instances are rare (Mou Sue et al. 1990, 

p. 239; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 239). As 

there is no evidence of predation being 

a significant threat to either subspecies 

of manatee, we do not anticipate this to 

change in the future. However, impacts 

from disease may increase over time if 

manatees are under stress due to climate 

change. 

Entanglement by Fishing Gear and 

Marine Debris: Fishing gear, both active 

and discarded, can kill or injure both 

subspecies of manatee through either 

entanglement (e.g., in nets, crab traps, or 

monofilament line), ingestion (e.g., 

monofilament line, fishhooks, etc.), or 

incidental capture (e.g., in inshore 

recreational and commercial shrimp 

trawls). Other marine debris not related 

to fishing, like plastics, rope, wire, 

sponges, balloons, etc., can pose an 

issue for manatees (Reinert et al. 2017, 

p. 418; Service Captive Manatee 

Database 2024, unpaginated; Service 

2020, pp. 2–3). Causes of death from 

ingestion of marine debris include 

intussusception (telescoping of the 

intestine into itself) of the small 

intestine and impaction, obstruction, 

and perforation of the gastrointestinal 

tract (Beck and Barros 1991, p. 509; 

Reinert et al. 2017, p. 418). Causes of 

death from entanglement have included 

secondary infection, drowning, and 

being tethered to an immovable object 

(Reinert et al. 2017, p. 418). 

Drowning in fishery nets has occurred 

but appears to be infrequent, with just 

one instance of a manatee associated 

with a recreational shrimp net between 

2014 and 2018 (FWC Manatee Mortality 

Database 2024, unpaginated). Incidental 

captures of manatees by research groups 

does occur and non-target manatees can 

be caught during other rescue activities, 

again with limited frequency, but 

manatees are typically released 

unharmed (Service 2020, p. 2). In 2019, 

Florida manatees were reported to be 

incidentally captured on at least 15 

occasions (Service 2020, p. 2). Because 

conservation actions have been 

implemented, deaths from marine 

debris are rare, and population 

modeling efforts have determined that 

marine debris (including entanglements 

and ingestion of fishing gear) presents 

only a low threat to the persistence of 

the Florida manatee (Runge et al. 2015, 

p. 16; 2017, p. 18). 

Entrapment in Water Control 

Structures: Water control structures 

include flood gates that control water 

movement and navigation locks that 

allow vessel passages past dams and 

impoundments, such as those associated 

with the Caloosahatchee Waterway. 

Water control structures and navigation 

locks have historically posed a threat to 

the Florida manatee. Between 1980 and 

1999, an average of 6.6 Florida manatees 

per year died in structure-related deaths 

(FWC Manatee Mortality Database 2021, 

unpaginated). 

Because of safety advances for water 

control structures (discussed further 

under Conservation Efforts and 

Regulatory Mechanisms, below), these 

structures are not currently considered 

a major threat to the Florida manatee. 

Most water control structures that may 

impact Florida manatee have been 

retrofitted with manatee protection 

systems or mesh barriers, and these 

structures implement standard 

operating procedures to reduce impacts 

to manatees. Information is not available 

regarding the precise degree to which 

water control structures pose a threat to 

the Antillean manatee, but the best 

available information indicates a few 

manatee deaths are reported in Mexico, 

Colombia, and Cuba due to dams and 

water control structures. Water control 

structures are not believed to currently 

be a major threat to either subspecies of 

manatee, and we do not anticipate this 

threat to increase in the future because 

we assume that management actions to 

prevent entrapment will continue. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

As described under Threats Analysis, 

above, several factors can affect the 

viability of manatees. Below, we 

provide an overview of conservation 

efforts, and regulatory mechanisms, and 

recovery plans that address the threats 

and provide benefits to manatees. 

Watercraft Collisions 

The primary conservation action to 

reduce the risk of manatee injury and 

death from watercraft collisions is the 

establishment of protected areas that 

restrict boat entry and limit vessel 

speeds. The rationale behind speed 

limits is that a slower speed allows both 

manatees and boaters additional 

response time to avoid a collision 

(Calleson and Frohlich 2007, p. 297; 

Rycyk et al. 2018, p. 956). Furthermore, 

if an impact occurs, the degree of 

trauma will generally be less if the 

colliding boat is operating at slower 

speed (Laist and Shaw 2006, p. 478; 

Calleson and Frohlich 2007, p. 297). 

For the Florida manatee, manatee 

protection zones are a primary 

conservation tool that has been 

implemented to address this threat. 

These zones, which have been 

implemented in Florida at the Federal, 

State, and local level, regulate boater 

entry and speed in protected areas to 

reduce risk to manatees and their 

habitat. There are many different types 

of protection zones, including idle- and 

slow-speed areas, boater travel corridors 

that allow higher speeds in deeper 

channels, shoreline buffers, zones with 

seasonal entry or speed limitations, nonmotorized areas, and no-entry areas 

(FWC 2007, p. 148). Federal, State, and 

local manatee protection speed zones 

have been established in 27 Florida 

counties. 

For the Antillean manatee, some 

countries have designated protected 

areas to help reduce the impact of 

watercraft collisions and other threats to 

manatees. For example, Belize has three 

protected areas created specifically to 

safeguard manatee habitat: Swallow 

Caye Wildlife Sanctuary, Corozal Bay 

Wildlife Sanctuary, and Gales Point 

Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as numerous 

protected areas within coastal areas 

(UNEP 2010, p. 24). Other countries, 

including Brazil, the Dominican 

Republic, Guatemala, and Mexico, have 

also designated reserves specifically for 

the conservation of manatees (UNEP 

2010, pp. 28, 41, 47, 60). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3143 

Habitat Loss and Modification 

To offset threats to seagrass in the 

United States, including Puerto Rico, a 

wide range of conservation efforts are 

ongoing. These include the collective 

efforts of the Service, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources (PRDNER), 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), U.S. Coast 

Guard, FWC, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

Florida’s regional Water Management 

Districts (WMDs), and others who are 

working to avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate project impacts on manatee 

habitat. The development and 

implementation of no-wake areas, 

marked navigation channels, boat 

exclusion areas, and standard manatee 

construction conditions for marinas and 

boat ramps are a few of the efforts 

making a positive impact on 

maintaining and protecting important 

manatee habitat. 

For the Florida manatee, habitat 

degradation and loss from natural and 

human-related causes are being 

addressed through collective efforts to 

improve overall water quality; minimize 

construction-related impacts; minimize 

loss of seagrass due to propeller scarring 

and dock construction; and increase the 

abundance of SAV, salt marsh, and 

mangroves by restoring these habitats. 

The Service, USACE, and NOAA, as 

well as multiple State agencies 

including FWC, FDEP, and regional 

WMDs, review development permits to 

identify potential impacts and develop 

measures that will avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate for direct and secondary 

impacts. In addition, these agencies 

have programs for increasing SAV, salt 

marsh, and mangrove habitats through 

restoration; restoring living shorelines; 

and improving water quality. In 

southwest Florida, spatial coverage of 

seagrass increased by more than 12,000 

ha between the 1980s and 2016 in six 

assessed estuaries (St. Joseph Sound, 

Clearwater Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota 

Bay, Lemon Bay, and Charlotte Harbor; 

Tomasko et al. 2018, p. 1135). This 

recovery was made possible by 

conservation actions that limited 

nutrient loads in the water, including 

upgrading wastewater and stormwater 

systems, as well as legislation regulating 

discharged pollutants (Tomasko et al. 

2018, pp. 1133–1135). Protected areas 

where boat access is limited or 

prohibited also protect manatee habitat 

from direct threats from vessels, their 

wakes, and other destructive activities. 

Major habitat restoration efforts were 

undertaken by Save Crystal River, Inc., 

with financial backing by the State of 

Florida and other sources. As part of 

this effort to restore Kings Bay, a threepronged approach was instituted in the 

area, consisting of: organic detritus/ 

muck removal; then replanting with 

more salt-tolerant eelgrass variants 

(‘‘Rock Star’’ and ‘‘Salty Dog’’), with the 

initial plantings protected by herbivory 

exclusion cages; and then maintenance 

of the restoration site (Kramer 2020, pp. 

1–4; Save Crystal River 2021, entire). 

Over time, the plants have shown strong 

growth and persistence, and have 

expanded the vegetated area well 

beyond the initial planting locations, 

contributing to enhanced water clarity 

in many parts of the bay. While water 

clarity has improved, an added benefit 

for manatees is that the SAV has 

expanded nearer to natural spring sites, 

resulting in reduced travel distances to 

feed and less exposure to colder 

ambient temperatures and boat traffic. 

Current efforts to forestall reductions 

in salt marsh habitat include reducing 

impacts from coastal development 

through the Federal and State 

permitting process, mitigation for lost 

salt marsh, and restoration efforts to 

enhance and increase salt marsh habitat 

(Radabaugh et al. 2017, pp. 139–141). 

There are recovery efforts being made 

to protect the Antillean manatee against 

threats posed by habitat loss or 

modification. In Puerto Rico, there have 

been efforts to restore damaged habitat, 

protect habitat by restricting boater 

entry or speeds, and provide mooring 

buoys to prevent anchorage (PRDNER 

2012, entire). In Belize, three protected 

areas were created specifically to protect 

critical manatee habitat (Swallow Caye 

Wildlife Sanctuary, Corozal Bay 

Wildlife Sanctuary, and Gales Point 

Wildlife Sanctuary), and more than 43 

percent of the country’s protected areas 

are within the coastal zone (UNEP 2010, 

p. 24). Mexico has designated 

significant special manatee protection 

areas (UNEP 2010, p. 60). The 

Dominican Republic and Guatemala 

also have designated protected habitat 

specifically for Antillean manatee 

conservation, in addition to other 

protected coastal and wetland areas that 

are not protected specifically for 

manatees (UNEP 2010, pp. 19–82; 

Domı ́nguez Tejo 2019, p. 6). 

Some Antillean manatee habitat has 

been protected in other range countries 

including the Bahamas, Brazil, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, French 

Guiana, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, 

Panama, Suriname, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and Venezuela, although these 

protected areas are not necessarily 

protected or enforced to the benefit of 

manatees specifically (e.g., Ramsar sites 

designated as wetlands of international 

importance but without specific 

management or planning to benefit 

manatees) (UNEP 2010, pp. 19–82). 

Pollution and Harmful Algal Blooms 

Conservation measures associated 

with harmful algal blooms include 

rescue and treatment of affected 

individuals, and efforts to reduce the 

occurrence of harmful algal blooms in 

cases where the drivers of blooms are 

understood, which is not the case for 

red tides caused by blooms of the 

marine algae Karenia brevis. Although 

there are no effective conservation 

measures available currently to reduce 

the impact of red tides themselves, 

manatee rescue, care and treatment, and 

release have aided in the rehabilitation 

of numerous manatees suffering from 

sublethal effects of brevetoxin exposure. 

Between 2010 and 2022, 70 Florida 

manatees have been rescued (7.7 

percent of all rescues) for red tiderelated causes (FWC Manatee Mortality 

Database 2024, unpaginated). 

Many efforts are being undertaken to 

address recurring algal blooms in 

Florida, and specifically in the IRL. The 

State of Florida, Indian River Lagoon 

National Estuary Program (IRLNEP), 

Brevard County, and many other 

partners have funded and are 

implementing a large number of projects 

to improve the IRL’s health. The 

initiatives are aimed at removing legacy 

nutrient loads and reducing current 

nutrient sources through the 

implementation of stormwater 

improvement projects, fertilizer bans, 

septic to sewer conversions, dredging of 

accumulated muck from the lagoon, and 

restoration projects for oysters, clams, 

and seagrass (Tetra Tech and 

Closewaters, LLC 2021, entire; IRLNEP 

2019, entire). 

For the Antillean manatee, once the 

manatee deaths in the Tabasco region 

started to increase, the Mexican 

government summoned a committee to 

investigate the causes of death. While 

brevetoxins have been reported from 

Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and 

Jamaica (Steidinger 2009, pp. 550–551), 

algal blooms are not known to be a 

significant threat to the Antillean 

manatee throughout its range. However, 

between 2018 and 2019, more than 50 

Antillean manatee deaths in Mexico 

were attributed to toxicity from algal 

blooms within the wetlands in the 

Tabasco region, although the algal 

species and cause of the bloom was not 

identified (Nu ́n ̃ ez-Nogueira and UribeLo ́pez 2020, p. 257). The magnitude, 

timing, and frequency of harmful algal 

blooms may change in the future with 

a changing climate. Further, large mats 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3144 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

of pelagic sargassum may impact 

Antillean manatees’ respiratory, ocular, 

and neurological functions. 

Human Interactions 

In Florida, where people currently 

view manatees, numerous measures are 

in place to prevent the take of manatees 

due to disturbance from viewing-related 

harassment. All waterborne activities 

are prohibited in Federal manatee 

sanctuaries and FWC or other State noentry zones; specific waterborne 

activities may be restricted in Federal 

manatee refuges and FWC nomotorized-vessel zones. Both the 

Service and FWC promote and post 

appropriate guidelines for Florida 

manatee viewing through outreach via 

social media and signage at public 

viewing areas. Ecotourism is popular 

throughout the State of Florida but 

remains a significant concern due to 

increasing demand for manatee-related 

tourism, limited law enforcement 

presence, and cumulative effects from 

these activities on manatees especially 

when the activities occur in the vicinity 

of large manatee aggregations at warmwater sites. 

Within the Crystal River National 

Wildlife Refuge in Citrus County, 

Florida, a special use permit system is 

in place to govern commercial tours 

within refuge waters. The permit system 

ensures these activities occur with 

proper education and viewing practices 

in place. Federal and State designated 

sanctuaries and protected areas keep 

people out of sensitive manatee habitats 

(i.e., warm-water sites), educated tour 

guides are tasked with ensuring that 

their customers do not harass manatees, 

and many educational programs 

prescribe appropriate measures to take 

when in the presence of manatees. 

Refuge staff, including law enforcement, 

hold annual meetings with volunteers 

and tour guides to provide updates on 

manatee issues in the area and to review 

proper manatee viewing practices. The 

federally designated Kings Bay Manatee 

Refuge regulates waterborne activities 

that are disruptions to natural behaviors 

such as resting, nursing, foraging, 

mating, and socializing, and has 

established speed zones for the 

protection of manatees. 

There is limited information available 

about conservation measures that 

address human interaction in many 

range countries for the Antillean 

manatee. In Puerto Rico, government 

agencies and local nongovernmental 

organizations have implemented 

education and outreach strategies to 

ensure that manatee harassment is 

avoided and minimized by 

concessionaires and others within 

manatee use areas. There has been an 

increase in the type and number of 

recreational activities where manatees 

occur and, thus, an increase in the 

scenarios where manatee harassment 

occurs. In general, surveillance and 

enforcement related to human 

interactions with manatees is difficult 

given the frequency and diversity of the 

incidents. There are examples of similar 

protected areas and use restrictions to 

protect Antillean manatees in other 

range countries from human 

interactions. For example, at Swallow 

Caye in Belize where manatees stopped 

visiting suitable habitat after swim-withthe-manatee programs were allowed, 

community groups and a local 

conservation organization helped to 

declare the area a wildlife sanctuary in 

2002. The area is currently co-managed 

between the Belize Forest Department 

and a local conservation organization, 

and manatees have returned to the area 

(UNEP 2010, p. 23). In Mexico, several 

workshops and meetings were 

conducted with the local tourist 

operators and the authorities within the 

Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve 

(Castelblanco-Martı ́nez et al. 2019, 

entire). 

Loss of Warm-Water Refugia 

As discussed under Threats Analysis, 

above, cold stress does not tend to affect 

Antillean manatees, because they 

inhabit warmer subtropical waters. 

Florida manatees during the colder 

months may suffer from cold stress and 

require human intervention. However, 

for the Florida manatee, primary direct 

conservation response to address cold 

stress is rescue and treatment. Providing 

care for cold-stressed manatees is 

dependent on the public or other 

entities reporting these distressed 

manatees to FWC and other rescue 

partners, as well as the availability of 

experienced rescue personnel, 

availability of rehabilitation space, and 

other resources necessary to rescue, 

transport, and provide treatment. 

Consequently, only a small number of 

individuals that need treatment for cold 

stress are likely to be rescued and 

rehabilitated. 

Over the last 10 years (2014–2023), 

close to 40 manatees have been rescued 

outside of Florida, and most of those 

rescues were the result of artificial 

warm-water attractants (power plants, 

pulp mills, and other industrial-related 

outfalls that produce heated effluents in 

manatee-accessible waters) that altered 

manatee migratory behavior but where 

the heated discharges were insufficient 

to sustain manatees through the winter 

(Service Manatee Database 2024, 

unpaginated). When these situations 

occur, the Service works cooperatively 

with the industrial partner to try to 

mitigate those attractants. 

Major spring restoration efforts have 

occurred at Homosassa Springs, Three 

Sisters Springs, Chassahowitzka Spring, 

Ulele Spring, Fanning Springs, Manatee 

Springs, and Warm Mineral Springs, 

where sand bars and other obstructions 

were removed to facilitate manatee 

access to these areas (TNC 2015, 

unpaginated; Valade et al. 2020, p. 17). 

Restoration and shoreline stabilization 

at Blue Spring (Volusia County), a major 

natural warm-water site, is ongoing. 

Because of sedimentation from human 

activities, manatees could not access the 

Warm Mineral Springs warm-water site 

under certain low tide conditions (FWC 

2019, pp. 16–17). Another site in 

southwest Florida at Port of the Islands 

is expected to be lost because of 

hydrologic restoration in the Picayune 

Strand as part of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). In 

response, a manatee warm-water 

mitigation feature was built that 

includes three deep pools that are 

connected to the surficial aquifer and 

hold warm saline groundwater for 

manatee use. This site is being 

monitored by researchers to evaluate 

temperature conditions and manatee use 

(FWC 2019, pp. 16–17). 

The State of Florida’s WMDs are also 

required to set minimum flows and 

levels (MFLs) for aquifers, surface 

watercourses, and other surface water 

bodies. Minimum flows are required for 

rivers, streams, estuaries, and springs in 

Florida, which provide benefits to 

manatees and help provide protection 

for natural warm-water sites. The MFLs 

created for each waterbody must 

establish a limit that identifies a point 

where further water withdrawals will be 

harmful to the water resources or 

ecology of the area; non-consumptive 

and environmental values are 

considered in this determination. After 

an MFL is set, water use permits are 

used to regulate and prevent 

groundwater withdrawals that would 

lower flows or levels that fall below the 

MFL. MFL reviews typically occur on a 

5-year cycle, and these levels ensure 

adequate flows and require that 

conservation measures be taken should 

flows drop below targets. MFLs have 

been completed for numerous 

waterbodies including those important 

for manatees, like Blue Spring (Volusia 

County); Manatee and Fanning Springs 

(Levy County); Weeki Wachee Spring 

(Hernando County); Homosassa, 

Chassahowitzka, and the Crystal River/ 

Kings Bay system (Citrus County); 

DeLeon Springs (Volusia County); Silver 

Glen Springs (Lake and Marion 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3145 

Counties); and Wakulla Springs 

(Wakulla County). 

Additional conservation actions 

include the Service’s and FWC’s 

coordination with the power-generating 

companies in Florida, and through the 

FDEP, manatee protection conditions 

are incorporated into each facility’s 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit. The Service 

also coordinates with State and industry 

partners to minimize any future 

manatee losses from industrial site 

reductions or closures by seeking shortterm alternatives and long-term 

sustainable options for supporting 

manatees without reliance on industrial 

warm-water sources. In 2004, the Warmwater Task Force created the first 

version of the Warm-water Habitat 

Action Plan to address the expected loss 

of warm-water habitat produced by 

Florida power plants. The task force was 

part of the Service’s Manatee Recovery 

Team and consisted of representatives 

of Federal and State wildlife agencies, 

the power industry, recreational and 

commercial boating interests, and 

environmental organizations. The 

Service and FWC finalized the Florida 

Manatee Warm-water Habitat Action 

Plan (Valade et al. 2020, entire), and this 

document serves as the framework to 

address the expected loss of industrial 

warm-water habitat in the future. This 

plan consists of seven main strategies 

and sets forth both short-term and longterm measures to address one of the 

most significant threats to the future 

existence of the Florida manatee and the 

recovery of the subspecies (Valade et al. 

2020, entire). 

Water Control Structures 

Water control structures are not 

believed to be a major threat to the 

Antillean manatee. However, advances 

in manatee protection systems installed 

on water control structures to prevent 

Florida manatees from being crushed or 

impinged have been largely successful. 

Efforts to mitigate the negative effects of 

these water control structures on 

manatees are ongoing. In Florida, most 

water control structures that are known 

to have caused Florida manatee deaths 

have been retrofitted with manatee 

protection systems (Service 2023, p. 12), 

including acoustic arrays and piezoelectric strips that reverse closing locks 

or gates when they encounter a manatee. 

In addition, mesh exclusion barriers are 

used to prevent manatees from 

accessing the recessed areas of 

navigational locks. Risks at navigational 

locks and water control structures have 

been further reduced by the 

implementation of standard operating 

procedures developed by the Florida 

WMDs and the USACE (Service 2023, p. 

12). In response to these advances, 

annual mortality has fallen to an average 

of 4.2 manatees per year between 2000 

and 2019 (FWC Manatee Mortality 

Database 2024, unpaginated). 

Entanglement by Fishing Gear and 

Marine Debris 

Conservation actions to reduce the 

impact of this threat include rescue, 

efforts to remove and keep discarded 

fishing gear and debris out of the water, 

and community outreach and education. 

In addition, best management practices 

have been provided by FWC and the 

Service for some commercial fisheries 

and research activities that have 

included active tending of nets, limited 

set times, location restrictions, and 

reporting of entanglements and captures 

of manatees during these activities. 

Rescue activities have reduced 

mortality associated with fishing gear, 

which has likely contributed towards 

recovery of the Florida manatee. Permits 

related to in-water activities, such as 

mooring fields, turbidity booms, and 

other entangling materials, are reviewed 

by FWC and Service staff, and 

conditions to minimize or eliminate 

entanglements are provided as specific 

conditions to the issued permit. Derelict 

crab trap removal, monofilament 

recycling programs, and other coastal 

cleanup efforts also aid in reducing the 

threat to marine wildlife and 

minimizing the number of 

entanglements by removing gear from 

the water. Extensive education and 

outreach efforts increase awareness and 

promote sound gear-disposal activities. 

Recovery Plans and Recovery Actions 

Recovery and conservation actions for 

the West Indian manatee are described 

in the ‘‘UNEP Caribbean 

Environment[al] Program’s Regional 

Management Plan for the West Indian 

Manatee’’ (UNEP 2010, entire) and in 

national conservation plans for 

countries outside the United States. The 

UNEP plan identifies short- and longterm conservation and research 

measures that should be implemented to 

conserve the West Indian manatee. This 

plan also includes an overview of 

manatees within their range countries, 

including descriptions of regional and 

national conservation measures and 

research programs that have been 

implemented. Given the general lack of 

information about the Antillean 

manatee in most of its range countries, 

the plan recommends that needed 

research and the development of 

common methodologies be prioritized 

in concert with coordinated manatee 

and manatee habitat protection efforts 

(UNEP 2010, entire). Belize, Colombia, 

Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, and 

Trinidad have developed countryspecific manatee recovery plans as well 

(UNEP 2010, p. 92). 

Efforts to conserve manatees outside 

the United States vary significantly from 

country to country. Some countries, 

including, but not limited to, Mexico, 

Belize, Guatemala, Brazil, Dominican 

Republic, and Cuba, are engaged in 

efforts to assess the current status and 

distribution of manatees. Many 

countries also provide protections for 

manatees and their habitats. A number 

of governments have designated 

manatee protection areas and have 

developed or are developing 

conservation plans (UNEP 2010, p. xiv). 

National legislation exists for manatees 

in all range countries, and many 

countries have ratified their 

participation in international 

conventions and protocols that protect 

manatees and their habitat (UNEP 2010, 

p. xv). Other efforts to protect manatees 

include education and outreach efforts, 

and countries promote cooperation and 

information exchanges. 

Within the United States, the 

Service’s Recovery Plan for the Puerto 

Rico Population of the West Indian 

(Antillean) Manatee (Service 1986, 

entire), the South Florida Multi-Species 

Recovery Plan (Service 1999, entire), 

and the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan 

(Service 2001, entire) identify recovery 

and conservation actions for the two 

subspecies. Actions common to all 

plans include minimizing manatee 

mortality and injury, protecting manatee 

habitats, and monitoring manatee 

populations and habitat. 

The Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico 

population of the West Indian 

(Antillean) Manatee (Service 1986, 

entire) included three major objectives: 

(1) To identify, assess, and reduce 

human-related mortalities, especially 

those related to gill-net entanglement; 

(2) to identify and minimize alteration, 

degradation, and destruction of 

important Antillean manatee habitats; 

and (3) to develop criteria and biological 

information necessary to determine 

whether and when to reclassify (either 

delist or downlist) the Puerto Rico 

population (Service 1986, p. 12). The 

1986 plan also includes a step-down 

outline that identifies two primary 

recovery actions: (1) population 

management, and (2) habitat protection. 

The 1986 plan (Service 1986, entire) 

does not establish quantitative recovery 

criteria to describe a sustainable 

population of manatees in Puerto Rico. 

It does, however, direct the Service to 

determine and satisfy the recovery 

criteria that are based on mortality and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3146 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

abundance trends and a minimum 

population size and to ensure that 

adequate habitat protection and antipoaching measures are implemented 

(Service 1986, Executive Summary). 

Since the release of the 1986 plan, 

initiated recovery actions have provided 

substantial new knowledge about the 

subspecies’ ecology and threats. Some of 

these efforts apply to multiple tasks and 

are helping to update conservation 

information and tools that are applied 

towards adaptive management and 

education. Efforts include (but are not 

limited to) the rescue, rehabilitation, 

and release actions related to strandings 

(led by PRDNER); aerial surveys; 

identification of important manatee 

habitats and resources in Puerto Rico; 

and developing conservation measures 

as part of project reviews. 

The current Florida Manatee Recovery 

Plan on October 30, 2001 (Service 2001, 

entire) includes four principal 

objectives: (1) Minimize causes of 

Florida manatee disturbance, 

harassment, injury, and mortality; (2) 

determine and monitor the status of 

Florida manatee populations; (3) 

protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor 

Florida manatee habitats; and (4) 

facilitate Florida manatee recovery 

through public awareness and 

education. To help achieve these 

objectives, the 2001 recovery plan 

identifies 118 recovery implementation 

tasks. Since the release of the 2001 

recovery plan, initiated recovery actions 

have provided substantial new 

knowledge about the subspecies’ 

ecology and threats. Some of these 

efforts apply to multiple tasks and are 

helping to update conservation 

information and tools that are applied 

towards adaptive management and 

education. The delisting criteria for 

maintaining spring flows and protecting 

warm-water refugia have not yet been 

met. 

Recovery actions are also 

implemented during technical 

assistance and project review. Any 

action or project with a Federal nexus 

(e.g., Federal funds, permits, or actions) 

will require a consultation with the 

Service under section 7 of the Act. 

During the consultation process, the 

Service identifies conservation 

measures to avoid and minimize 

possible effects of proposed actions or 

projects. Each year, we review 

numerous projects pertaining to the 

manatee (e.g., dredging, dock and 

marina construction, coastal 

development, marine events (i.e., highspeed boat races), and underwater and 

beach unexploded ordnance). The 

Service has developed guidelines 

specific to Puerto Rico for Antillean 

manatee conservation measures. For 

example, we have worked with the U.S. 

Coast Guard to develop and implement 

standard permit conditions for boat 

races, such as observer protocols. 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Because the Florida manatee is a 

subspecies of the West Indian manatee, 

its conservation has benefited from a 

number of Federal, State, and local 

laws. The species is federally protected 

in the United States, including Puerto 

Rico, under the Act and the MMPA. In 

addition to the consultation procedures 

under section 7 of the Act, the Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661–666c) provide regulatory 

mechanisms for interagency 

consultation associated with projects, 

and these reviews may result in habitat 

protection for the subspecies. The boat 

facility siting strategies in the 16 county 

manatee protection plans are a major 

component of the section 7 consultation 

process under the Act. Manatee 

protection plans (MPPs) are Federal, 

State, and local agreements designed to 

help direct future boat facility 

development away from the highest 

manatee use areas on a county-specific 

basis. 

Critical habitat for the Florida 

manatee was designated in 1976 (see 41 

FR 41914, September 24, 1976, and 42 

FR 47840, September 22, 1977). This 

designation identified specific 

waterways in Florida that were 

historically known to support high 

concentrations of Florida manatees at 

that time. In 2010, the Service 

concluded that revisions to critical 

habitat for the Florida manatee were 

warranted and that future updates to 

this designation would need to 

encompass the most recent studies of 

distribution, habitat use, and habitat 

requirements (75 FR 1574, January 12, 

2010). We proposed to revise the critical 

habitat designation for the Florida 

manatee and to designate critical habitat 

for the Antillean manatee in a separate 

Federal Register publication (89 FR 

78134). 

In addition to the Act, within the 

continental United States, Puerto Rico, 

and U.S. Virgin Islands, the MMPA and 

State and Commonwealth laws and 

regulations provide protections for 

Florida and Antillean manatees. Under 

the MMPA, the primary objective of 

marine mammal management is to 

maintain the health and stability of the 

marine ecosystem (16 U.S.C. 1361(6)). 

Service regulations implementing the 

MMPA restrict the taking, possession, 

transportation, selling, offering for sale, 

and importing of all marine mammals 

(50 CFR part 18). 

In addition to the Federal protections 

discussed above, the Florida manatee is 

protected at the State level in Florida. 

The first State protection of manatees in 

Florida was established in 1893 when 

hunting was prohibited, and a State law 

was instituted in 1907 that imposed a 

$500 fine and/or 6 months in prison for 

killing or molesting a manatee. The first 

manatee protection areas were 

established in 1979 (FWC 2007, p. 179). 

The subspecies is protected under the 

Florida Endangered and Threatened 

Species Act (see Florida Statutes at 

section 379.2291) and the Florida 

Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 (see 

Florida Statutes at section 379.2431(2)). 

At the species level, the West Indian 

manatee (Trichechus manatus) is listed 

as endangered on the State marine 

endangered and threatened species list 

(see Florida Administrative Code at 

section 68A–27.0031). 

Within Florida, the Florida Manatee 

Sanctuary Act of 1978 provides 

significant protections, including 

authority for the regulation of manatee 

protection zones in manatee habitat and 

the development of county-specific 

MPPs. In establishing the Florida 

Manatee Sanctuary Act, Florida 

declared the entire State a refuge and 

sanctuary for manatees and called for 

the protection of manatees from injury, 

disturbance, harassment, or harm. The 

Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act also 

allows for the enforcement of boat 

speeds and operations in areas where 

manatees have been frequently seen and 

where the best scientific information 

supports that manatees inhabit the areas 

on a regular basis. 

Manatee protection plans are 

comprehensive county-wide manatee 

protection strategies that are developed 

cooperatively and agreed to by the 

county, FWC, and the Service. 

Important aspects of MPPs include boat 

facility siting recommendations and 

associated predictability for permitting, 

habitat protection policies, education 

programs, and coordinated law 

enforcement efforts with a plan for 

implementation. 

Manatee protection plans are also 

addressed in the Florida Manatee 

Sanctuary Act and the Florida Manatee 

Recovery Plan. In 1989, the Florida 

Governor and Cabinet provided a 

directive that identified 13 ‘‘key’’ 

counties that needed to develop MPPs 

and described what conservation 

measures should be incorporated into 

these plans. In 2002, the Florida 

Legislature amended the Florida 

Manatee Sanctuary Act to include the 

requirement for MPPs in these 13 key 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3147 

counties. Furthermore, deadlines were 

set up for completion of these plans and 

criteria for approval. MPPs have also 

been established in other counties. 

Federal and State agencies have made 

the effort to mitigate the loss of warmwater habitat in Florida by providing 

regulatory measures to protect spring 

flows, supporting spring restoration 

efforts, and working cooperatively with 

industry to maintain important artificial 

warm-water sources while regional 

warm-water networks are established to 

support the manatee population. In 

some areas of Florida, local 

governments have also adopted 

protection measures, including local 

speed zones that provide benefits to 

manatees (see appendix B of the SSA 

report (Service 2024a, pp. B71–B79)). 

In other parts of its range, the Florida 

manatee is listed under State laws. For 

each State listed here, the listed entity 

is the West Indian manatee rather than 

the Florida subspecies, but the Florida 

subspecies is the only subspecies 

known to regularly occur in these 

States. The West Indian manatee is 

listed as endangered under State law in 

Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina 

(when present in inland waters), 

Mississippi, and Virginia. The species is 

listed as threatened under State law in 

Louisiana and Texas. Alabama does not 

have a State law that designates species 

as either endangered or threatened, but 

West Indian manatees are a protected 

species under the State’s Protected 

Nongame Species Regulation (Alabama 

Administrative Code at section 220–2– 

.92(1)(e)). In addition to protections 

from take and harassment, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

(LDWF) also conducts some boater 

awareness by posting manatee signs at 

boat launches in Southern Louisiana. 

The Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (GADNR), in coordination 

with the USACE, requires permanent 

manatee education signs to be posted at 

all boat launches, marinas, and 

community docks in tidal waters; 

GADNR also requires temporary signs 

and other standard conditions for inwater work in tidal waters and marshes. 

The Antillean manatee in Puerto Rico 

is also protected by Commonwealth 

laws and regulations (see appendix B of 

the SSA report (Service 2024b, p. 35)). 

A number of international 

environmental agreements provide 

protections for the West Indian manatee 

or its habitat, such as the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES; March 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087); 

Convention for the Protection and 

Development of the Marine 

Environment of the Wider Caribbean 

Region (WCR or Cartagena Convention; 

adopted on March 24, 1983, and entered 

into force on October 11, 1986); 

Cartagena Convention’s Protocol 

Concerning Specially Protected Areas 

and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider 

Caribbean Region (adopted on January 

18, 1990, and entered into force on June 

18, 2000); Convention on Biological 

Diversity (1992); International 

Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 

Convention; adopted on November 2, 

1973); and United Nations Law of the 

Sea Convention (UNCLOS; 1982). 

Further, multiple international treaties 

and agreements provide protections for 

the Antillean manatee throughout its 

range including the UNEP Regional 

Management Plan for the West Indian 

Manatee (Trichechus manatus) and 

manatee protection ordinance. For 

additional information on existing 

regulatory protections for the manatee, 

please refer to appendix D of the SSA 

report (Service 2024b, pp. 137–139). 

While regulatory mechanisms should 

be effective and consistent across the 

two subspecies’ ranges, the extent and 

overall effectiveness of these regulatory 

protections to the subspecies and their 

habitats vary from country to country. 

Lack of enforcement remains a critical 

issue for the Antillean manatee (UNEP 

2010, p. 89; Marsh et al. 2011, p. 387), 

and despite having laws in place, illegal 

activities such as poaching and 

destruction of habitat still occur (SelfSullivan and Mignucci-Giannoni 2012, 

p. 41). In Puerto Rico, for example, 

PRDNER has indicated that current 

speed regulatory buoys are ineffective, 

in part because regulations do not 

identify the perimeter or area that each 

buoy regulates (Service 2017, p. 16695). 

Although some efforts may be having a 

positive impact on manatee recovery, 

enforcement and compliance will 

require significant cooperative efforts 

and funding, particularly with 

regulations and enforcement to avoid 

and minimize watercraft collisions and 

habitat degradation. 

Cumulative Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA reports, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on both 

subspecies. To assess the current and 

future condition of each subspecies, we 

evaluate the effects of all the relevant 

factors that may be influencing the 

subspecies, including threats and 

conservation efforts. Because the SSA 

framework considers not just the 

presence of the factors, but to what 

degree they collectively influence risk to 

the entire subspecies, our assessment 

integrates the cumulative effects of the 

factors and replaces a standalone 

cumulative-effects analysis. 

Current Condition—Florida Manatee 

Viability of the Florida manatee is 

best understood by describing 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (see Analytical 

Framework, above). Maintaining 

sufficiently resilient populations across 

the range of a species increases the 

ability of that species to adapt to natural 

selection processes, increasing the 

chances that the species will persist in 

a changing world (Service 2016, pp. 12– 

13). We delineated resiliency units 

within each representative unit to serve 

as the basis for this status assessment. 

We use the term ‘‘resiliency unit’’ rather 

than population to be clear that 

delineated units do not necessarily align 

with biological populations. While we 

used the concept of biological 

populations as a guide in delineating 

these units, there were cases where 

information was lacking about 

connectivity and barriers to connectivity 

between groups of manatees, or where 

data availability necessitated assessing 

units at different scales. These 

delineations were based on a number of 

factors including connectivity and 

dispersal patterns, site fidelity, seasonal 

differences in distribution, ecological 

differences, and the scale of data 

availability. There are five 

representative units for the West Indian 

manatee, and the Florida manatee is 

contained within one representative 

unit (see Current Condition—Antillean 

Manatee, below, and section 4.1.1 of the 

Florida manatee SSA report for more 

details (Service 2024a, pp. 64–67)). 

The Florida manatee was 

characterized at two seasonal scales to 

assess resiliency: one based on warm 

season distribution (also called warm 

season coastal resiliency units) and one 

based primarily on cold season 

distribution (also called winter 

management units) (see figure 2, below). 

Warm season coastal resiliency units 

include the Gulf and East Coast units as 

well as the freshwater tributaries 

flowing into the two units. Cold season 

distribution is based on four Florida 

winter management units: Northwest, 

Southwest, Atlantic, and Upper Saint 

Johns River (see chapter 4 of the SSA 

report (Service 2024a, pp. 63–94)). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3148 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

To measure the current resiliency of 

the Florida manatee, we first analyzed 

and scored four condition factors: (1) 

population trend, (2) regional foraging 

habitat condition, (3) winter foraging 

habitat condition, and (4) winter warmwater refugia condition. Overall 

resiliency was calculated by tallying the 

number of times a unit was assigned 

high, moderate, or low condition across 

the four resiliency factors at both warm 

season and winter management scales 

(Service 2024a, pp. 69–94). For more 

details on resiliency methodology, see 

section 4.2 of the SSA report (Service 

2024a, pp. 69–78). 

Based on the assessment of current 

demographic and habitat needs for the 

Florida manatee, three winter 

management units (Northwest, 

Southwest, Upper St. Johns River) have 

high resiliency and one winter 

management unit (Atlantic) has 

moderate resiliency (see table 1, below). 

Scaled to warm season coastal resiliency 

units, the Gulf Coast exhibits high 

resiliency, and the East Coast exhibits 

moderate resiliency. Forage conditions 

and availability of warm-water habitat 

for the Florida manatee are currently in 

good condition for three of the four 

winter management units. The 

exception is the Atlantic winter 

management unit, where the foragedriven UME affected resiliency in the 

unit from 2021–2023. While the longterm implications of this UME to the 

Florida manatee population are 

unknown, the population trend for the 

Atlantic winter management unit was 

tentatively assessed as low, leading to 

an overall resiliency of low for this 

recent two-year period. The Atlantic 

winter management unit has the highest 

estimated abundance of Florida 

manatees, as calculated from the 2021– 

2022 Statewide abundance survey in 

Florida (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 7), 

indicating a large number of manatees 

were being affected by the loss of forage 

and degraded conditions in this unit. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT RESILIENCY FOR THE FOUR FLORIDA MANATEE WINTER MANAGEMENT UNITS AND TWO WARM

SEASON COASTAL RESILIENCY UNITS

[Service 2024a, pp. 93–94] 

Abundance Trend 

(2011–2020) Forage Winter forage 

Warm-water 

refugia 

Overall 

resiliency 

Management Unit: 

Northwest .................... 1,270 (790–1,840) ............. High ............... Good .............. Good .............. Good .............. HIGH. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP14JA25.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3149 

TABLE 1—CURRENT RESILIENCY FOR THE FOUR FLORIDA MANATEE WINTER MANAGEMENT UNITS AND TWO WARM

SEASON COASTAL RESILIENCY UNITS—Continued 

[Service 2024a, pp. 93–94] 

Abundance Trend 

(2011–2020) Forage Winter forage 

Warm-water 

refugia 

Overall 

resiliency 

Southwest ................... 2,966 (2,551–3,434) .......... Moderate ........ Good .............. Good .............. Good .............. HIGH. 

Atlantic ........................ 3,520 (2,750–4,430) .......... Moderate ........ Diminished ..... Diminished ..... Good .............. MODERATE. 

2021–2023 .................. ............................................ (Low) .............. ........................ ........................ ........................ (LOW). 

Upper St. Johns River 480 (460–510) ................... High ............... Good .............. Good .............. Good .............. HIGH. 

Warm Season Coastal Resiliency Unit: 

Gulf Coast ................... 4,810 (3,820–6,010) .......... High ............... Good .............. Good .............. Good .............. HIGH. 

East Coast ......................... 4,000 (3,240–4,910) .......... Moderate ........ Caution * ........ Diminished ..... Good .............. MODERATE. 

* ‘‘Caution’’ condition indicates that there are some metrics that indicate that forage resources are being impacted. 

The Florida manatee, which 

comprises a single representative unit, 

currently has one coastal resiliency unit 

exhibiting high resiliency and the 

second exhibiting moderate resiliency 

(see table 1, above). Three of the four 

winter management units exhibit high 

resiliency and one (the Atlantic unit) 

exhibits moderate resiliency. Of note, 

from 2021 to 2023, the Atlantic unit had 

a low level of resiliency, driven by 

losses of forage and high mortality due 

to the UME declared in 2021 (Service 

2023, p. 5). However, when comparing 

from 2011–2020 across the winter 

management units, the Atlantic unit was 

assessed to have moderate resiliency 

currently. Additionally, the number of 

manatees in Florida on the East coast 

from 2021–2022 was estimated to be 

between 3,940–6,980 (Gowan et al. 

2023, p. 1). The estimate from 2022 was 

higher than the estimate from 2016; 

however, the credible intervals permit a 

range of population trajectories (Gowan 

et al. 2023, p. 5). This range of 

population trajectories lends credence 

to a tentative score of low from 2021 to 

present in the Atlantic winter 

management unit in the SSA report 

(Service 2024a, p. 90), but this range 

also leaves the possibility that the 

population is increasing after the UME. 

Loss of forage is the driver limiting 

the resiliency of the East Coast 

resiliency unit. Prior to the UME, the 

Atlantic unit was exhibiting stable or 

slow population growth, while the other 

three winter management units were, 

and continue to, exhibit positive growth 

(Service 2023, p. 5). The full impacts of 

the ongoing UME are continuing to be 

assessed at this time and both 

retrospective and predictive population 

modeling efforts are underway and will 

be included in future versions of the 

SSA report. 

Redundancy for the Florida manatee 

can be described as the number and 

distribution of sufficiently resilient 

populations across the range, and the 

subspecies’ ability to withstand 

anticipated species-relevant 

catastrophic events. The Florida 

manatee has redundancy at a regional 

scale; in addition to the overall 

moderate resiliency of Atlantic unit and 

overall high resiliency of Northwest, 

Southwest, and Upper St. John’s River 

the East Coast resiliency unit currently 

has moderate, and the Gulf Coast high, 

resiliency. In addition, the subspecies is 

distributed throughout its historical 

range. Resiliency across the Florida 

manatee’s range has enabled the 

subspecies to survive past catastrophic 

events, such as UMEs and hurricanes, 

and to recover from such events. Thus, 

the Florida manatee has sufficient 

redundancy, or distribution of current 

moderate to high resiliency units, across 

its range to withstand catastrophic 

events. 

Representation refers to the breadth of 

genetic and environmental diversity 

within and among populations that 

contributes to the ability of the species 

to respond and adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time 

(Service 2016, p. 6). Maintaining 

sufficiently resilient populations across 

the range of the species increases the 

ability of the species to adapt to natural 

selection processes, increasing the 

chances that the species will persist in 

a changing world (Service 2016, pp. 12– 

13). Partial migration between resiliency 

and management units results in genetic 

mixing, which has led to low genetic 

differentiation between units (Service 

2023, pp. 25–27). This migration and 

subsequent genetic mixing increases the 

adaptive capacity of the Florida manatee 

by allowing for the introduction of 

advantageous traits across units that can 

enhance the species’ ability to adapt to 

changing environmental conditions. 

Partial migration describes a species’ 

adaptive ability to exploit new areas 

where conditions are favorable before 

retreating when the season changes and 

conditions become unfavorable (Bright 

Ross et al. 2021, entire). Partial 

migration has already enabled range 

shifts for the Florida manatee on the 

Gulf Coast (Cloyed et al. 2021, p. 6) and 

contributes to the subspecies’ adaptive 

capacity. Partial migration allows 

portions of a population to respond to 

environmental variability, such as losses 

of warm-water refugia, and shift to other 

available wintering locations. Thus, the 

Florida manatee does exhibit potential 

adaptive capacity to changing 

environmental conditions. 

Future Conditions—Florida Manatee 

In our analysis of the Florida 

manatee’s future condition, we carefully 

considered the best available science, 

including future condition projections 

of modeled threats and the subspecies’ 

response to those threats from a 2016 

modeling effort, as well as information 

regarding the ongoing threat of seagrass 

loss, the emerging effects of the UME, 

and the emerging effects of climate 

change. We relied on a core biological 

model (CBM) that resulted from a 

collaborative research effort of subject 

matter experts and represents the most 

comprehensive analysis to date (Runge 

et al. 2017, entire). Plausible future 

scenarios were developed and modeled 

to project the future condition of the 

subspecies. The CBM forecasts 

population dynamics of the Florida 

manatee in four regions (Northwest, 

Upper St. Johns River, Atlantic, and 

Southwest winter management units), 

incorporating current information on 

life history and uncertainty in parameter 

estimates, and applying environmental 

as well as demographic stochasticity 

(Runge et al. 2017, p. 33). The plausible 

scenarios predicted future viability 

under multiple scenarios grouped as: 

baseline (no change to current habitat, 

demographics, or threats), current and 

ongoing threats (level of various threats 

increased or decreased to examine their 

effects on long-term viability of Florida 

manatees), and potential emerging 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3150 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

threats (investigated the possible impact 

of multiple emerging threats on the 

viability of the Florida manatee) (Runge 

et al. 2017, pp. 13–16). 

Current and ongoing threats in the 

CBM included mortality resulting from 

watercraft collisions, water control 

structures, and entanglement by fishing 

gear and marine debris; loss of warmwater habitat; and red tide. Potential 

emerging threats included cold-related 

mortality and a multiple emerging 

threats scenario, which included seven 

features. The seven features included in 

the multiple emerging threats scenario 

are: (1) watercraft-related mortality rate 

increasing by 50 percent over the next 

30 years, then stabilizing; (2) immediate 

loss of industrial power plants; (3) 

reduction of carrying capacity provided 

by natural spring flows of 50 percent 

over the long term; (4) manatees 

choosing warm-water sites in proportion 

to their historical use; (5) elevated 

frequency of cold and severely cold 

years; (6) elevated frequency of 

moderate and intense red tide events; 

and (7) chronic density-independent 

additional mortality (2 percent) 

occurring in the IRL area. The analysis 

for the CBM was completed using data 

up to 2016, prior to the recent UME, and 

serves as the best available science 

providing a comprehensive assessment 

and projected future condition for the 

Florida manatee (Runge et al. 2017, p. 

4). Nevertheless, the models developed 

and used within the SSA provide the 

best available future projections for the 

Florida manatee (see section 5.3 of the 

SSA report (Service 2024a, pp. 104– 

107)). Although Runge et al. (2017, 

entire) did not account explicitly for the 

current and ongoing UME, the multiple 

emerging threats scenario did account 

for chronic density-independent 

additional mortality in the area that is 

part of the current UME, and current 

ongoing modeling efforts will result in 

an updated version of the SSA report 

when completed. 

Our baseline and threats future 

condition scenarios forecast viability 50, 

100, and 150 years in the future, and the 

emerging threats future condition 

scenarios forecast viability 100 years in 

the future. We have sufficient 

information to determine the threats 

that are currently impacting the 

subspecies and are expected to continue 

to impact the subspecies in the future, 

as well as the subspecies’ response to 

those threats (baseline and threats future 

condition scenarios). The timeframes of 

50, 100, and 150 years also give time for 

this long-lived mammal to demonstrate 

the impact of threats on populations and 

the subspecies as a whole. For emerging 

threats, we have sufficient certainty to 

project threats that are expected to 

impact the subspecies in the future at 

100 years and the subspecies’ response 

to those threats. Earlier than this 

timeframe, we do not have information 

that impacts to the subspecies will be 

demonstrable, and beyond this 

timeframe, there is too much 

uncertainty about subspecies’ response. 

Therefore, the selected timeframes are 

reasonable to model threats and forecast 

variations of threats acting on the 

subspecies and its habitat, as well as 

reasonable time for a long-lived marine 

mammal to respond to those threats. 

Although we need not identify the 

foreseeable future in terms of a specific 

period of time, we have described the 

foreseeable future for the Florida 

manatee as far into the future as we can 

make reasonably reliable predictions 

about the threats to the subspecies and 

the subspecies’ responses to those 

threats. We have taken into account 

considerations such as the subspecies’ 

life-history characteristics, threatprojection timeframes, and 

environmental variability in our future 

condition scenarios and timeframes. 

The suite of future condition threats 

scenarios for the Florida manatee 

(modeled at 50, 100, and 150 years) 

predict how particular threats impact 

the subspecies’ probability of falling 

below established quasi-extinction 

thresholds (100, 250, 500 individuals) 

and expected minimum population 

(EMP) size. Threats generally fall into 

two groups: those that have minimal 

effect on quasi-extinction probability 

(e.g., water-control structures, marine 

debris) and those that have a more 

significant effect (e.g., watercraft 

collisions, warm-water refugia loss, 

harmful algal blooms/red tide). The 

potential emerging threats scenarios 

take into consideration increases to 

existing threats, appearance of new 

threats, and multiple threats increasing 

at the same time, and compare the 

results to the baseline scenario. 

For the Florida manatee, both the 

baseline and ongoing threats scenario 

future condition results indicate that the 

probability of Florida manatee 

extinction at 150 years is low, but 

substantial threats remain. Model 

results indicate that there could be a 

substantial shift in the distribution of 

Florida manatees, depending on the 

threat being considered. Long-term 

declines are projected in the Southwest 

and Atlantic resiliency units (or winter 

management units), while long-term 

increases are projected for the 

Northwest and Upper St. Johns River 

winter management units. Based on 

factors affecting warm-water habitats, 

the model estimates a higher carrying 

capacity for Florida manatees in the 

Northwest and Upper St. Johns River 

winter management units (Runge et al. 

2017, p. 13). However, in the Southwest 

and Atlantic units, declines are 

expected due to the number of power 

plants operating with once-through 

cooling in those regions, which may 

only be available until the end of the 

operational lifetime of each plant 

(Runge et al. 2017, pp. 14, 20). Overall, 

threat scenario results projections for 

the Florida manatee are variable, but the 

model indicates the future viability of 

the Florida manatee will likely be 

impacted as watercraft use increases 

due to human population increases and 

as cold water stress or red tide events 

increase. The greatest risk of decline is 

predicted for the Atlantic and 

Southwest winter management units, 

largely because of the expected loss of 

artificial warm-water sources. Under all 

future scenarios, the EMP size is 

expected to decrease over time; 

however, overall extinction risk is low, 

and the adult population of Florida 

manatee will likely remain above quasiextinction thresholds for 150 years. 

However, the long-term viability of the 

Florida manatee is related to the 

subspecies’ ability to withstand humancaused and natural threats of varying 

magnitude and duration, as well as the 

effectiveness of conservation efforts to 

address the Florida manatee’s needs. 

The future projections modeling effort 

did not explicitly include the severity of 

impacts from the most recent UME, as 

the consequences of this UME on 

population size and trend are not 

completely understood at this time but 

are currently being assessed to update 

the CBM. The USGS and FWC have 

ongoing initiatives to update 

demographic data, integrated 

population models, and the CBM for the 

Florida manatee. We acknowledge the 

unknown consequences to Florida 

manatees associated with the recent 

UME have likely had implications on 

the subspecies’ future viability that were 

not detected in the modeling effort. For 

further information on the future 

conditions of the Florida manatee, 

please refer to chapter 5 of the SSA 

report (Service 2024a, pp. 97–113). 

Concomitant with the UME, seagrass 

loss and loss of foraging habitat were 

not explicitly included in the modeling 

effort. As described above in Habitat 

Loss and Modification, seagrass 

resources have been declining in 

multiple locations across Florida since 

2011 and are contributing factors to the 

recent UMEs. While there has been 

some recently reported improvement in 

the condition of seagrass beds in the IRL 

(SJRWMD 2023, entire), current seagrass 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3151 

levels are greatly reduced from previous 

long-term levels and remain a risk to 

manatee viability in the future. 

The modeling effort also did not 

forecast industrial warm-water sources 

going offline within the next 20–25 

years as has been discussed by power 

plant representatives in recent years. 

The baseline scenario encompassed 

power plants being online for 50 years, 

which is no longer the case. The greatest 

effect would be to the Atlantic and 

Southwest winter management units. 

Currently, more than half of Florida 

manatees seek shelter from winter cold 

in the warm-water discharges of power 

plants. The rest of the population uses 

natural springs and thermal basins 

located in Florida. The power 

companies will likely phase out power 

plant discharges within the next 25 

years, and human-caused impacts to 

warm water availability, such as flow 

reductions and other activities, threaten 

Florida’s springs and thermal basins. 

Although some mitigation strategies 

have been discussed and planned, 

uncertainty associated with manatee 

spatial and temporal response to these 

plant shutdowns is important in 

assessing viability of the subspecies in 

the future. 

Also not included in the modeling 

effort are the effects of climate change 

on Florida manatees in the future. 

Climate change impacts are expected to 

influence the viability of manatees in 

several ways, including temperature 

increases, sea level rise, fluctuations in 

ocean chemistry, hydrological cycle 

deviations, and changes intiming and 

intensity of tropical storms, as well as 

extreme cold events.These large-scale 

impacts may lead to habitat changes, 

increased algal blooms, and new threats 

from diseases (Edwards 2013, pp. 727, 

735; Marsh et al. 2017, entire; Osland et 

al. 2020, entire). The synergism of these 

factors will affect manatee health and 

habitat, and potentially reduce the 

future range of the Florida manatee. 

While the risk of population decline 

at the regional level is high for the 

Florida manatee at the Southwest and 

Atlantic units, risk of population 

decline is moderate at the warm season 

coastal resiliency unit scale. It is 

important to note that the 2016 model 

did not include the severity of the 

ongoing UME, nor did it include 

differing seagrass loss/rebound futures, 

nor did it include effects of future 

climate change. These are substantial 

risks to the Florida manatee in the 

future, all of which may negatively 

impact the viability of the Florida 

manatee and increase its extinction risk. 

Current Condition—Antillean Manatee 

The West Indian manatee species is 

divided into five representation units. 

The current range of the Antillean 

manatee is grouped into four 

representation units based on known 

genetic and ecological variation across 

the subspecies’ range, as well as input 

from subspecies experts. Unit 1 

represents the Florida manatee (see 

Current Condition—Florida Manatee, 

above), and there are four units (Units 

2–5) that encompass the Antillean 

manatee. The four Antillean 

representative units are: Unit 2: Greater 

Antilles, Unit 3: Gulf of Mexico to 

Caribbean coast of South America– 

Coastal, Unit 4: Gulf of Mexico to 

Caribbean coast of South America– 

Freshwater, and Unit 5: Atlantic Coast 

of South America (inset of figure 3, 

below; section 4.1.1 of the Antillean 

manatee SSA report (Service 2024b, pp. 

45–47)). Representation units for the 

Antillean manatee are based on known 

genetic and ecological variation across 

the subspecies’ range. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3152 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Figure 3. Antillean manatee’s 4 

representative units (units 2–5) and 14 

resiliency units. The units portray the 

general extent of each unit and do not 

reflect presence and absence within 

each unit. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

These four representative units of the 

Antillean manatee span 20 countries 

and are characterized by 14 resiliency 

units (see figure 3, above) based on 

assumed connectivity as well as data 

availability (see chapter 4 of the SSA 

report (Service 2024b, pp. 44–74)). The 

current resiliency assessments for the 

Antillean manatee differ from the 

Florida manatee because: (1) the biology 

and ecology of the two subspecies differ, 

primarily because different factors 

influence their resiliency; and (2) the 

two subspecies differ in the amount of 

data and information available to assess 

their resiliency. 

Current resiliency (henceforth called 

current condition) for each Antillean 

manatee resiliency unit was determined 

using the best available information on 

population trends. Population trends 

were used to determine the current 

condition of each resiliency unit, as 

population trends are an indicator of 

current condition; populations that are 

stable or increasing are more resilient to 

stochastic events than those that are 

declining. The best available 

information on trends was gathered 

primarily from three publications: (1) 

the most recent International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 

assessment for the West Indian manatee 

(Deutsch et al. 2008, Supplementary 

Table 1), (2) the UNEP Regional 

Management Plan for the West Indian 

manatee (UNEP 2010, p. 11), and (3) a 

population viability analysis for the 

Antillean manatee (CastelblanoMartinez et al. 2012, p. 132). 

Sometimes different data sources 

report different trends (e.g., one source 

says ‘‘stable,’’ while another says 

‘‘declining’’). In all these cases, we 

retain all the reported trends in the 

current condition assessment for each 

country to transparently report the 

uncertainty in the current trend. Trends 

were ranked moderate if they were 

reported as stable and ranked low if any 

sources reported them as declining. For 

resiliency units made up of multiple 

countries where different trends were 

reported for different countries, we 

report the trend of the entire unit to be 

the trend associated with more than half 

of the manatees in the unit. For 

example, if two out of three countries 

were reported to have a declining trend 

and one out of three was reported to 

have a stable trend, the entire unit with 

these three countries was reported to 

have a declining trend. 

After the reported population trends 

for each resiliency unit were identified, 

each resiliency unit was sorted into one 

of four categories, called trend 

categories, shown in Table 2 below. 

These trend categories were used to 

describe current condition of Antillean 

manatee resiliency units. For 

populations where trends were 

unknown, they were classified the same 

as otherwise identical trend 

descriptions without ‘‘unknown’’, with 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALSEP14JA25.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3153 

the uncertainty in the true trend incorporated into the certainty metric 

associated with the trend. 

TABLE 2—REPORTED POPULATION TRENDS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, AND UNKNOWN TREND

CATEGORIES

Trend category Reported population trends 

High ..................................................................... Increasing; Increasing/Unknown; Stable/Increasing; Stable/Increasing/Unknown. 

Moderate ............................................................. Stable; Stable/Unknown. 

Low ..................................................................... Stable/Declining; Stable/Declining/Unknown; Declining; Declining/Unknown. 

Unknown. ............................................................ Unknown. 

Trend certainty also helped convey 

the variability in data availability across 

the subspecies’ large geographic range 

(see table 4–2 in the SSA report (Service 

2024b, p. 53)). These certainty levels are 

defined as High (based on recent 

information (i.e., within 20 years)), 

Moderate (based on other recent data, 

but not a statistical estimate (e.g., 

minimum counts, genetic analysis, 

mortality records, etc.)), and Low (based 

on informed opinions of local experts, 

localized and/or outdated data (e.g., 

more than 20 years old)). 

Certainty levels were also reported for 

abundance. While not used to explicitly 

determine current condition of 

resiliency units, abundance was also 

reported for each resiliency unit because 

the ability of Antillean manatee to 

withstand the normal range of 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity increases with abundance. 

We believe the general magnitude of the 

estimates are informative, such that a 

list of resiliency units ranked in order 

of estimated abundance is likely to 

provide a fair interpretation of which 

resiliency units have relatively higher or 

lower abundance than the others. The 

abundance of each resiliency unit was 

informed primarily by the same three 

sources that informed population trends 

(Deutsch et al. 2008, Supplementary 

Table 1; UNEP 2010, p. 11; 

Castelblanco-Martı ́nez et al. 2012, p. 

132). 

Current condition for the Antillean 

manatee is also influenced by the 

quality and quantity of habitat, threats 

and stressors, and conservation actions 

pursued in each population. Study and 

documentation of these factors are 

uneven across the subspecies’ range and 

cannot be assessed in a consistent 

manner across all or even most 

populations. Consequently, we have not 

included these factors explicitly in the 

current condition assessment but do 

summarize the information available for 

each population. While the quantity and 

quality of habitat is important for the 

current condition of populations, 

information about habitat status is not 

available for many areas within the 

subspecies’ large geographic range. 

Habitat information for each population 

is summarized in the SSA report 

(Service 2024b, pp. 55–71). 

Thirteen out of 14 resiliency units 

exhibit low current condition, and only 

the Puerto Rico resiliency unit, where 

the trend is stable, has moderate current 

condition. Our current condition 

assessment for the Antillean manatee 

was mostly characterized by low 

certainty for the current status, and 

Antillean manatees are consistently 

described as being more abundant 

historically than they are today. 

TABLE 3—CURRENT CONDITION SUMMARY FOR THE ANTILLEAN MANATEE SORTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF ESTIMATED

ABUNDANCE

[Service 2024b, p. 71] 

Resiliency unit Abundance 

(certainty) 

Trend 

(certainty) 

Trend 

category 1

Current 

condition 

Brazil ................................................ >1,104 (>485–2,221) (low certainty) Stable/Declining/Unknown (low certainty).Low .............. LOW. 

Caribbean Mexico, Belize, Guatemala.650–1,400 (moderate certainty) ..... Stable/Declining/Unknown (moderate certainty).Low .............. LOW. 

Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, 

Panama Coastal.

800–950 (169–204 minimum) (low 

certainty).

Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Gulf of Mexico .................................. 600–850 (moderate certainty) ........ Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Colombia Rivers .............................. 400 (100–1,000) (low certainty) ...... Unknown/Declining (low certainty) .. Low .............. LOW. 

Puerto Rico ...................................... 386 (sd = 89) (high certainty) ......... Stable (moderate certainty) ............ Moderate ...... MODERATE. 

Cuba ................................................ 100–500 (50 minimum) (low certainty).Unknown/Declining (low certainty) .. Low .............. LOW. 

Hispaniola ........................................ 300 (38–53 minimum) (low certainty).Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana 300 (45 minimum) (low certainty) ... Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Venezuela Rivers ............................. <300 (low certainty) ........................ Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Trinidad and Tobago ....................... 100 (25–30 minimum) (low certainty).Declining (low certainty) ................. Low .............. LOW. 

Lago de Maracaibo (Venezuela) ..... <100 (low certainty) ........................ Unknown (low certainty) ................. Unknown ...... LOW. 

Jamaica ............................................ 50 (low certainty) ............................ Unknown/Declining (low certainty) .. Low .............. LOW. 

Panama Canal ................................. 20–25 (16 minimum) (moderate 

certainty).

Unknown (low certainty) ................. Unknown ...... LOW. 

1Trends that were unknown were categorized as such. Trends were ranked as high if they were reported to be increasing or if different 

sources reported them to be stable or increasing. Trends were ranked as moderate if they were reported to be stable. To be conservative, trends 

were ranked as low if any sources reported them as declining, even if they were also reported as stable by the same source (i.e., one source described it as stable/declining) or different sources (i.e., one source described it as stable and a different source described it as declining). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3154 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

The resiliency uncertainty carries 

over into our interpretations of 

redundancy and representation in the 

four Antillean manatee representative 

units (see inset of figure 3, above). The 

Greater Antilles representative unit 

(Unit 2) contains one resiliency unit 

(Puerto Rico) that currently exhibits a 

moderately certain stable population, 

resulting in moderate current condition. 

All remaining resiliency units in the 

Greater Antilles representative unit 

(Cuba, Hispaniola and Jamaica) and all 

resiliency units in the other three 

Antillean manatee representative units 

(Units 3, 4, 5) exhibit low current 

condition. The most genetically distinct 

Antillean manatee representative unit, 

in terms of evolutionary history 

indicated by mitochondrial DNA 

haplotypes, is the Atlantic Coast of 

South America unit (Unit 5) (Service 

2024b, pp. 24–28). Both resiliency units 

in this representative unit currently 

exhibit low current condition. The most 

ecologically distinct Antillean manatee 

representative unit, the Gulf of Mexico 

to Caribbean Coast of South America– 

Freshwater unit (Unit 4), is also 

characterized by all resiliency units 

exhibiting low current condition. 

The best available information 

indicates abundance is declining across 

most of the subspecies’ range (see 

section 4.2.2 in the SSA report (Service 

2024b, pp. 55–71)). Current abundance 

estimates in each resiliency unit for the 

Antillean manatee vary widely, ranging 

from 20 to more than 1,000 individuals 

(see table 3). Two resiliency units are 

estimated to have more than 1,000 

Antillean manatees: (1) Caribbean, 

Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, and (2) 

Brazil. Four resiliency units are 

estimated to have 100 or fewer Antillean 

manatees: (1) Trinidad and Tobago, (2) 

Lago de Maracaibo, (3) Jamaica, and (4) 

Panama Canal; those four resiliency 

units are comparatively smaller than 

those that support larger Antillean 

manatee populations. The remaining 

eight resiliency units are estimated to 

support between 100 and 1,000 

Antillean manatees. As with trend 

estimates, the certainty of abundance 

estimates vary across the range of the 

Antillean manatee and are mostly based 

on expert input, past versus present 

occurrence records or perceptions, and 

mortality records. 

The majority of the genetic and 

ecological diversity within the 

subspecies occurs in resiliency units 

characterized as having low current 

condition, thus leading to overall low 

representation for the subspecies. 

Redundancy is also low, as all but one 

of the resiliency units are in low 

condition, thus the subspecies is 

susceptible to catastrophic events. As 

discussed previously, more information 

about the status of the Antillean 

manatee and its habitat across its range 

is needed to reduce uncertainty on the 

current status of the subspecies as a 

whole. We note that the subspecies is 

represented throughout its historical 

range and in regard to redundancy, 

there are 4 representative units and 14 

resiliency units. This analysis led to an 

overall current condition of low for the 

Antillean manatee. 

Because we have determined that the 

Antillean manatee meets the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ 

(see Determination of Status for the 

Florida Manatee and Antillean Manatee, 

below), we are not presenting the results 

of the future scenarios for the Antillean 

manatee in this proposed rule. Instead, 

details regarding the future conditions 

analysis and the future resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

Antillean manatee are presented in 

detail in the SSA report (see chapter 5 

of the SSA report (Service 2024b, pp. 

76–96)), which is available at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2024–0050. 

Determination of Status for the Florida 

Manatee and Antillean Manatee 

The Act defines the term ‘‘species’’ as 

including any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). Section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth 

the procedures for determining whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Proposed Action for West Indian 

Manatee Listing 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, the West 

Indian manatee species is comprised of 

two subspecies: the Florida manatee and 

the Antillean manatee. We recognize the 

Florida manatee and the Antillean 

manatee as separate listable entities (i.e., 

subspecies) under the Act. We no longer 

recognize the listed entity of the West 

Indian manatee separate from the two 

subspecies, and we, therefore, propose 

to remove the West Indian manatee from 

the List. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range— 

Florida Manatee 

Based on our assessment of 

demographic and habitat needs for the 

Florida manatee, three winter 

management units (Northwest, 

Southwest, and Upper St. Johns River) 

have high current condition, and one 

winter management unit (Atlantic) has 

moderate current condition. Scaled to 

warm season coastal resiliency units, 

the Gulf Coast unit exhibits high current 

condition, and the East Coast unit 

exhibits moderate current condition. 

The loss of forage (particularly, but not 

limited to, winter forage) led to a 

tentative short term (2021–2023) 

classification of low condition for the 

Atlantic winter management unit. 

However, the number of manatees in 

Florida on the East Coast from 2021– 

2022 was estimated to be between 

3,940–6,980 (Gowan et al. 2023, p. 1). 

While the credible intervals permit a 

range of population trajectories, the 

estimate from 2022 was higher than the 

estimate from 2016 (3,240–4,910; 

Gowan et al. 2023, pp. 5–6). 

The overall current condition for the 

broader East Coast resiliency unit is 

moderate given the 10-year assessment 

timeframe. Two winter management 

units with high current condition, 

Northwest and Upper St. Johns River, 

are dependent upon natural springs for 

warm water, unlike the Atlantic and 

Southwest units, which use industrial 

outfalls as their primary artificial warmwater sites. The Northwest and Upper 

St. Johns River winter management 

units support the two smaller 

abundances of Florida manatees. The 

Atlantic winter management unit has 

the highest estimated abundance of 

Florida manatees, meaning a large 

number of manatees are currently being 

affected by the loss of forage and 

conditions in this unit. However, the 

range of population trajectories leaves 

the possibility that the population is 

increasing after the UME. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3155 

While Florida manatees are currently 

affected by watercraft collisions (Factor 

E), habitat loss (including seagrass loss) 

and modification from coastal 

development (Factor A), unusual 

mortality events (UME) (Factor E), 

natural processes including cold 

weather events and harmful algal 

blooms (Factor E), and human 

interactions (Factor B), all winter 

management and coastal resiliency units 

exhibit current moderate to high current 

condition that supports the current 

viability of the subspecies. The recent 

UME is impacting the Atlantic winter 

management unit, although the 

magnitude and severity of the impact 

has not yet been determined. The other 

three winter management units 

exhibited, and continue to exhibit, 

stronger positive growth compared to 

the Atlantic unit. The Florida manatee 

is a highly managed species for which 

many conservation initiatives have been 

and continue to be implemented to 

ameliorate threats, including efforts to 

improve water quality and restore 

seagrass. The best available science 

demonstrates long-term population 

growth and some adaptive capacity. The 

subspecies is represented throughout its 

historical range, and there are multiple 

units with moderate to high current 

condition across the range. While we 

anticipate that the threats will continue 

to act on the subspecies in the future, 

they are not currently affecting the 

subspecies such that it is in danger of 

extinction now. Further, the Florida 

manatee’s vulnerability to stressors is 

not of such magnitude that it is 

currently in danger of extinction as a 

result of the threats to the subspecies or 

the subspecies’ response to those 

threats. After assessing the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we find that, given the 

moderate to high current condition for 

all Florida manatee units and the 

distribution of these resilient units 

throughout the subspecies’ range, the 

Florida manatee is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

and does not meet the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species. 

We therefore proceed with 

determining whether the Florida 

manatee is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. Future viability of the 

Florida manatee was investigated under 

plausible future condition scenarios: a 

baseline scenario, threats scenarios, and 

multiple emerging threats scenarios. We 

assessed Florida manatee future 

condition at 50, 100, and 150 years 

under all future scenarios. We 

determined these timeframes represent 

the period of time under which we are 

able to reasonably determine that both 

the future threats and subspecies’ 

response to those threats are likely. As 

described above in Future Conditions— 

Florida Manatee, the selected 

timeframes are reasonable to model 

threats and forecast variations of threats 

acting on the subspecies and its habitat, 

and they are reasonable timeframes for 

a long-lived marine mammal to respond 

to those threats. Although we need not 

identify the foreseeable future in terms 

of a specific period of time, we have 

described the foreseeable future for the 

Florida manatee as far into the future as 

we can make reasonably reliable 

predictions about the threats to the 

subspecies and the subspecies’ 

responses to those threats. We have 

taken into account considerations such 

as the subspecies’ life-history 

characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability in our future condition 

scenarios and timeframes. 

Overall, future condition modeling 

results indicate the probability of 

Florida manatee extinction is low under 

scenario projections as described above 

in Future Conditions—Florida Manatee. 

However, substantial risks remain 

across the range of the subspecies. In the 

future, the Florida manatee will 

continue to be threatened by watercraft 

collisions (Factor E), habitat loss 

(including seagrass loss) and 

modification from coastal development 

(Factor A), unusual mortality events 

(UME) (Factor E), natural processes 

including cold weather events and 

harmful algal blooms (Factor E), and 

human interactions (Factor B), as well 

as the potential loss of warm-water 

refugia (Factor A) and climate change 

(Factor E). The greatest risk is estimated 

for the Atlantic and Southwest 

wintering populations; this risk is 

largely driven by the continued loss of 

seagrasses (Factor A), increase in cold 

water events (Factor E), and red tides 

(Factor E). 

In our future condition projections, at 

the winter management unit level, 

probability of decline is greatest in the 

Atlantic winter management unit, 

followed by the Southwest, Northwest, 

and Upper St. Johns River winter 

management units. At the warm season 

coastal resiliency unit scale, the East 

Coast and its tributaries have a greater 

probability of decline than the Gulf 

Coast and its tributaries. At this warm 

season coastal resiliency unit scale, risk 

of population decline is moderate, while 

at the regional level, risk of population 

decline is high for the two larger winter 

management units (i.e., Southwest and 

Atlantic). In addition, future 

distributional shifts of the subspecies 

are predicted to be largely driven by the 

loss of artificial warm-water refugia, and 

the future viability of Florida manatees 

in the Southwest and Atlantic winter 

management units may be most 

negatively impacted by this. 

Overall, future condition modeling 

efforts project low risk of extinction for 

the Florida manatee under all future 

condition scenarios in 50, 100, and 150 

years. These modeling efforts include 

relevant threats at the time of the 

assessment, but information was not 

available to incorporate loss of seagrass 

related to the UME, the short- and longterm effects of the UME on subspecies 

abundance and distribution, and the 

subspecies’ response to both loss of 

seagrass and the UME. In addition, 

updated climate change assessments 

have become available since the future 

condition modeling effort, which was 

based on the 2017 assessment. 

Therefore, in our determination of the 

Florida manatee’s status, we carefully 

considered the best available science, 

including future condition projections 

of modeled threats and the subspecies’ 

response to those threats, as well as 

information regarding the ongoing and 

emerging threat of seagrass loss, the 

effects of the UME, and the emerging 

effects of climate change. 

We expect that the current threats to 

the subspecies, including watercraft 

collisions, habitat loss (including 

seagrass loss) and modification from 

coastal development, UMEs, cold 

weather events and harmful algal 

blooms, and human interactions, will 

continue to affect the subspecies’ 

viability, and the negative impacts of 

emerging threats, including the loss of 

warm-water refugia, effects of climate 

change, loss of seagrass, and effects of 

UMEs, will further affect the subspecies’ 

viability. After evaluating threats to the 

subspecies and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) factors, we determine 

that the Florida manatee meets the 

definition of a threatened species across 

its range. Thus, after assessing the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we conclude that the Florida 

manatee is not in danger of extinction 

but is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range—Florida Manatee 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3156 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

court in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 

2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 

of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Final Policy’’; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 

2014) that provided if the Services 

determine that a species is threatened 

throughout all of its range, the Services 

will not analyze whether the species is 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether the 

Florida manatee is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range. In undertaking this analysis for 

Florida manatee, we choose to address 

the status question first. 

We evaluated the range of the Florida 

manatee to determine if the subspecies 

is in danger of extinction in any portion 

of its range. The subspecies’ range can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. We focused 

our analysis on portions of the 

subspecies’ range that may meet the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. For the Florida manatee, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the subspecies are greater in 

any biologically meaningful portion of 

the subspecies’ range than in other 

portions such that the subspecies is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

We examined the following threats: 

watercraft collisions, habitat loss 

(including seagrass loss) and 

modification from coastal development, 

UMEs, natural processes including cold 

weather events and harmful algal 

blooms, human interactions, loss of 

warm-water refugia, and climate change, 

including cumulative effects. We found 

a potential difference in biological 

condition of the subspecies in the 

wintering area of the southeast coast of 

Florida (Brevard County south to 

Miami-Dade County; Atlantic winter 

management unit). The Atlantic winter 

management unit includes the current 

extent of the ongoing UME, is 

recognized as the larger of the two 

important wintering areas of the East 

Coast resiliency unit and contains a 

high abundance of Florida manatees. 

The current UME is the result of 

massive loss of forage for manatees, and 

there has been a substantial increase in 

mortality of manatees. Based on the 

forage-driven UME, the Atlantic winter 

management unit has a tentative lower 

level of condition in the 2021–2023 

timeframe; however, when comparing 

similar time periods (past 10 years) 

across the winter management units, the 

Atlantic unit is assessed to have 

moderate current condition. 

Additionally, the number of manatees in 

Florida on the East coast from 2021– 

2022 was estimated to be higher than an 

estimate provided from 2016, though 

credible intervals permit a range of 

population trajectories (Gowan et al. 

2023, pp. 1, 5). This range of population 

trajectories lends credence to a tentative 

score of low from 2021 to present in the 

Atlantic winter management unit in the 

SSA report (Service 2024a, p. 90), but 

this range also leaves the possibility that 

the population is increasing after the 

UME. 

Recent demographic evidence for 

Florida manatees that winter in the 

Atlantic winter management unit 

indicates this area has the highest 

abundance estimate of manatees. The 

number of manatees could provide 

potential resilience to threats along the 

southeast coast of Florida. Thus, we 

determined that although the recent 

UME has negatively impacted shortterm condition in the Atlantic winter 

management unit, the area exhibits 

overall moderate current condition and 

still contains the greatest number of 

Florida manatees; therefore, the Atlantic 

winter management unit does not 

exhibit a different status from the rest of 

the range. We found no biologically 

meaningful portion of the Florida 

manatee’s range where the biological 

condition of the subspecies differs from 

its condition elsewhere in its range such 

that the status of the subspecies in that 

portion differs from any other portion of 

the subspecies’ range. Therefore, no 

portion of the subspecies’ range 

provides a basis for determining that the 

subspecies is in danger of extinction in 

a significant portion of its range, and we 

determine that the subspecies is likely 

to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. This does not conflict 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070–74 

(N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held to be invalid. 

Determination of Status—Florida 

Manatee 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Florida manatee meets 

the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we propose to list 

the Florida manatee as a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range— 

Antillean Manatee 

Current abundance estimates in each 

resiliency unit for the Antillean manatee 

range from 20 to more than 1,000 

individuals. While abundance estimates 

for Antillean manatee resiliency units 

are highly uncertain, the best available 

information indicates abundance is 

declining across most of the subspecies’ 

range. One out of 14 resiliency units has 

moderate current condition (Puerto 

Rico, where the trend is stable), and the 

remaining 13 units have low current 

condition. When comparing abundance 

estimates, two resiliency units 

(Caribbean/Mexico/Belize/Guatemala 

and Brazil) are estimated to have more 

than 1,000 Antillean manatees. 

However, four resiliency units (Trinidad 

and Tobago, Lago de Maracaibo, 

Jamaica, and the Panama Canal) are 

estimated to have 100 or fewer Antillean 

manatees. The remaining eight 

resiliency units are estimated to support 

between 100 and 1,000 Antillean 

manatees. 

While the current condition 

assessment is characterized by low 

certainty, the best available information 

indicates declining population numbers 

due to current and ongoing threats such 

as watercraft collisions (Factor E), 

habitat loss (including seagrass loss) and 

modification (Factor A), natural 

processes like harmful algal blooms 

(Factor E), human interactions (Factor 

B), poaching (Factor E), and low genetic 

diversity (Factor E). Additionally, there 

is a lack of effective enforcement of 

manatee conservation regulations in the 

Antillean manatee’s range (Factor D), 

with enforcement varying widely by 

country due to limited funding and 

understaffed law enforcement agencies. 

Although the Antillean manatee 

subspecies possesses some redundancy 

and an ability to withstand catastrophic 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3157 

events on a rangewide basis, all 

resiliency units, except for one (Puerto 

Rico), have low current condition. Two 

units have an abundance over 1,000 

individuals, but four units have 100 or 

fewer individuals. Further, low genetic 

diversity in some areas indicates the 

Antillean manatee may lack adaptive 

capacity. Despite populations being 

spread out across multiple units, the 

low abundance, habitat fragmentation, 

and adaptive capacity of populations 

throughout the subspecies’ range 

compromise Antillean manatee 

redundancy. 

After evaluating threats to the 

subspecies and assessing the cumulative 

effect of the threats under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available indicates declining population 

numbers due to current and ongoing 

threats such as watercraft collisions, 

habitat loss and modification, natural 

processes like harmful algal blooms, 

human interactions, poaching, and 

potentially low genetic diversity. The 

best scientific and commercial data 

available indicates an overall low 

current condition for the Antillean 

manatee subspecies. Although 

populations are widely distributed in 

multiple units across the subspecies’ 

range, the low abundance in many of 

these units reduce Antillean manatee 

redundancy. Most delineated units have 

very low numbers of Antillean 

manatees; four units contain 100 or 

fewer individuals, and eight units 

contain 100 to 1,000 animals. Further, 

the small, isolated populations and 

potential low genetic diversity indicate 

the Antillean manatee may lack 

adaptive capacity. It is important to 

recognize the different methodologies 

used to define populations for both 

subspecies, therefore it is not 

appropriate to make direct comparisons 

between the two. While the Antillean 

manatee may have some individual 

populations larger than some of the 

Florida manatee the condition of the 

Antillean manatee also reflects 

declining trends and isolation of 

populations. Thus, after assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, we determine that the 

Antillean manatee is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range—Antillean Manatee 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Antillean manatee 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range and accordingly did not 

undertake an analysis of any significant 

portion of its range. Because the 

Antillean manatee warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination does not conflict with 

the decision in Everson because that 

decision concerns significant portion of 

the range analyses for species that 

warrant listing as threatened, not 

endangered, throughout all of their 

ranges. 

Determination of Status—Antillean 

Manatee 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Antillean manatee 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the Antillean manatee as 

an endangered species in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

We have determined that the Antillean 

manatee is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range and 

accordingly did not undertake an 

analysis of a potential DPS for the 

Puerto Rico population. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 

governments, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies, 

including the Service, and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies) or from our Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office and Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this rulemaking is finalized, 

funding for recovery actions will be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost-share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, Puerto Rico and the 

State of Florida would be eligible for 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3158 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the Antillean 

manatee and the Florida manatee, 

respectively. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

https://www.fws.gov/service/financialassistance. 

Although the separate listings of the 

Florida manatee and the Antillean 

manatee are only proposed actions 

under the Act at this time, please let us 

know if you are interested in 

participating in recovery efforts for 

these subspecies. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on these subspecies 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled, 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action which is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated for such species. Although 

the conference procedures are required 

only when an action is likely to result 

in jeopardy or adverse modification, 

action agencies may voluntarily confer 

with the Service on actions that may 

affect species proposed for listing or 

critical habitat proposed to be 

designated. In the event that the subject 

species is listed or the relevant critical 

habitat is designated, a conference 

opinion may be adopted as a biological 

opinion and serve as compliance with 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the Florida manatee or the Antillean 

manatee that may be subject to 

conference and consultation procedures 

under section 7 of the Act are land 

management or other landscape-altering 

activities on Federal lands administered 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Department of Defense, and the Service, 

as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, 

or private lands that require a Federal 

permit (such as a permit from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit 

from the Service under section 10 of the 

Act) or that involve some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the local Service Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) with any specific questions on 

section 7 consultation and conference 

requirements. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit, or to cause to be committed any 

of the following acts with regard to any 

endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or 

export from, the United States; (2) take 

(which includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents of the Service, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal 

land management agencies, and State or 

Territorial conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to endangered wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

II. Protective Regulations Under 

Section 4(d) of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened species. Conservation is 

defined in the Act to mean the use of 

all methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Additionally, the second 

sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states 

that the Secretary may by regulation 

prohibit with respect to any threatened 

species any act prohibited under section 

9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or 

section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. 

With these two sentences in section 

4(d), Congress delegated broad authority 

to the Secretary to determine what 

protections would be necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species, and 

even broader authority to put in place 

any of the section 9 prohibitions for a 

given species. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3159 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the legislative history when the Act was 

initially enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on 

the threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [her] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[She] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[she] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

The provisions of the Florida 

manatee’s proposed protective 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

are one of many tools that we would use 

to promote the conservation of the 

Florida manatee. The proposed 

protective regulations would apply only 

if and when we make final the listing of 

the Florida manatee as a threatened 

species. Nothing in 4(d) rules change in 

any way the recovery planning 

provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of the 

Florida manatee. As mentioned 

previously in Available Conservation 

Measures, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies, including the 

Service, to ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, even before the listing of any 

species or the designation of its critical 

habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4) of the 

Act requires Federal agencies to confer 

with the Service on any agency action 

which is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

proposed to be listed under the Act or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat proposed 

to be designated for such species. These 

requirements are the same for a 

threatened species regardless of what is 

included in its 4(d) rule. 

Section 7 consultation is required for 

Federal actions that ‘‘may affect’’ a 

listed species regardless of whether take 

caused by the activity is prohibited or 

excepted by a 4(d) rule (‘‘blanket rule’’ 

or species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule 

does not change the process or criteria 

for informal or formal consultations and 

does not alter the analytical process 

used for biological opinions or 

concurrence letters. For example, as 

with an endangered species, if a Federal 

agency determines that an action is ‘‘not 

likely to adversely affect’’ a threatened 

species, this will require the Service’s 

written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 

Similarly, if a Federal agency 

determinates that an action is ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect’’ a threatened species, 

the action will require formal 

consultation with the Service and the 

formulation of a biological opinion (50 

CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation 

obligations and processes are unaffected 

by 4(d) rules, we may consider 

developing tools to streamline future 

intra-Service and interagency 

consultations for actions that result in 

forms of take that are not prohibited by 

the 4(d) rule (but that still require 

consultation). These tools may include 

consultation guidance, Information for 

Planning and Consultation (IPaC) effects 

determination keys, template language 

for biological opinions, or programmatic 

consultations. 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we 

propose to apply the protections for the 

Florida manatee through our regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.31(a). In our April 5, 2024, 

final rule revising those regulations (89 

FR 23919 at 23922–23923), we found 

that applying those regulations as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the threatened species. 

We have not identified any ways in 

which a protective regulation for this 

threatened subspecies would need to 

differ from the regulations at 50 CFR 

17.31(a) in order to contain the 

protections that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Florida manatee. 

Therefore, if we finalize this rule as 

proposed, the regulations at 50 CFR 

17.31(a) apply. This means that, except 

as provided in 50 CFR 17.4 through 

17.8, or in a permit issued pursuant to 

50 CFR 17.32, all of the provisions of 50 

CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, 

except § 17.21(c)(3) and (5), would 

apply to the Florida manatee, and the 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.32(b) 

concerning exceptions for certain 

entities would also apply to the 

subspecies. 

Accordingly, protections in Florida’s 

coastal and inland waters will not 

change with the designation of the 

Florida manatee subspecies as a 

threatened species. Manatee protection 

areas (MPAs) have played a substantial 

role in manatee conservation and will 

be needed into the foreseeable future, 

and the designation of these areas will 

not be affected by the Florida manatee’s 

listing. In addition, the MMPA prohibits 

the ‘‘take’’ (i.e., to harass, hunt, capture, 

kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill; 16 U.S.C. 1362(13)) of marine 

mammals. MPAs also play an important 

role in avoiding take under the MMPA. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 12988 and by the 

Presidential memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
3160 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

With Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations (ANCs) on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have communicated with the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the 

Seminole Tribe of Florida for the 

Florida manatee. There are no federally 

recognized Tribes within the range of 

the Antillean manatee. We will continue 

to work with Tribal entities during the 

development of a final listing rule for 

the Florida manatee. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this proposed rule is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Florida 

Ecological Services Field Office (Florida 

manatee) and Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office (Antillean 

manatee) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Florida and 

Caribbean Ecological Services Field 

Offices. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under MAMMALS by adding, 

in alphabetical order, entries for 

‘‘Manatee, Antillean’’ and ‘‘Manatee, 

Florida’’, and removing the entry for 

‘‘Manatee, West Indian’’, to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

MAMMALS 

*******

Manatee, Antillean ............. Trichechus manatus 

manatus.

Wherever found ................. E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]. 

Manatee, Florida ................ Trichechus manatus 

latirostris.

Wherever found ................. T [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]. 

*******

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00467 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 622 

[Docket No. 250107–0004] 

RIN 0648–BN31 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 

Amendment 59 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of a fishery management 

plan amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 59 to the 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic (Snapper-Grouper FMP) 

(Amendment 59). If approved, 

Amendment 59 and this proposed rule 

would, for South Atlantic red snapper: 

revise the fishing mortality (F) at 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) 

proxy for determining overfishing, 

acceptable biological catch (ABC), sector 

annual catch limits (ACLs), fishing year, 

sector fishing season start dates, 

recreational fishing season structure, 

commercial trip limits, and establish an 

annual experimental studies program. 

Additionally, Amendment 59 and this 

proposed rule would establish a 

snapper-grouper discard reduction 

season in South Atlantic Federal waters. 

This action is intended to end and 

prevent overfishing of red snapper 

while reducing dead discards and 

providing additional fishing 

opportunities. 

DATES: Submit comments on this 

combined proposed rule and notice of 

availability of an FMP amendment on or 

before March 17, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: A plain language summary 

of this proposed rule is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NOAA-NMFS-2024-0142. You may 

submit comments on this document, 

identified by [NOAA–NMFS–2024– 

0142], by either of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Visit 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS