77476 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 101126590–0589–01] 

RIN 0648–XZ59 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Threatened Status for 

Subspecies of the Ringed Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition finding; status review; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a 

comprehensive status review of the 

ringed seal (Phoca hispida) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

announce a 12-month finding on a 

petition to list the ringed seal as a 

threatened or endangered species. Based 

on consideration of information 

presented in the status review report, an 

assessment of the factors in the ESA, 

and efforts being made to protect the 

species, we have determined the Arctic 

(Phoca hispida hispida), Okhotsk 

(Phoca hispida ochotensis), Baltic 

(Phoca hispida botnica), and Ladoga 

(Phoca hispida ladogensis) subspecies 

of the ringed seal are likely to become 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range in the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, we 

issue a proposed rule to list these 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened species, and we solicit 

comments on this proposed action. At 

this time, we do not propose to 

designate critical habitat for the Arctic 

ringed seal because it is not currently 

determinable. In order to complete the 

critical habitat designation process, we 

also solicit information on essential 

physical and biological features of 

Arctic ringed seal habitat. 

DATES: Comments and information 

regarding this proposed rule must be 

received by close of business on 

February 8, 2011. Requests for public 

hearings must be made in writing and 

received by January 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja 

Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Protected Resources Division, Alaska 

Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by RIN 0648–XZ59, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: (907) 586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record. No comments will be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov for 

public viewing until after the comment 

period has closed. Comments will 

generally be posted without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

We will accept anonymous comments 

(enter N/A in the required fields, if you 

wish to remain anonymous). You may 

submit attachments to electronic 

comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

The proposed rule, maps, status 

review report, and other materials 

relating to this proposal can be found on 

the Alaska Region Web site at: http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7235; or Marta 

Nammack, Office of Protected 

Resources, Silver Spring, MD (301) 713– 

1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

28, 2008, we initiated status reviews of 

ringed, bearded (Erignathus barbatus), 

and spotted seals (Phoca largha) under 

the ESA (73 FR 16617). On May 28, 

2008, we received a petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity to list 

these three species of seals as threatened 

or endangered under the ESA, primarily 

due to concerns about threats to their 

habitat from climate warming and loss 

of sea ice. The Petitioner also requested 

that critical habitat be designated for 

these species concurrent with listing 

under the ESA. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), requires that when a 

petition to revise the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is 

found to present substantial scientific 

and commercial information, we make a 

finding on whether the petitioned action 

is (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or 

(c) warranted but precluded from 

immediate proposal by other pending 

proposals of higher priority. This 

finding is to be made within 1 year of 

the date the petition was received, and 

the finding is to be published promptly 

in the Federal Register. 

After reviewing the petition, the 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

literature and information available in 

our files, we found (73 FR 51615; 

September 4, 2008) that the petition met 

the requirements of the regulations 

under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), and we 

determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Accordingly, we proceeded with the 

status reviews of ringed, bearded, and 

spotted seals and solicited information 

pertaining to them. 

On September 8, 2009, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia alleging that we failed to 

make the requisite 12-month finding on 

its petition to list the three seal species. 

Subsequently, the Court entered a 

consent decree under which we agreed 

to finalize the status review of the 

ringed seal (and the bearded seal) and 

submit this 12-month finding to the 

Office of the Federal Register by 

December 3, 2010. Our 12-month 

petition finding for bearded seals is 

published as a separate notice 

concurrently with this finding. Spotted 

seals were also addressed in a separate 

Federal Register notice (75 FR 65239; 

October 22, 2010; see also, 74 FR 53683, 

October 20, 2009). 

The status review report of the ringed 

seal is a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the past, present, and future 

threats to this species. The Biological 

Review Team (BRT) that prepared this 

report was composed of eight marine 

mammal biologists, a fishery biologist, a 

marine chemist, and a climate scientist 

from NMFS’s Alaska and Northeast 

Fisheries Science Centers, NOAA’s 

Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). The status review report 

underwent independent peer review by 

five scientists with expertise in ringed 

seal biology, Arctic sea ice, climate 

change, and ocean acidification. 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions 

There are two key tasks associated 

with conducting an ESA status review. 

The first is to delineate the taxonomic 

group under consideration; and the 

second is to conduct an extinction risk 

assessment to determine whether the 

petitioned species is threatened or 

endangered. To be considered for listing 

under the ESA, a group of organisms 

must constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which 

section 3(16) of the ESA defines as ‘‘any 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77477 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ The 

term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ 

(DPS) is not commonly used in 

scientific discourse, so the USFWS and 

NMFS developed the ‘‘Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act’’ to provide a 

consistent interpretation of this term for 

the purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We 

describe and use this policy below to 

guide our determination of whether any 

population segments of this species 

meet the DPS criteria of the DPS policy. 

The ESA defines the term 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term ‘‘threatened species’’ 

is defined as ‘‘any species which is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ The 

foreseeability of a species’ future status 

is case specific and depends upon both 

the foreseeability of threats to the 

species and foreseeability of the species’ 

response to those threats. When a 

species is exposed to a variety of threats, 

each threat may be foreseeable in a 

different time frame. For example, 

threats stemming from well-established, 

observed trends in a global physical 

process may be foreseeable on a much 

longer time horizon than a threat 

stemming from a potential, though 

unpredictable, episodic process such as 

an outbreak of disease that may never 

have been observed to occur in the 

species. 

In the 2008 status review of the ribbon 

seal (Boveng, et al., 2008; see also 73 FR 

79822, December 30, 2008), NMFS 

scientists used the same climate 

projections used in our risk assessment 

here, but terminated the analysis of 

threats to ribbon seals at 2050. One 

reason for that approach was the 

difficulty of incorporating the increased 

divergence and uncertainty in climate 

scenarios beyond that time. Other 

reasons included the lack of data for 

threats other than those related to 

climate change beyond 2050, and the 

fact that the uncertainty embedded in 

the assessment of the ribbon seal’s 

response to threats increased as the 

analysis extended farther into the 

future. 

Since that time, NMFS scientists have 

revised their analytical approach to the 

foreseeability of threats and responses to 

those threats, adopting a more threatspecific approach based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

for each respective threat. For example, 

because the climate projections in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment 

Report extend through the end of the 

century (and we note the IPCC’s Fifth 

Assessment Report, due in 2014, will 

extend even farther into the future), we 

used those models to assess impacts 

from climate change through the end of 

the century. We continue to recognize 

that the farther into the future the 

analysis extends, the greater the 

inherent uncertainty, and we 

incorporated that limitation into our 

assessment of the threats and the 

species’ response. For other threats, 

where the best scientific and 

commercial data does not extend as far 

into the future, such as for occurrences 

and projections of disease or parasitic 

outbreaks, we limited our analysis to the 

extent of such data. We believe this 

approach creates a more robust analysis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. 

Species Information 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the ringed 

seal is presented in the status review 

report (Kelly et al., 2010a; available at 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). 

The ringed seal is the smallest of the 

northern seals, with typical adult body 

sizes of 1.5 m in length and 70 kg in 

weight. The average life span of ringed 

seals is about 15–28 years. As the 

common name of this species suggests, 

its coat is characterized by ring-shaped 

markings. Ringed seals are adapted to 

remaining in heavily ice-covered areas 

throughout the fall, winter, and spring 

by using the stout claws on their fore 

flippers to maintain breathing holes in 

the ice. 

Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and 

Movements 

Ringed seals are circumpolar and are 

found in all seasonally ice covered seas 

of the Northern Hemisphere as well as 

in certain freshwater lakes. They range 

throughout the Arctic Basin and 

southward into adjacent seas, including 

the southern Bering Sea and 

Newfoundland. Ringed seals are also 

found in the Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of 

Japan in the western North Pacific, the 

Baltic Sea in the North Atlantic, and 

landlocked populations inhabit lakes 

Ladoga and Saimaa east of the Baltic Sea 

(Figure 1). 

Throughout most of its range, the 

Arctic subspecies does not come ashore 

and uses sea ice as a substrate for 

resting, pupping, and molting. During 

the ice-free season in more southerly 

regions including the White Sea, the Sea 

of Okhotsk, and the Baltic Sea, ringed 

seals occasionally rest on island shores 

or offshore reefs. In lakes Ladoga and 

Saimaa, ringed seals typically rest on 

rocks and island shores when ice is 

absent. In all subspecies except the 

Okhotsk, pups normally are born in 

subnivean lairs (snow caves) on the sea 

ice (Arctic and Baltic ringed seals) or in 

subnivean lairs along shorelines 

(Saimaa and Ladoga ringed seals) in late 

winter to early spring. Although use of 

subnivean lairs has been reported for 

Okhotsk ringed seals, this subspecies 

apparently depends primarily on 

sheltering in the lee of ice hummocks. 

The seasonality of ice cover strongly 

influences ringed seal movements, 

foraging, reproductive behavior, and 

vulnerability to predation. Born et al. 

(2004) recognized three ‘‘ecological 

seasons’’ as important to ringed seals off 

northwestern Greenland: The ‘‘openwater season,’’ the ice-covered ‘‘winter,’’ 

and ‘‘spring,’’ when the seals breed and 

after the breeding season haul out on the 

ice to molt. Tracking seals in Alaska and 

the western Canadian Arctic, Kelly et al. 

(2010b) used different terms to refer to 

these ecological seasons. Kelly et al. 

(2010b) referred to the open-water 

period when ringed seals forage most 

intensively as the ‘‘foraging period,’’ 

early winter through spring when seals 

rest primarily in subnivean lairs on the 

ice as the ‘‘subnivean period,’’ and the 

period between abandonment of the 

lairs and ice break-up as the ‘‘basking 

period.’’ 

Open-water (foraging) period: Short 

and long distance movements by ringed 

seals have been documented during the 

open-water period. Overall, the record 

from satellite tracking indicates that 

ringed seals breeding in shorefast ice 

practice one of two strategies during the 

open-water foraging period. Some seals 

forage within 100 km of their shorefast 

ice breeding habitat while others make 

extensive movements of hundreds or 

thousands of kilometers to forage in 

highly productive areas and along the 

pack ice edge. Movements during the 

open-water period by ringed seals that 

breed in the pack ice are unknown. 

Tracking and observational records 

indicate that adult Arctic ringed seals 

breeding in the shorefast ice show interannual fidelity to breeding sites. Saimaa 

and Ladoga ringed seals show similar 

site fidelity. High quality, abundant 

food is important to the annual energy 

budgets of ringed seals. Fall and early 

winter periods, prior to the occupation 

of breeding sites, are important in 

allowing ringed seals to accumulate 

enough fat stores to support estrus and 

lactation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77478 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Winter (subnivean period): At freezeup in fall, ringed seals surface to breathe 

in the remaining open water of cracks 

and leads. As these openings freeze 

over, the seals push through the ice to 

breathe until it is too thick. They then 

open breathing holes by abrading the ice 

with the claws on their fore flippers. As 

the ice thickens, the seals continue to 

maintain the breathing holes by 

scratching at the walls. The breathing 

holes can be maintained in ice 2 m or 

greater in thickness but often are 

concentrated in the thinner ice of 

refrozen cracks. 

As snow accumulates and buries the 

breathing hole, the seals breathe through 

the snow layer. Ringed seals excavate 

lairs in the snow above breathing holes 

where snow depth is sufficient. These 

subnivean lairs are occupied for resting, 

pupping, and nursing young in annual 

shorefast and pack ice. Snow 

accumulation on sea ice is typically 

sufficient for lair formation only where 

pressure ridges or ice hummocks cause 

the snow to form drifts at least 45 cm 

deep (at least 50–65 cm for birth lairs). 

Such drifts typically occur only where 

average snow depths (on flat ice) are 20– 

30 cm or more. A general lack of such 

ridges or hummocks in lakes Ladoga 

and Saimaa limits suitable snow drifts 

to island shorelines, where most lairs in 

Lake Ladoga and virtually all lairs in 

Lake Saimaa are found. 

Subnivean lairs provide refuge from 

air temperatures too low for survival of 

ringed seal pups. Lairs also conceal 

ringed seals from predators, an 

advantage especially important to the 

small pups that start life with minimal 

tolerance for immersion in cold water. 

When forced to flee into the water to 

avoid predators, the pups that survive 

depend on the subnivean lairs to 

subsequently warm themselves. Ringed 

seal movements during the subnivean 

period typically are quite limited, 

especially where ice cover is extensive. 

Spring (basking period): Numbers of 

ringed seals hauled out on the surface 

of the ice typically begin to increase 

during spring as the temperatures warm 

and the snow covering the seals’ lairs 

melts. Although the snow cover can 

melt rapidly, the ice remains largely 

intact and serves as a substrate for the 

molting seals that spend many hours 

basking in the sun. Adults generally 

molt from mid-May to mid-July, 

although there is regional variation. The 

relatively long periods of time that 

ringed seals spend out of the water 

during the molt has been ascribed to the 

need to maintain elevated skin 

temperatures. Feeding is reduced and 

the seal’s metabolism declines during 

the molt. As seals complete this phase 

of the annual pelage cycle, they spend 

increasing amounts of time in the water. 

Food Habits 

Ringed seals eat a wide variety of prey 

in the marine environment. Most ringed 

seal prey is small, and preferred fishes 

tend to be schooling species that form 

dense aggregations. Ringed seals rarely 

prey upon more than 10–15 species in 

any one area, and not more than 2–4 of 

those species are considered important 

prey. Despite regional and seasonal 

variations in the diet of ringed seals, 

fishes of the cod family tend to 

dominate the diet of ringed seals from 

late autumn through early spring in 

many areas. Arctic cod (Boreogadus 

saida) is often reported to be among the 

most important prey species, especially 

during the ice-covered periods of the 

year. Other members of the cod family, 

including polar cod (Arctogadus 

glacialis), saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), 

and navaga (Eleginus navaga), are also 

seasonally important to ringed seals in 

some areas. Arctic cod is not found in 

the Sea of Okhotsk, but capelin 

(Mallotus villosus) are abundant in the 

region. Other fishes reported to be 

locally important to ringed seals include 

smelt (Osmerus sp.) and herring (Clupea 

sp.). Invertebrates appear to become 

more important to ringed seals in many 

areas during the open-water season, and 

are often found to dominate the diets of 

young seals. In the brackish water of the 

Baltic Sea, the prey community includes 

a mixture of marine and freshwater fish 

species, as well as invertebrates. In the 

freshwater environment of Lake Saimaa, 

several schooling fishes were reported 

to be the most important prey species; 

and in Lake Ladoga, a variety of fish 

species were found in the diet of ringed 

seals. 

Reproduction 

Sexual maturity in ringed seals varies 

with population status and can be as 

late as 7 years for males and 9 years for 

females and as early as 3 years for both 

sexes. Ringed seals breed annually, with 

timing varying regionally. Mating takes 

place while mature females are still 

nursing their pups and is thought to 

occur under the ice in the vicinity of 

birth lairs. Little is known about the 

breeding system of ringed seals; 

however, males are often reported to be 

territorial during the breeding season. 

A single pup is born in a subnivean 

lair on either the shorefast ice or pack 

ice. In much of the Arctic, pupping 

occurs in late March through April, but 

the timing varies with latitude. Pupping 

in the Sea of Okhotsk takes place in 

March and April. In the Baltic Sea, Lake 

Saimaa, and Lake Ladoga, pups are born 

in February through March. At birth, 

ringed seal pups are approximately 60– 

65 cm in length and weigh 4.5–5.0 kg 

with regional variation. The pups are 

born with a white natal coat (lanugo) 

that provides insulation, particularly 

when dry, until it is shed after 4–6 

weeks. Pups nurse for as long as 2 

months in stable shorefast ice and for as 

little as 3–6 weeks in moving ice. Pups 

normally are weaned before break-up of 

spring ice. At weaning, pups are four 

times their birth weights, and they lose 

weight for several months after weaning. 

Species Delineation 

The BRT reviewed the best scientific 

and commercial data available on the 

ringed seal’s taxonomy and concluded 

that there are five currently recognized 

subspecies of the ringed seal: Arctic 

ringed seal; Baltic ringed seal; Okhotsk 

ringed seal; Ladoga ringed seal; and 

Saimaa ringed seal (Phoca hispida 

saimensis). The BRT noted, however, 

that further investigation would be 

required to discern whether there are 

additional distinct units, especially 

within the Arctic subspecies, whose 

genetic structuring has yet to be 

thoroughly investigated. We agree with 

the BRT’s conclusions that these five 

subspecies of the ringed seal qualify as 

‘‘species’’ under the ESA. Our DPS 

analysis follows, and the geographic 

distributions of the five subspecies are 

shown in Figure 1. 

Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996), two elements are 

considered in a decision regarding the 

potential identification of a DPS: (1) The 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species or subspecies to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species or 

subspecies to which it belongs. A 

population segment of a vertebrate 

species may be considered discrete if it 

satisfies either one of the following 

conditions: (1) It is markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors. Quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation; or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. 

If a population segment is considered 

to be discrete under one or both of the 

above conditions, its biological and 

ecological significance to the taxon to 

which it belongs is evaluated in light of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77479 

the ESA’s legislative history indicating 

that the authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the 

conservation of genetic diversity (see 

Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st 

Session). This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: (1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon, 

(2) evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon, 

(3) evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range, or (4) evidence that the 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

If a population segment is discrete 

and significant (i.e., it is a DPS) its 

evaluation for endangered or threatened 

status will be based on the ESA’s 

definitions of those terms and a review 

of the factors enumerated in section 

4(a)(1). 

With respect to discreteness criterion 

1 above, we concluded that resolution of 

ringed seal population segments beyond 

the subspecies level is not currently 

possible using the best available 

scientific and commercial data. We also 

did not find sufficient differences in the 

conservation status or management 

within any of the ringed seal subspecies 

among their respective range countries 

to justify the use of international 

boundaries to satisfy the discreteness 

criterion of our DPS Policy. We 

therefore conclude that there are no 

population segments within any of the 

subspecies that satisfy the discreteness 

criteria of our DPS Policy. Since there 

are no discrete population segments 

within any of the subspecies, we cannot 

take the next step of determining 

whether any discrete population 

segment is significant to the taxon to 

which it belongs. 

Abundance and Trends 

Several factors make it difficult to 

accurately assess ringed seals’ 

abundance and trends. The remoteness 

and dynamic nature of their sea ice 

habitat, time spent below the surface, 

and their broad distribution and 

seasonal movements make surveying 

ringed seals expensive and logistically 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10DE10.089</GPH>
77480 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

challenging. Additionally, the species’ 

range crosses political boundaries and 

there has been limited international 

cooperation to conduct range-wide 

surveys. Details of survey methods and 

data are often limited or have not been 

published, making it difficult to judge 

the reliability of the reported numbers. 

Some studies have relied on surveys of 

seal holes and then estimated the 

number of seals based on various 

assumptions of the ratio of seals to 

holes. Most surveys are conducted 

during the basking period and the 

numbers of seals on ice is multiplied by 

some factor to estimate population size 

or determine a population index. While 

a few, recent studies have used data 

recorders and haul-out models to 

develop correction factors for seals 

submerged and unseen, many studies 

present only estimates for seals visible 

on ice (i.e., ‘‘basking population’’). The 

timing of annual snow and ice melts 

also varies widely from year to year and, 

unless surveys are conducted to 

coincide with similar ice and weather 

conditions, comparisons between years 

(even if conducted during the same time 

of year) can be erroneous. With these 

limitations in mind, the best scientific 

and commercial data on abundance and 

trends are summarized below for each of 

the ringed seal subspecies. 

Arctic Ringed Seal 

The Arctic ringed seal is the most 

abundant of the ringed seal subspecies 

and has a circumpolar distribution. The 

BRT divided the distribution of Arctic 

ringed seals into five regions: Greenland 

Sea and Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, 

Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and the 

White, Barents and Kara Seas. These 

regions were largely chosen to reflect 

the geographical groupings of published 

studies and not to imply any actual 

population structure. These areas also 

do not represent the full distribution of 

Arctic ringed seals as estimates are not 

available in some areas (e.g., areas of the 

Russian Arctic coast and the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago). 

The only available comprehensive 

estimate for the Greenland Sea and 

Baffin Bay region is 787,000, based on 

surveys conducted in 1979. Consistency 

in harvest records over time lends some 

confidence that the population has not 

changed significantly. 

The Hudson Bay ringed seal 

population was estimated at 53,346 

based on the mid-point of estimates 

from aerial surveys conducted in 2007 

and 2008. Prior surveys conducted in 

western Hudson Bay in the 1970s 

produced an estimate of 455,000 seals, 

which was much larger than the 218,300 

reported in the 1950s. The earlier 

studies did not account for seals using 

pack ice habitats which might account 

for the difference. A more recent survey 

in 1995 provided an estimate of 

approximately 280,000 seals when 

missed seals were accounted for. 

Population assessments of ringed 

seals in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

have been mostly confined to U.S. and 

Canadian waters. Based on the available 

abundance estimates for study areas 

within this region and extrapolations for 

pack ice areas without survey data, a 

reasonable estimate for the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas is 1 million seals. 

Estimates derived for all Alaskan 

shorefast ice habitats in both the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas based on 

aerial surveys conducted in the mid 

1980s were 250,000 ringed seals in the 

shorefast ice and 1–1.5 million 

including seals in the pack-ice habitat. 

The White, Barents, Kara, and East 

Siberian Seas encompass at least half of 

the worldwide distribution of Arctic 

ringed seals. The total population across 

these seas may be as many as 220,000 

seals based on available survey data, 

primarily from 1975–1993. 

Okhotsk Ringed Seal 

Based on aerial surveys, ringed seal 

abundance in the Sea of Okhotsk from 

1968–1990 was estimated at between 

676,000 and 855,000 seals. These 

estimates include a general (not speciesspecific) 30 percent adjustment to 

account for seals in the water. 

Fluctuations in population estimates 

since catch limits were initiated in 1968 

were suspected to be natural (Fedoseev, 

2000). Based on these surveys, a 

conservative estimate of the current 

total population of ringed seals in the 

Sea of Okhotsk would be 676,000 seals. 

Aerial surveys conducted in the Sea of 

Okhotsk from 1968–1969 provided a 

population estimate of 800,000. This 

was the same as the estimate previously 

back-calculated from catch data in 1966 

when a population decline due to 

hunting was identified. These 

calculations also suggested that ringed 

seal abundance in the Sea of Okhotsk 

had been in a state of steady decline 

since 1955 when estimates suggested 

the population exceeded 1 million seals. 

Baltic Ringed Seal 

The Baltic ringed seal population was 

estimated at 10,000 seals based on 

comprehensive surveys conducted in 

1996. Historical estimates of population 

size for the Baltic ringed seal range from 

50,000 to 450,000 seals in 1900 (Kokko 

et al., 1999). These estimates were 

derived as back calculations from 

historical bounty records. The large 

range in the estimates reflects 

uncertainty in the hunting dynamics 

and whether the populations were 

historically subject to density 

dependence. By the 1940s, the 

population had been reduced to 25,000 

seals in large part due to Swedish and 

Finnish removal efforts. Ringed seals in 

the Baltic are found in three general 

regions, the Bothnian Bay, Gulf of 

Finland, and Gulf of Riga plus the 

Estonian west coast. Low numbers of 

ringed seals are also present in the 

Bothnian Sea and the southwestern 

region of Finland. The greatest 

concentration of Baltic ringed seals is 

found in the Bothnian Bay. 

Ladoga Ringed Seal 

The population size of ringed seals in 

Lake Ladoga is currently suggested to 

range between 3,000 and 5,000 seals 

based on an aerial survey in 2001. This 

represents a decline from estimates of 

20,000 and 5,000–10,000 seals reported 

for the 1930s and the 1960s, 

respectively (Chapskii, 1974). Results 

from a Russian aerial survey in the 

1970s estimated the population of 

ringed seals in Lake Ladoga to be 3,500– 

4,700 seals. 

Saimaa Ringed Seal 

The current population estimate of 

ringed seals in Lake Saimaa is less than 

300, and the mean population growth 

rate from 1990–2004 was 1.026. Lake 

Saimaa is a complex body of water, and 

the population trends and abundance 

for Saimaa ringed seals have differed 

across the various regions. It has been 

projected that the population of Saimaa 

ringed seals may reach 400 by 2015, but 

with the caveat that seals may no longer 

be present in some regions of the lake. 

Historical abundance of ringed seals in 

Lake Saimaa is estimated to have been 

between 4,000 and 6,000 animals 

approximately 5,000 years ago (Sipila ̈

and Hyva ̈rinen, 1998; Sipila ̈, 2006). 

However, using a back-casting process 

based on reported bounty statistics, the 

population was estimated in 1893 to be 

between 100 and 1,300 seals. In 1993, 

the Saimaa seal was listed as 

endangered under the ESA (58 FR 

26920; May 6, 1993) and as depleted 

under the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended. At 

that time, the population was estimated 

at 160–180 seals (57 FR 60162; 

December 18, 1992). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Ringed Seal 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the 

listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set 

forth procedures for listing species. We 

must determine, through the regulatory 

process, if a species is endangered or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77481 

threatened because of any one or a 

combination of the following factors: (1) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or human-made factors affecting 

its continued existence. These factors 

are discussed below, with each 

subspecies of the ringed seal considered 

under each factor. The reader is also 

directed to section 4.2 of the status 

review report for a more detailed 

discussion of the factors affecting the 

five subspecies of the ringed seal (see 

ADDRESSES). As discussed above, the 

data on ringed seal abundance and 

trends of most populations are 

unavailable or imprecise, especially in 

the Arctic and Okhotsk subspecies, and 

there is little basis for quantitatively 

linking projected environmental 

conditions or other factors to ringed seal 

survival or reproduction. Our risk 

assessment therefore primarily 

evaluated important habitat features and 

was based upon the best available 

scientific and commercial data and the 

expert opinion of the BRT members. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The main concern about the 

conservation status of ringed seals stems 

from the likelihood that their sea ice 

habitat has been modified by the 

warming climate and, more so, that the 

scientific consensus projections are for 

continued and perhaps accelerated 

warming in the foreseeable future. A 

second concern, related by the common 

driver of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions, is the modification of habitat 

by ocean acidification, which may alter 

prey populations and other important 

aspects of the marine ecosystem. A 

reliable assessment of the future 

conservation status of each of the 

subspecies of the ringed seal therefore 

requires a focus on the observed and 

projected changes in sea ice, snow 

cover, ocean temperature, ocean pH 

(acidity), and associated changes in 

ringed seal prey species. 

The threats (analyzed below) 

associated with impacts of the warming 

climate on the habitat of ringed seals, to 

the extent that they may pose risks to 

these seals, are expected to manifest 

throughout the current breeding and 

molting range (for snow and ice related 

threats) or throughout the entire range 

(for ocean warming and acidification) of 

each of the subspecies, since the spatial 

resolution of data pertaining to these 

threats is currently limited. 

Overview of Global Climate Change and 

Effects on the Annual Formation of the 

Ringed Seal’s Sea Ice Habitat 

Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere 

can be divided into first-year sea ice that 

formed in the most recent 

autumn-winter period, and multi-year 

sea ice that has survived at least one 

summer melt season. The Arctic Ocean 

is covered by a mix of multi-year sea 

ice. More southerly regions, such as the 

Bering Sea, Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, the 

Baltic Sea, Hudson Bay, and the Sea of 

Okhotsk are known as seasonal ice 

zones, where first year sea ice is 

renewed every winter. Similarly, 

freshwater ice in lakes Ladoga and 

Saimaa forms and melts annually. Both 

the observed and the projected effects of 

a warming global climate are most 

extreme in northern high-latitude 

regions, in large part due to the 

ice-albedo feedback mechanism in 

which melting of snow and sea ice 

lowers reflectivity and thereby further 

increases surface warming by absorption 

of solar radiation. 

Sea ice extent at the end of summer 

(September) 2007 in the Arctic Ocean 

was a record low (4.3 million sq km), 

nearly 40 percent below the long-term 

average and 23 percent below the 

previous record set in 2005 (5.6 million 

sq km) (Stroeve et al., 2008). Sea ice 

extent in September 2010 was the third 

lowest in the satellite record for the 

month, behind 2007 and 2008 (second 

lowest). Most of the loss of sea ice was 

on the Pacific side of the Arctic. Of even 

greater long-term significance was the 

loss of over 40 percent of Arctic multiyear sea ice over the last 5 years (Kwok 

et al., 2009). While the annual minimum 

of sea ice extent is often taken as an 

index of the state of Arctic sea ice, the 

recent reductions of the area of multiyear sea ice and the reduction of sea ice 

thickness is of greater physical 

importance. It would take many years to 

restore the ice thickness through annual 

growth, and the loss of multi-year sea 

ice makes it unlikely that the Arctic will 

return to previous climatological 

conditions. Continued loss of sea ice 

will be a major driver of changes across 

the Arctic over the next decades, 

especially in late summer and autumn. 

Sea ice and other climatic conditions 

that influence ringed seal habitats are 

quite different between the Arctic and 

seasonal ice zones. In the Arctic, sea ice 

loss is a summer feature with a delay in 

freeze up occurring into the following 

fall. Sea ice persists in the Arctic from 

late fall through mid-summer due to 

cold and dark winter conditions. Sea ice 

variability is primarily determined by 

radiation and melting processes during 

the summer season. In contrast, the 

seasonal ice zones are free of sea ice 

during summer. The variability in 

extent, thickness, and other sea ice 

characteristics important to marine 

mammals is determined primarily by 

changes in the number, intensity, and 

track of winter and spring storms in the 

sub-Arctic. Although there are 

connections between sea ice conditions 

in the Arctic and the seasonal ice zones, 

the early loss of summer sea ice in the 

Arctic cannot be extrapolated to the 

seasonal ice zones, which are behaving 

differently than the Arctic. For example, 

the Bering Sea has had 4 years of colder 

than normal winter and spring 

conditions from 2007 to 2010, with near 

record sea ice extents, rivaling the sea 

ice maximum in the mid-1970s, despite 

record retreats in summer. 

IPCC Model Projections 

The analysis and synthesis of 

information presented by the IPCC in its 

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 

represents the scientific consensus view 

on the causes and future of climate 

change. The IPCC AR4 used a range of 

future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

produced under six ‘‘marker’’ scenarios 

from the Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC, 2000) to project 

plausible outcomes under clearly-stated 

assumptions about socio-economic 

factors that will influence the emissions. 

Conditional on each scenario, the best 

estimate and likely range of emissions 

were projected through the end of the 

21st century. It is important to note that 

the SRES scenarios do not contain 

explicit assumptions about the 

implementation of agreements or 

protocols on emission limits beyond 

current mitigation policies and related 

sustainable development practices. 

Conditions such as surface air 

temperature and sea ice area are linked 

in the IPCC climate models to GHG 

emissions by the physics of radiation 

processes. When CO2 is added to the 

atmosphere, it has a long residence time 

and is only slowly removed by ocean 

absorption and other processes. Based 

on IPCC AR4 climate models, expected 

increases in global warming—defined as 

the change in global mean surface air 

temperature (SAT)—by the year 2100 

depends strongly on the assumed 

emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. By 

contrast, global warming projected out 

to about 2040–2050 will be primarily 

due to emissions that have already 

occurred and those that will occur over 

the next decade. Thus, conditions 

projected to mid-century are less 

sensitive to assumed future emission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77482 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

scenarios. Uncertainty in the amount of 

warming out to mid-century is primarily 

a function of model-to-model 

differences in the way that the physical 

processes are incorporated, and this 

uncertainty can be addressed in 

predicting ecological responses by 

incorporating the range in projections 

from different models. 

Comprehensive Atmosphere-Ocean 

General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) 

are the major objective tools that 

scientists use to understand the 

complex interaction of processes that 

determine future climate change. The 

IPCC used the simulations from about 2 

dozen AOGCMs developed by 17 

international modeling centers as the 

basis for the AR4 (IPCC, 2007). The 

AOGCM results are archived as part of 

the Coupled Model Intercomparison 

Project-Phase 3 (CMIP3) at the Program 

for Climate Model Diagnosis and 

Intercomparison (PCMDI). The CMIP3 

AOGCMs provide reliable projections, 

because they are built on well-known 

dynamical and physical principles, and 

they simulate quite well many large 

scale aspects of present-day conditions. 

However, the coarse resolution of most 

current climate models dictates careful 

application on small scales in 

heterogeneous regions. 

There are three main contributors to 

divergence in AOGCM climate 

projections: Large natural variations, the 

range in emissions scenarios, and 

across-model differences. The first of 

these, variability from natural variation, 

can be incorporated by averaging the 

projections over decades, or, preferably, 

by forming ensemble averages from 

several runs of the same model. The 

second source of variation arises from 

the range in plausible emissions 

scenarios. As discussed above, the 

impacts of the scenarios are rather 

similar before mid-21st century. For the 

second half of the 21st century, 

however, and especially by 2100, the 

choice of the emission scenario becomes 

the major source of variation among 

climate projections and dominates over 

natural variability and model-to-model 

differences (IPCC, 2007). Because the 

current consensus is to treat all SRES 

emissions scenarios as equally likely, 

one option for representing the full 

range of variability in potential 

outcomes would be to project from any 

model under all of the six ‘‘marker’’ 

scenarios. This can be impractical in 

many situations, so the typical 

procedure for projecting impacts is to 

use an intermediate scenario, such as 

A1B or B2 to predict trends, or one 

intermediate and one extreme scenario 

(e.g., A1B and A2) to represent a 

significant range of variability. The third 

primary source of variability results 

from differences among models in 

factors such as spatial resolution. This 

variation can be addressed and 

mitigated in part by using the ensemble 

means from multiple models. 

There is no universal method for 

combining AOGCMs for climate 

projections, and there is no one best 

model. The approach taken by the BRT 

for selecting the models used to project 

future sea ice and snow conditions is 

summarized below. 

Data and Analytical Methods 

NMFS scientists have recognized that 

the physical basis for some of the 

primary threats faced by the species had 

been projected, under certain 

assumptions, through the end of the 

21st century, and that these projections 

currently form the most widely accepted 

version of the best available data about 

future conditions. In our risk assessment 

for ringed seals, we therefore considered 

all the projections through the end of 

the 21st century to analyze the threats 

stemming from climate change. 

The CMIP3 (IPCC) model simulations 

used in the BRT analyses were obtained 

from PCMDI on-line (PCMDI, 2010). The 

six IPCC models previously identified 

by Wang and Overland (2009) as 

performing satisfactorily at reproducing 

the magnitude of the observed seasonal 

cycle of sea ice extent in the Arctic 

under the A1B (‘‘medium’’) and A2 

(‘‘high’’) emissions scenarios were used 

to project monthly sea ice 

concentrations in the Northern 

Hemisphere in March–July for each of 

the decadal periods 2025–2035, 2045– 

2055, and 2085–2095. Snow cover on 

sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere was 

forecasted using one of the six models, 

the Community Climate System Model, 

version 3 (CCSM3, National Center for 

Atmospheric Research) (under the A1B 

scenario), a model that is known for 

incorporating advanced sea ice physics, 

and for which snow data were available. 

To incorporate natural variability, this 

model was run seven times. 

Climate models generally perform 

better on continental or larger scales, 

but because habitat changes are not 

uniform throughout the hemisphere, the 

six IPCC models used to project sea ice 

conditions in the Northern Hemisphere 

were further evaluated independently 

on their performance at reproducing the 

magnitude of the observed seasonal 

cycle of sea ice extent in 14 different 

regions throughout the ringed seal’s 

range, including 12 regions for the 

Arctic ringed seal, one region for the 

Okhotsk ringed seal, and one region for 

the Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed 

seals. For Arctic ringed seals, in three 

regions (Chukchi Sea, east Siberian Sea, 

and the central Arctic) six of the models 

simulated sea ice conditions in 

reasonable agreement with observations, 

in two regions (Beaufort and eastern 

Bering Seas) four models met the 

performance criteria, in two regions 

(western Bering and the Barents Seas) a 

single model (CCSM3) met the 

performance criteria, and in five regions 

(Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago, east Greenland, and 

the Kara and Laptev Seas) none of the 

models performed satisfactorily. The 

models also did not meet the 

performance criteria for the Baltic 

region and the Sea of Okhotsk. Other 

less direct means of predicting regional 

ice cover, such as comparison of surface 

air temperature predictions with past 

climatology (Sea of Okhotsk), other 

existing analyses (Baltic Sea and 

Hudson Bay), and results from the 

hemispheric predictions (Baffin Bay, the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and the 

East Greenland, Kara, and Laptev Seas), 

were used for regions where ice 

projections could not be obtained. For 

the Baltic Sea we reviewed the analysis 

of Jylha et al. (2008). They used seven 

regional climate models and found good 

agreement with observations for the 

1902–2000 comparison period. For 

Hudson Bay we referred to the analysis 

of Joly et al. (2010). They used a 

regional sea ice-ocean model to 

investigate the response of sea ice and 

oceanic heat storage in the Hudson Bay 

system to a climate-warming scenario. 

Regional predictions of snow cover 

were based on results from the 

hemispheric projections for Arctic and 

Okhotsk ringed seals, and on other 

existing analyses for Baltic, Ladoga, and 

Saimaa ringed seals. For the Baltic Sea 

we referred to the analysis of Jylha et al. 

(2008) noted above. For lakes Ladoga 

and Saimaa we considered the analysis 

of Saelthun et al. (1998; cited in 

Kuusisto, 2005). They used a modified 

hydrological model to analyze the 

effects of climate change on 

hydrological conditions and runoff in 

Finland and the Scandinavian 

Peninsula. 

While our inferences about future 

regional ice and snow conditions are 

based upon the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we recognize that 

there are uncertainties associated with 

predictions based on hemispheric 

projections or indirect means. We also 

note that judging the timing of the onset 

of potential impacts to ringed seals is 

complicated by the coarse resolution of 

the IPCC models. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77483 

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice and Snow 

Cover Predictions 

Projections of Northern Hemisphere 

sea ice concentrations for November 

indicate a major delay in fall freeze-up 

by 2050 north of Alaska and in the 

Barents Sea. By 2090, the average sea ice 

concentration in November is below 50 

percent in the Russian Arctic, and some 

models show a nearly ice free Arctic, 

except for the region of the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago. In March and April, 

winter type conditions persist out to 

2090. There is some reduction of sea ice 

by 2050 in the outer portions of the 

seasonal ice zones, but the sea ice south 

of Bering Strait, eastern Barents Sea, 

Baffin Bay, and the Kara and Laptev 

Seas remains substantial. The month of 

May shows diminishing sea ice cover at 

2050 and 2090 in the Barents and Bering 

Seas and the Sea of Okhotsk. By the 

month of June, projections begin to 

show substantial changes as the century 

progresses. Current conditions 

occasionally exhibit a lack of sea ice 

near the Bering Strait during June. By 

2050, however, this sea ice loss becomes 

a major feature, with open water 

continuing along the northern Alaskan 

coast in most models. Open water in 

June spreads to the East Siberian Shelf 

by 2090. The eastern Barents Sea 

experiences a reduction in sea ice 

between 2030 and 2050. The models 

indicate that sea ice in Baffin Bay will 

be affected very little until the end of 

the century. 

In July, the Arctic Ocean shows a 

marked effect of global warming, with 

the sea ice retreating to a central core as 

the century progresses. The loss of 

multi-year sea ice over the last 5 years 

has provided independent evidence for 

this conclusion. By 2050, the 

continental shelves of the Beaufort, 

Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas are 

nearly ice free in July, with ice 

concentrations less than 20 percent in 

the ensemble mean projections. The 

Kara and Laptev Seas also show a 

reduction of sea ice in coastal regions by 

mid-century in most but not all models. 

The Canadian Arctic Archipelago and 

the adjacent Arctic Ocean north of 

Canada and Greenland, however, are 

predicted to become a refuge for sea ice 

through the end of the century. This 

conclusion is supported by typical 

Arctic wind patterns, which tend to 

blow onshore in this region. Indeed, this 

refuge region is why sea ice scientists 

use the phrase: A nearly sea ice free 

summer in the Arctic by mid-century. 

As the Arctic Ocean warms and is 

covered by less ice, precipitation is 

expected to increase overall including 

during the winter months. Five climate 

models used by the Arctic Climate 

Impact Assessment forecasted an 

average increase in precipitation over 

the Arctic Ocean of 14 percent by the 

end of the century (Walsh et al., 2005). 

The impact of increased winter 

precipitation on the depth of snow on 

sea ice, however, will be counteracted 

by delays in the formation of sea ice. 

Over most of the Arctic Ocean, snow 

cover reaches its maximal depth in May, 

but most of that accumulation takes 

place in the autumn (Sturm et al., 2002). 

Snow depths reach 50 percent of the 

annual maximum by the end of October 

and 67 percent of their maximum by the 

end of November (Radionov et al., 

1997). Thus, delays of 1–2 months in 

the date of ice formation would result in 

substantial decreases in spring snow 

depths despite the potential for 

increased winter precipitation. Thinner 

ice will be more susceptible to 

deforming and producing pressure 

ridges and ice hummocks favoring snow 

drifts where depths exceed those on flat 

ice (Iacozaa and Barber, 1999; Strum 

et al., 2006). However, as noted above, 

average snow depths of 20–30 cm or 

more are typically necessary to form 

drifts that are deep enough for ringed 

seal lair formation. As spring air 

temperatures continue to warm, snow 

melt will continue to come earlier in the 

year. The CCSM3 model forecasted that 

the accumulation of snow on sea ice 

will decrease by almost 50 percent by 

the end of this century, with more than 

half of that decline projected to occur by 

2050. Although the forecasted snow 

accumulations in the seven integrations 

of the model varied, all predicted 

substantial declines over the century. 

Regional Sea Ice and Snow Cover 

Predictions by Subspecies 

Arctic ringed seal: In the East 

Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort, KaraLaptev, and Greenland Seas, as well as 

in Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago, little or no decline in ice 

extent is expected in April and May 

during the remainder of this century. In 

most of these areas, a moderate decline 

in sea ice is predicted during June 

within this century, while substantial 

declines in sea ice are projected in July 

and November after mid-century. The 

central Arctic (defined as regions north 

of 80° N. latitude) also shows declines 

in sea ice cover that are most apparent 

in July and November after 2050. For 

Hudson Bay, under a warmer climate 

scenario (for the years 2041–2070) Joly 

et al. (2010) projected a reduction in the 

sea ice season of 7–9 weeks, with 

substantial reductions in sea ice cover 

most apparent in July and during the 

first months of winter. 

In the Bering Sea, April and May ice 

cover is projected to decline throughout 

this century, with substantial interannual variability forecasted in the 

eastern Bering Sea. The projection for 

May indicates that there will commonly 

be years with little or no ice in the 

western Bering Sea beyond mid-century. 

Very little ice has remained in the 

eastern Bering Sea in June since the 

mid-1970s. Sea ice cover in the Barents 

Sea in April and May is also projected 

to decline throughout this century, and 

in the months of June and July, ice is 

expected to disappear rapidly in the 

coming decades. 

Based on model projections, April 

snow depths over much of the range of 

the Arctic ringed seal averaged 25–35 

cm in the first decade of this century, 

consistent with on-ice measurements by 

Russian scientists (Weeks, 2010). By 

mid-century, a substantial decrease in 

areas with April snow depths of 25–35 

cm is projected (much of it reduced to 

20–15 cm). The deepest snow (25–30 

cm) is forecasted to be found just north 

of Greenland, in the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago, and in an area tapering 

north from there into the central Arctic 

Basin. Southerly regions, such as the 

Bering Sea and Barents Sea, are 

forecasted to have snow depths of 10 cm 

or less my mid-century. By the end of 

the century, April snow depths of 20– 

25 cm are forecasted only for a portion 

of the central Arctic, most of the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and a few 

small, isolated areas in a few other 

regions. Areas with 25–30 cm of snow 

are projected to be limited to a few 

small isolated pockets in the Canadian 

Arctic by 2090–2099. 

Okhotsk ringed seal: As noted above, 

none of the IPCC models performed 

satisfactorily at projecting sea ice for the 

Sea of Okhotsk, and so projected surface 

air temperatures were examined relative 

to current climate conditions as a proxy 

to predict sea ice extent and duration. 

Based on that analysis, ice is expected 

to persist in the Sea of Okhotsk in 

March during the remainder of this 

century, although ice may be limited to 

the northern region in most years after 

mid-century. Conditions for sea ice in 

April are likely to be limited to the far 

northern reaches of the Sea of Okhotsk 

or non-existent by 2100. Little to no sea 

ice is expected in May by mid-century. 

Average snow depth projections for 

April show depths of 15–20 cm only in 

the northern portions of the Sea of 

Okhotsk in the past 10 years and 

nowhere in that sea by mid-century. By 

the end of the century average snow 

depths are projected to be 10 cm or less 

even in the northern Sea of Okhotsk. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77484 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed 

seals: For the Baltic Sea, the analysis of 

regional climate models by Jylha ̈ et al. 

(2008) was considered. They used seven 

regional climate models and found good 

agreement with observations for the 

1902–2000 comparison period. For the 

forecast period 2071–2100, one model 

predicted a change to mostly mild 

conditions, while the remaining models 

predicted unprecedentedly mild 

conditions. They noted that their 

estimates for a warming climate were in 

agreement with other studies that found 

unprecedentedly mild ice extent 

conditions in the majority of years after 

about 2030. The model we used to 

project snow depths (CCSM3) did not 

provide adequate resolution for the 

Baltic Sea. The climate models analyzed 

by Jylha ̈ et al. (2008), however, 

forecasted decreases of 45–60 days in 

duration of snow cover by the end of the 

century in the northern Baltic Sea 

region. The shortened seasonal snow 

cover would result primarily from 

earlier spring melts, but also from 

delayed onset of snow cover. Depth of 

snow is forecasted to decrease 50–70 

percent in the region over the same 

period. The depth of snow also will be 

decreased by mid-winter thaws and rain 

events. Simulations of the snow cover 

indicated that an increasing proportion 

of the snow pack will consist of icy or 

wet snow. 

Ice cover has diminished about 12 

percent over the past 50 years in Lake 

Ladoga. Although we are not aware of 

any ice forecasts specific to lakes 

Ladoga and Saimaa, the simulations of 

future climate reported by Jylha ̈ et al. 

(2008) suggest warming winters with 

reduced ice and snow cover. Snow 

cover in Finland and the Scandinavian 

Peninsula is projected to decrease 10–30 

percent before mid-century and 50–90 

percent by 2100 (Saelthun et al., 1998, 

cited in Kuusisto, 2005). 

Effects of Changes in Ice and Snow 

Cover on Ringed Seals 

Ringed seals are vulnerable to habitat 

loss from changes in the extent or 

concentration of sea ice because they 

depend on this habitat for pupping, 

nursing, molting, and resting. The 

ringed seal’s broad distribution, ability 

to undertake long movements, diverse 

diet, and association with widely 

varying ice conditions suggest resilience 

in the face of environmental variability. 

However, the ringed seal’s long 

generation time and ability to produce 

only a single pup each year may limit 

its ability to respond to environmental 

challenges such as the diminishing ice 

and snow cover projected in a matter of 

decades. Ringed seals apparently 

thrived during glacial maxima and 

survived warm interglacial periods. 

How they survived the latter periods or 

in what numbers is not known. Declines 

in sea ice cover in recent decades are 

more extensive and rapid than any 

known for at least the last few thousand 

years (Polyak et al., 2010). 

Ringed seals create birth lairs in areas 

of accumulated snow on stable ice 

including the shore-fast ice over 

continental shelves along Arctic coasts, 

bays, and inter-island channels. While 

some authors suggest that shorefast ice 

is the preferred pupping habitat of 

ringed seals due to its stability 

throughout the pupping and nursing 

period, others have documented ringed 

seal pupping on drifting pack ice both 

nearshore and offshore. Both of these 

habitats can be affected by earlier 

warming and break-up in the spring, 

which shortens the length of time pups 

have to grow and mature in a protected 

setting. Harwood et al. (2000) reported 

that an early spring break-up negatively 

impacted the growth, condition, and 

apparent survival of unweaned ringed 

seal pups. Early break-up was believed 

to have interrupted lactation in adult 

females, which in turn, negatively 

affected the condition and growth of 

pups. 

Unusually heavy ice has also been 

implicated in shifting distribution, high 

winter mortality, and reduced 

productivity of ringed seals. It has been 

suggested that reduced ice thickness 

associated with warming in some areas 

could lead to increased biological 

productivity that might benefit ringed 

seals, at least in the short-term. 

However, any transitory and localized 

benefits of reduced ice thickness are 

expected to be outweighed by the 

negative effects of increased 

thermoregulatory costs and 

vulnerability of seal pups to predation 

associated with earlier ice break-up and 

reduced snow cover. 

Ringed seals, especially the newborn, 

depend on snow cover for protection 

from cold temperatures and predators. 

Occupation of subnivean lairs is 

especially critical when pups are nursed 

in late March–June. Ferguson et al. 

(2005) attributed low ringed seal 

recruitment in western Hudson Bay to 

decreased snow depth in April and 

May. Reduced snowfall results in less 

snow drift accumulation next to 

pressure ridges, and pups in lairs with 

thin snow cover are more vulnerable to 

predation than pups in lairs with thick 

snow cover (Hammill and Smith, 1989; 

Ferguson et al., 2005). When snow cover 

is insufficient, pups can also freeze in 

their lairs as documented in 1974 when 

roofs of lairs in the White Sea were only 

5–10 cm thick (Lukin and Potelov, 

1978). Similarly, pup mortality from 

freezing and polar bear (Ursus 

maritimus) predation increased when 

unusually warm spring temperatures 

caused early melting near Baffin Island 

in the late 1970s (Smith and Hammill, 

1980; Stirling and Smith, 2004). 

Prematurely exposed pups also are 

vulnerable to predation by wolves 

(Canis lupus) and foxes (Alopex lagopus 

and Vulpes vulpes)—as documented 

during an early snow melt in the White 

Sea in 1977 (Lukin, 1980)—and by gulls 

(Laridae) and ravens (Corvus corax) as 

documented in the Barents Sea (Gjertz 

and Lydersen, 1983; Lydersen and 

Gjertz, 1987; Lydersen et al., 1987; 

Lydersen and Smith, 1989; Lydersen 

and Rig, 1990; Lydersen, 1998). When 

lack of snow cover has forced birthing 

to occur in the open, some studies have 

reported that nearly 100 percent of pups 

died from predation (Kumlien, 1879; 

Lydersen et al., 1987; Lydersen and 

Smith, 1989; Smith et al., 1991; Smith 

and Lydersen, 1991). The high fidelity 

to birthing sites exhibited by ringed 

seals also makes them more susceptible 

to localized degradation of snow cover 

(Kelly et al., 2010). 

Increased rain-on-snow events during 

the late winter also negatively impact 

ringed seal recruitment by damaging or 

eliminating snow-covered birth lairs, 

increasing exposure and the risk of 

hypothermia, and facilitating predation 

by polar bears and other predators. 

Stirling and Smith (2004) documented 

the collapse of subnivean lairs during 

unseasonal rains near southeastern 

Baffin Island and the subsequent 

exposure of ringed seals to hypothermia. 

They surmised that most of the pups 

that survived exposure to cold were 

eventually killed by polar bears, Arctic 

foxes, or possibly gulls. Stirling and 

Smith (2004) postulated that, should 

early season rain become regular and 

widespread in the future, mortality of 

ringed seal pups will increase, 

especially in more southerly parts of 

their range. 

Potential Impacts of Projected Ice and 

Snow Cover Changes on Ringed Seals 

As discussed above, ringed seals 

divide their time between foraging in 

the water, and reproducing and molting 

out of the water, where they are 

especially vulnerable to predation. 

Females must nurse their pups for 1–2 

months, and the small pups are 

vulnerable to cold temperatures and 

avian and mammalian predators on the 

ice, especially during the nursing 

period. Thus, a specific habitat 

requirement for ringed seals is adequate 

snow for the occupation of subnivean 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77485 

lairs, especially in spring when pups are 

born and nursed. 

Northern Hemisphere snow cover has 

declined in recent decades and spring 

melt times have become earlier (ACIA, 

2005). In most areas of the Arctic Ocean, 

snow melt advanced 1–6 weeks from 

1979–2007. Throughout most of the 

ringed seal’s range, snow melt occurred 

within a couple of weeks of weaning. 

Thus, in the past 3 decades, snow melts 

in many areas have been pre-dating 

weaning. Shifts in the timing of 

reproduction by other pinnipeds in 

response to changes in food availability 

have been documented. However, the 

ability of ringed seals to adapt to earlier 

snow melts by advancing the timing of 

reproduction will be limited by snow 

depths. As discussed above, over most 

of the Arctic Ocean, snow cover reaches 

its maximal depth in May, but most of 

that accumulation takes place in 

autumn. It is therefore unlikely that 

snow depths for birth lair formation 

would be improved earlier in the spring. 

In addition, the pace at which snow 

melts are advancing is rapid relative to 

the generation time of ringed seals, 

further challenging the potential for an 

adaptive response. 

Snow drifted to 45 cm or more is 

needed for excavation and maintenance 

of simple lairs, and birth lairs require 

depths of 50 to 65 cm or more (Smith 

and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and Gjertz, 

1986; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et al., 1996; 

Lydersen, 1998; Lukin et al., 2006). 

Such drifts typically only occur where 

average snow depths are at least 20–30 

cm (on flat ice) and where drifting has 

taken place along pressure ridges or ice 

hummocks (Hammill and Smith, 1991; 

Lydersen and Ryg, 1991; Smith and 

Lydersen, 1991; Ferguson et al., 2005). 

We therefore considered areas 

forecasted to have less than 20 cm 

average snow depth in April to be 

inadequate for the formation of ringed 

seal birth lairs. 

Arctic ringed seal: The depth and 

duration of snow cover is projected to 

decrease throughout the range of Arctic 

ringed seals within this century. 

Whether ringed seals will continue to 

move north with retreating ice over the 

deeper, less productive Arctic Basin 

waters and whether forage species that 

they prey on will also move north is 

uncertain (see additional discussion 

below). Initially, impacts may be 

somewhat ameliorated if the subspecies’ 

range retracts northward with its sea ice 

habitats. By 2100, however, April snow 

cover is forecasted to become 

inadequate for the formation and 

occupation of ringed seal birth lairs over 

much of the subspecies’ range. The 

projected decreases in ice and, 

especially, snow cover are expected to 

lead to increased pup mortality from 

premature weaning, hypothermia, and 

predation. 

Okhotsk ringed seal: Based on 

temperature proxies, ice is expected to 

persist in the Sea of Okhotsk through 

the onset of pupping in March through 

the end of this century. Ice suitable for 

pupping and nursing likely will be 

limited to the northernmost portions of 

the sea, as ice is likely to be limited to 

that region in April by the end of the 

century. The snow cover projections 

suggest that snow depths may already 

be inadequate for lairs in the Sea of 

Okhotsk, and most Okhotsk ringed seals 

apparently now give birth on pack ice 

in the lee of ice hummocks. However, it 

appears unlikely that this behavior 

could mitigate the threats posed by the 

expected decreases in sea ice. The Sea 

of Okhotsk is bounded to the north by 

land, which will limit the ability of 

Okhotsk ringed seals to respond to 

deteriorating sea ice and snow 

conditions by shifting their range 

northward. Some Okhotsk ringed seals 

have been reported on terrestrial resting 

sites during the ice-free season, but 

these sites provide inferior pupping and 

nursing habitat. Within the foreseeable 

future, the projected decreases in sea ice 

habitat suitable for pupping, nursing, 

and molting in the Sea of Okhotsk are 

expected to lead to reduced abundance 

and productivity. 

Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed 

seals: The considerable reductions in 

ice extent forecasted by mid-century, 

coupled with deteriorating snow 

conditions, are expected to substantially 

alter the habitats of Baltic ringed seals. 

Climate forecasts for northern Europe 

also suggest reduced ice and snow cover 

for lakes Ladoga and Saimaa within this 

century. These habitat changes are 

expected to lead to decreased survival of 

pups (due to hypothermia, predation, 

and premature weaning) and 

considerable declines in the abundance 

of these subspecies in the foreseeable 

future. Recent (2005–2007) high rates of 

pup mortality in Saimaa ringed seals 

(more than double those in 1980–2000) 

have been attributed to insufficient 

snow for lair formation and occupation. 

Given the small population size of the 

Saimaa ringed seal, this subspecies is at 

particular risk from the projected habitat 

changes. Although Baltic, Ladoga, and 

Saimaa ringed seals have been reported 

using terrestrial resting sites when ice is 

absent, these sites provide inferior 

pupping and nursing habitat. As sea ice 

and snow conditions deteriorate, Baltic 

ringed seals will be limited in their 

ability to respond by shifting their range 

northward because the Baltic Sea is 

bounded to the north by land; and the 

landlocked seal populations in lakes 

Ladoga and Saimaa will be unable to 

shift their ranges. 

Impacts on Ringed Seals Related to 

Changes in Ocean Conditions 

Ocean acidification is an ongoing 

process whereby chemical reactions 

occur that reduce both seawater pH and 

the concentration of carbonate ions 

when CO2 is absorbed by seawater. 

Results from global ocean CO2 surveys 

over the past two decades have shown 

that ocean acidification is a predictable 

consequence of rising atmospheric CO2

levels. The process of ocean 

acidification has long been recognized, 

but the ecological implications of such 

chemical changes have only recently 

begun to be appreciated. The waters of 

the Arctic and adjacent seas are among 

the most vulnerable to ocean 

acidification. Seawater chemistry 

measurements in the Baltic Sea suggest 

that this sea is equally vulnerable to 

acidification as the Arctic. We are not 

aware of specific acidification studies in 

lakes Ladoga and Saimaa. Fresh water 

systems, however, are much less 

buffered than ocean waters and are 

likely to experience even larger changes 

in acidification levels than marine 

systems. The most likely impact of 

ocean acidification on ringed seals will 

be at lower tropic levels on which the 

species’ prey depends. Cascading effects 

are likely both in the marine and 

freshwater environments. Our limited 

understanding of planktonic and 

benthic calcifiers in the Arctic (e.g., 

even their baseline geographical 

distributions) means that future changes 

will be difficult to detect and evaluate. 

Warming water temperatures and 

decreasing ice likely will result in a 

contraction in the range of Arctic cod, 

a primary prey of ringed seals. The same 

changes will lead to colonization of the 

Arctic Ocean by more southerly species, 

including potential prey, predators, and 

competitors. The outcome of new 

competitive interactions cannot be 

specified, but as sea ice specialists, 

ringed seals may be at a disadvantage in 

competition with generalists in an icediminished Arctic. Prey biomass may be 

reduced as a consequence of increased 

freshwater input and loss of sea ice 

habitat for amphipods and copepods. 

On the other hand, overall pelagic 

productivity may increase. 

Summary of Factor A 

Climate models consistently project 

overall diminishing sea ice and snow 

cover at least through the current 

century, with regional variation in the 

timing and severity of those losses. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Increasing atmospheric concentrations 

of greenhouse gases, including CO2, will 

drive climate warming and increase 

acidification of the ringed seal’s ocean 

and lake habitats. The impact of ocean 

warming and acidification on ringed 

seals is expected to be primarily through 

changes in community composition. 

However, the nature and timing of these 

changes is uncertain. 

Diminishing ice and snow cover are 

the greatest challenges to persistence of 

all of the ringed seal subspecies. While 

winter precipitation is forecasted to 

increase in a warming Arctic, the 

duration of ice cover is projected to be 

substantially reduced, and the net effect 

will be lower snow accumulation on the 

ice. Within the century, snow cover 

adequate for the formation and 

occupation of birth lairs is forecasted 

only for parts of the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago, a portion of the central 

Arctic, and a few small isolated areas in 

a few other regions. Without the 

protection of lairs, ringed seals, 

especially newborn, are vulnerable to 

freezing and predation. We conclude 

that the ongoing and projected changes 

in sea ice habitat pose significant threats 

to the persistence of each of the five 

subspecies of the ringed seal. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Subsistence, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Ringed seals have been hunted by 

humans for millennia and remain a 

fundamental subsistence resource for 

many northern coastal communities 

today. Ringed seals were also harvested 

commercially in large numbers during 

the 20th century, which led to the 

depletion of their stocks in many parts 

of their range. Commercial harvests in 

the Sea of Okhotsk and predator-control 

harvests in the Baltic Sea, Lake Ladoga, 

and Lake Saimaa caused population 

declines in the past, but have since been 

restricted. Although subsistence harvest 

of the Arctic subspecies is currently 

substantial in some regions, harvest 

levels appear to be sustainable. Climate 

change is likely to alter patterns of 

subsistence harvest of marine mammals 

by changing their local densities or 

distributions in relation to hunting 

communities. Predictions of the impacts 

of climate change on subsistence 

hunting pressure are constrained by the 

complexity of interacting variables and 

imprecision of climate and sea ice 

models at small scales. Accurate 

information on both harvest levels and 

species’ abundance and trends will be 

needed in order to assess the impacts of 

hunting as well as to respond 

appropriately to potential climateinduced changes in populations. 

Recreational, scientific, and educational 

uses of ringed seals are minimal and are 

not expected to increase significantly in 

the foreseeable future. We conclude that 

overutilization does not currently 

threaten any of the five subspecies of 

the ringed seal. 

C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation 

Ringed seals have co-evolved with 

numerous parasites and diseases, and 

those relationships are presumed to be 

stable. Evidence of distemper virus, for 

example, has been reported in Arctic 

ringed seals, but there is no evidence of 

impacts to ringed seal abundance or 

productivity. Abiotic and biotic changes 

to ringed seal habitat potentially could 

lead to exposure to new pathogens or 

new levels of virulence, but we consider 

the potential threats to ringed seals as 

low. 

Ringed seals are most commonly 

preyed upon by Arctic foxes and polar 

bears, and less commonly by other 

terrestrial carnivores, sharks, and killer 

whales (Orcinus orca). When ringed seal 

pups are forced out of subnivean lairs 

prematurely because of low snow 

accumulation and/or early melts, gulls 

and ravens also successfully prey on 

them. Avian predation is facilitated not 

only by lack of sufficient snow cover but 

also by conditions favoring influxes of 

birds. Lydersen and Smith (1989) 

pointed out that the small size of 

newborn ringed seals, coupled with 

their prolonged nursing period, make 

them vulnerable to predation by birds 

and likely sets a southern limit to their 

distribution. 

Ringed seals and bearded seals are the 

primary prey of polar bears. Polar bear 

predation on ringed seals is most 

successful in moving offshore ice, often 

along floe edges and rarely in ice-free 

waters. Polar bears also successfully 

hunt ringed seals on stable shorefast ice 

by catching animals when they surface 

to breathe and when they occupy lairs. 

Hammill and Smith (1991) further noted 

that polar bear predation on ringed seal 

pups increased 4-fold in a year when 

average snow depths in their study area 

decreased from 23 to 10 cm. They 

concluded that while a high proportion 

of pups born each year are lost to 

predation, ‘‘without the protection 

provided by the subnivean lair, pup 

mortality would be much higher.’’ 

The distribution of Arctic foxes 

broadly overlaps with that of Arctic 

ringed seals. Arctic foxes prey on 

newborn seals by tunneling into the 

birth lairs. The range of the red fox 

overlaps with that of the Okhotsk, 

Baltic, Saimaa, and Ladoga subspecies, 

and on rare occasion red foxes also prey 

on newborn ringed seals in lairs. 

High rates of predation on ringed seal 

pups have been associated with 

anomalous weather events that caused 

subnivean lairs to collapse or melt 

before pups were weaned. Thus, 

declining snow depths and duration of 

snow cover during the period when 

ringed seal pups are born and nursed 

can be expected to lead to increased 

predation on ringed seal pups. We 

conclude that the threat posed to ringed 

seals by predation is currently 

moderate, but predation risk is expected 

to increase as snow and sea ice 

conditions change with a warming 

climate. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

A primary concern about the 

conservation status of the ringed seal 

stems from the likelihood that its sea ice 

habitat has been modified by the 

warming climate and, more so, that the 

scientific consensus projections are for 

continued and perhaps accelerated 

warming in the foreseeable future. A 

second major concern, related by the 

common driver of CO2 emissions, is the 

modification of habitat by ocean 

acidification, which may alter prey 

populations and other important aspects 

of the marine ecosystem. There are 

currently no effective mechanisms to 

regulate GHG emissions, which are 

contributing to global climate change 

and associated modifications to ringed 

seal habitat. The risk posed to ringed 

seals due to the lack of mechanisms to 

regulate GHG emissions is directly 

correlated to the risk posed by the 

effects of these emissions. The 

projections we used to assess risks from 

GHG emissions were based on the 

assumption that no regulation will take 

place (the underlying IPPC emissions 

scenarios were all ‘‘non-mitigated’’ 

scenarios). Therefore, the lack of 

mechanisms to regulate GHG emissions 

is already included in our risk 

assessment. We thus recognize that the 

lack of effective mechanisms to regulate 

global GHG emissions is contributing to 

the risks posed to ringed seals by these 

emissions. 

Drowning in fishing gear has been 

reported as the most common cause of 

death reported for Saimaa ringed seals. 

Although there have been seasonal 

fishing restrictions instituted in some 

parts of Lake Saimaa, these are 

apparently insufficient, as annual loss of 

seals has continued. We therefore 

conclude that the inadequacy of existing 

mechanisms to regulate bycatch of 

Saimma ringed seals is contributing to 

its endangered status. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77487 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence Pollution and Contaminants 

Contaminants research on ringed seals 

is very extensive and has been 

conducted in most parts of the species’ 

range (with the exception of the Sea of 

Okhotsk), particularly throughout the 

Arctic environment where ringed seals 

are an important diet item in coastal 

human communities. Pollutants such as 

organochlorine (OC) compounds and 

heavy metals have been found in all of 

the subspecies of ringed seal (with the 

exception of the Okhotsk ringed seal). 

The variety, sources, and transport 

mechanisms of contaminants vary 

across ringed seal ecosystems. Statistical 

analysis of OC compounds in marine 

mammals has shown that, for most OCs, 

the European Arctic is more 

contaminated than the Canadian and 

U.S. Arctic. 

Reduced productivity in the Baltic 

ringed seal in recent decades resulted 

from impaired fertility that was 

associated with pollutants. High levels 

of DDT (dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane) and PCBs 

(polychlorinated biphenyls) were found 

in Baltic (Bothnian Bay) ringed seals in 

the 1960s and 1970s, and PCB levels 

were correlated with reproductive 

failure. More recently, PFOSs 

(perfluorooctane sulfonate; a 

perfluorinated contaminant or PFC) 

were reported as 15 times greater in 

Baltic ringed seals than in Arctic ringed 

seals. 

Mercury levels detected in Saimaa 

ringed seals were higher than those 

reported for the Baltic Sea and Arctic 

Ocean. It has been suggested that high 

mercury levels may have contributed to 

the Saimaa ringed seal’s population 

decline in the 1960s and 1970s. The 

high level of mercury in the seal’s prey 

and shortage of selenium would reduce 

the seal’s capacity for metabolic 

detoxification. The major source of 

mercury in Lake Saimaa has been noted 

as the pulp industry. 

Present and future impacts of 

contaminants on ringed seal 

populations should remain a high 

priority issue. Climate change has the 

potential to increase the transport of 

pollutants from lower latitudes to the 

Arctic, highlighting the importance of 

continued monitoring of ringed seal 

contaminant levels. 

Oil and Gas Activities 

Extensive oil and gas reserves coupled 

with rising global demand make it very 

likely that oil and gas activity will 

increase throughout the U.S. Arctic and 

internationally in the future. Climate 

change is expected to enhance marine 

access to offshore oil and gas reserves by 

reducing sea ice extent, thickness, and 

seasonal duration, thereby improving 

ship access to these resources around 

the margins of the Arctic Basin. Oil and 

gas exploration, development, and 

production activities include, but are 

not limited to: Seismic surveys; 

exploratory, delineation, and 

production drilling operations; 

construction of artificial islands, 

causeways, ice roads, shore-based 

facilities, and pipelines; and vessel and 

aircraft operations. These activities have 

the potential to impact ringed seals 

primarily through noise, physical 

disturbance, and pollution, particularly 

in the event of a large oil spill or 

blowout. 

Within the range of the Arctic ringed 

seal, offshore oil and gas exploration 

and production activities are currently 

underway in the United States, Canada, 

Greenland, Norway, and Russia. In the 

United States, oil and gas activities have 

been conducted off the coast of Alaska 

since the 1970s, with most of the 

activity occurring in the Beaufort Sea. 

Although five exploratory wells have 

been drilled in the past, no oil fields 

have been developed or brought into 

production in the Chukchi Sea to date. 

In December 2009, an exploration plan 

was approved by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation, and 

Enforcement (formerly the Minerals 

Management Service) for drilling at five 

potential sites within three prospects in 

the Chukchi Sea in 2010. These plans 

have been put on hold until at least 

2011 pending further review following 

the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the 

Gulf of Mexico. There are no offshore oil 

or gas fields currently in development 

or production in the Bering Sea. 

Of all the oil and gas produced in the 

Arctic today, about 80 percent of the oil 

and 99 percent of the gas comes from 

the Russian Arctic (AMAP, 2007). With 

over 75 percent of known Arctic oil, 

over 90 percent of known Arctic gas, 

and vast estimates of undiscovered oil 

and gas reserves, Russia will continue to 

be the dominant producer of Arctic oil 

and gas in the future (AMAP, 2007). Oil 

and gas developments in the Kara and 

Barents Seas began in 1992, and largescale production activities were 

initiated during 1998–2000. Oil and gas 

production activities are expected to 

grow in the western Siberian provinces 

and Kara and Barents Seas in the future. 

Recently there has also been renewed 

interest in the Russian Chukchi Sea, as 

new evidence emerges to support the 

notion that the region may contain 

world-class oil and gas reserves. In the 

Sea of Okhotsk, oil and natural gas 

operations are active off the 

northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, 

and future developments are planned in 

the western Kamchatka and Magadan 

regions. 

A major project underway in the 

Baltic Sea is the Nord Stream 1,200-km 

gas line, which will be the longest 

subsea natural gas pipeline in the world. 

Concerns have been expressed about the 

potential disturbance of World War II 

landmines and chemical toxins in the 

sediment during construction. There are 

also concerns about potential leaks and 

spills from the pipeline and impacts on 

the Baltic Sea marine environment once 

the pipeline is operational. Circulation 

of waters in the Baltic Sea is limited and 

any contaminants may not be flushed 

efficiently. 

Large oil spills or blowouts are 

considered to be the greatest threat of oil 

and gas exploration activities in the 

marine environment. In contrast to 

spills on land, large spills at sea are 

difficult to contain and may spread over 

hundreds or thousands of kilometers. 

Responding to a spill in the Arctic 

environment would be particularly 

challenging. Reaching a spill site and 

responding effectively would be 

especially difficult, if not impossible, in 

winter when weather can be severe and 

daylight extremely limited. Oil spills 

under ice or in ice-covered waters are 

the most challenging to deal with, 

simply because they cannot be 

contained or recovered effectively with 

current technology. The difficulties 

experienced in stopping and containing 

the oil blowout at the Deepwater 

Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico, 

where environmental conditions and 

response preparedness are 

comparatively good, point toward even 

greater challenges of attempting a 

similar feat in a much more 

environmentally severe and 

geographically remote location. 

Although planning, management, and 

use of best practices can help reduce 

risks and impacts, the history of oil and 

gas activities, including recent events, 

indicates that accidents cannot be 

eliminated. Tanker spills, pipeline 

leaks, and oil blowouts are likely to 

occur in the future, even under the most 

stringent regulatory and safety systems. 

In the Sea of Okhotsk, an accident at an 

oil production complex resulted in a 

large (3.5-ton) spill in 1999, and in 

winter 2009, an unknown quantity of oil 

associated with a tanker fouled 3 km of 

coastline and hundreds of birds in 

Aniva Bay. To date, there have been no 

large spills in the Arctic marine 

environment from oil and gas activities. 

Researchers have suggested that pups 

of ice-associated seals may be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77488 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

particularly vulnerable to fouling of 

their dense lanugo coats. Adults, 

juveniles, and weaned young of the year 

rely on blubber for insulation, so effects 

on their thermoregulation are expected 

to be minimal. A variety of other acute 

effects of oil exposure have been shown 

to reduce seals’ health and possibly 

survival. Direct ingestion of oil, 

ingestion of contaminated prey, or 

inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors can 

cause serious health effects including 

death. 

It is important to evaluate the effects 

of anthropogenic perturbations, such as 

oil spills, in the context of historical 

data. Without historical data on 

distribution and abundance, it is 

difficult to predict the impacts of an oil 

spill on ringed seals. Population 

monitoring studies implemented in 

areas where significant industrial 

activities are likely to occur would 

allow for comparison of future impacts 

with historical patterns, and thus to 

determine the magnitude of potential 

effects. 

Commercial Fisheries Interactions and 

Bycatch 

Commercial fisheries may impact 

ringed seals through direct interactions 

(i.e., incidental take or bycatch) and 

indirectly through competition for prey 

resources and other impacts on prey 

populations. Estimates of Arctic ringed 

seal bycatch could only be found for 

commercial fisheries that operate in 

Alaskan waters. Based on data from 

2002–2006, there has been an annual 

average of 0.46 mortalities of Arctic 

ringed seals incidental to commercial 

fishing operations. NAMMCO (2002) 

stated that in the North Atlantic region 

Arctic ringed seals are seldom caught in 

fishing gear because their distribution 

does not coincide with intensive 

fisheries in most areas. No information 

could be found regarding ringed seal 

bycatch levels in the Sea of Okhotsk; 

however, given the intensive levels of 

commercial fishing that occur in this 

sea, bycatch of ringed seals likely occurs 

on some level there. 

Drowning in fishing gear has been 

reported as one of the most significant 

mortality factors for seals in the Baltic 

Sea, especially for young seals, which 

are prone to getting trapped in fishing 

nets. There are no reliable estimates of 

seal bycatch in this sea, and existing 

estimates are known to be low in many 

areas, making risk assessment difficult. 

Based on monitoring of 5 percent of the 

commercial fishing effort in the 

Swedish coastal fisheries, bycatch of 

Baltic ringed seals was estimated at 50 

seals in 2004. In Finland, it was 

estimated that about 70 Baltic ringed 

seals were caught by fishing gear 

annually during the period 1997–1999. 

There are no estimates of seal bycatch 

from Lithuanian, Estonian, or Russian 

waters of the Baltic. It has been 

suggested that decreases in the use of 

the most harmful types of nets (i.e., 

gillnets and unprotected trap nets), 

along with the development of sealproof fishing gear, may have resulted in 

a decline in Baltic ringed seal bycatch 

(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 

2007). 

It has been estimated that 200–400 

Ladoga ringed seals died annually in 

fishing gear during the late 1980s and 

early 1990s. Fishing patterns have 

reportedly changed since then due to 

changes in the economic market. As of 

the late 1990s, fishing was not regarded 

to be a threat to Ladoga ringed seal 

populations, but it was suggested that it 

could become so should market 

conditions improve (Sipila ̈ and 

Hyva ̈rinen, 1998). Based on interviews 

with fishermen in Lake Ladoga, 

Verevkin et al. (2006) reported that at 

least 483 Ladoga ringed seals were 

killed in fishing gear in 2003, even 

though official records only recorded 60 

cases of bycatch. These figures from 

2003 suggest that bycatch mortality is 

likely to be a continuing conservation 

concern for Ladoga ringed seals. 

Small-scale fishing was thought to be 

the most serious threat to ringed seals in 

Lake Saimaa (Sipila ̈ and Hyva ̈rinen, 

1998). More than half of the Saimaa seal 

carcasses that were examined for the 

period 1977–2000 were determined to 

have died from drowning in fishing 

gear, making this the most common 

cause of death for Saimaa ringed seals. 

Season and gear restrictions have been 

implemented in some parts of the lake 

to reduce bycatch. However, during the 

late 1990s, 1–3 adult ringed seals were 

lost annually from drowning in fishing 

gear (Sipila ̈ and Hyva ̈rinen, 1998), and 

bycatch mortalities have been reported 

since then, indicating that bycatch 

mortality remains a significant 

conservation concern. 

For indirect interactions, we note that 

commercial fisheries target a number of 

known ringed seal prey species such as 

walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma), Pacific cod, herring 

(Clupea sp.), and capelin. These 

fisheries may affect ringed seals 

indirectly through reductions in prey 

biomass and through other fishing 

mediated changes in ringed seal prey 

species. 

Shipping 

The extraordinary reduction in Arctic 

sea ice that has occurred in recent years 

has renewed interest in using the Arctic 

Ocean as a potential waterway for 

coastal, regional, and trans-Arctic 

marine operations. Climate models 

predict that the warming trend in the 

Arctic will accelerate, causing the ice to 

begin melting earlier in the spring and 

resume freezing later in the fall, 

resulting in an expansion of potential 

shipping routes and lengthening the 

potential navigation season. 

The most significant risk posed by 

shipping activities in the Arctic is the 

accidental or illegal discharge of oil or 

other toxic substances carried by ships, 

due to their immediate and potentially 

long-term effects on individual animals, 

populations, food webs, and the 

environment. Shipping activities can 

also affect ringed seals directly through 

noise and physical disturbance (e.g., 

icebreaking vessels), as well as 

indirectly through ship emissions and 

possible effects of introduction of exotic 

species on the lower trophic levels of 

ringed seal food webs. 

Current and future shipping activities 

in the Arctic pose varying levels of 

threats to ringed seals depending on the 

type and intensity of the shipping 

activity and its degree of spatial and 

temporal overlap with ringed seal 

habitats. These factors are inherently 

difficult to know or predict, making 

threat assessment highly uncertain. 

However, given what is currently 

known about ringed seal populations 

and shipping activity in the Arctic, 

some general assessments can be made. 

Arctic ringed seal densities are variable 

and depend on many factors; however, 

they are often reported to be widely 

distributed in relatively low densities 

and rarely congregate in large numbers. 

This may help mitigate the risks of more 

localized shipping threats (e.g., oil spills 

or physical disturbance), since the 

impacts from such events would be less 

likely to affect large numbers of seals. 

The fact that nearly all shipping activity 

in the Arctic (with the exception of 

icebreaking) purposefully avoids areas 

of ice and primarily occurs during the 

ice-free or low-ice seasons also helps to 

mitigate the risks associated with 

shipping to ringed seals, since they are 

closely associated with ice at nearly all 

times of the year. Icebreakers pose 

special risks to ringed seals because 

they are capable of operating year-round 

in all but the heaviest ice conditions 

and are often used to escort other types 

of vessels (e.g., tankers and bulk 

carriers) through ice-covered areas. If 

icebreaking activities increase in the 

Arctic in the future as expected, the 

likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., oil 

spills, pollution, noise, disturbance, and 

habitat alteration) occurring in icemstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77489 

covered areas where ringed seals occur 

will likely also increase. 

Though few details are available 

regarding actual shipping levels in the 

Sea of Okhotsk, resource development 

over the last decade stands out as a 

likely significant contributor. It is clear 

that relatively high levels of shipping 

are needed to support present oil and 

gas operations. In addition, large-scale 

commercial fishing occurs in many 

parts of the sea. Winter shipping 

activities in the southern Sea of Okhotsk 

are expected to increase considerably as 

oil and gas production pushes the 

development and use of new classes of 

icebreaking ships, thereby increasing 

the potential for shipping accidents and 

oil spills in the ice-covered regions of 

this sea. 

The Baltic Sea is one of the most 

heavily trafficked shipping areas in the 

world, with more than 2,000 large ships 

(including about 200 oil tankers) sailing 

on its waters on an average day. 

Additionally, ferry lines, fishing boats, 

and cruise ships frequent the Baltic Sea. 

Both the number and size of ships 

(especially oil tankers) have grown in 

recent years, and the amount of oil 

transported in the Baltic (especially 

from the Gulf of Finland) has increased 

significantly since 2000. The risk of oil 

exposure for seals living in the Baltic 

Sea is considered to be greatest in the 

Gulf of Finland, where oil shipping 

routes pass through ringed seal pupping 

areas as well as close to rocks and islets 

where seals sometimes haul out. 

Icebreaking during the winter is 

considered to be the most significant 

marine traffic factor for seals in the 

Baltic Sea, especially in the Bothnian 

Bay. 

Lakes Ladoga and Saimaa are 

connected to the Baltic Sea and other 

bodies of water via a network of rivers 

and canals and are used as waterways 

to transport people, resources, and cargo 

throughout the Baltic region. However, 

reviews of the biology and conservation 

of Ladoga and Samiaa ringed seals have 

not identified shipping-related activities 

(other than accidental bycatch in fishing 

gear) as being important risks to the 

conservation status of these subspecies. 

The threats posed from shipping 

activity in the Sea of Okhotsk, Baltic 

Sea, and lakes Ladoga and Saimaa are 

largely the same as they are for the 

Arctic. Two obvious but important 

distinctions between these regions and 

the Arctic are that these bodies of water 

are geographically smaller and more 

confined than many areas where the 

Arctic subspecies lives, and they 

contain much smaller populations of 

ringed seals. Therefore, shipping 

impacts and ringed seals are more likely 

to overlap spatially in these regions, and 

a single accident (e.g., a large oil spill) 

could potentially impact these smaller 

populations severely. However, the lack 

of specific information on actual threats 

and impacts (now and in the future) 

makes threat assessment in these 

regions similarly uncertain. More 

information is needed in order to 

adequately assess the risks of shipping 

to ringed seals. 

Summary of Factor E 

We find that the threats posed by 

pollutants, oil and gas activities, 

fisheries, and shipping, do not 

individually or cumulatively raise 

concern about them placing the Arctic 

or Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seals at 

risk of becoming endangered. We 

recognize, however, that the 

significance of these threats would 

increase for populations diminished by 

the effects of climate change or other 

threats. 

Reduced productivity in the Baltic 

Sea ringed seal in recent decades 

resulted from impaired fertility that was 

associated with pollutants. We do not 

have any information to conclude that 

there are currently population-level 

effects on Baltic ringed seals from 

contaminant exposure. We find that the 

threats posed by pollutants, petroleum 

development, commercial fisheries, and 

increased ship traffic do not 

individually or cumulatively pose a 

significant risk to the persistence of the 

Baltic ringed seal throughout all or a 

significant portion of this subspecies’ 

range. We recognize, however, that the 

significance of these threats would 

increase for populations diminished by 

the effects of climate change or other 

threats. We also note that, particularly 

given the elevated contaminant load in 

the Baltic Sea, continued efforts are 

necessary to ensure that populationlevel effects from contaminant exposure 

do not recur in Baltic ringed seals in the 

future. 

Drowning of seals in fishing gear and 

disturbance by human activities are 

conservation concerns for ringed seals 

in lakes Ladoga and Saimaa and could 

exacerbate the effects of climate change 

on these seal populations. Drowning in 

fishing gear is also one of the most 

significant sources of mortality for 

ringed seals in the Baltic Sea. We 

currently do not have any data to 

conclude that these threats are having 

population-level effects on Ladoga or 

Baltic ringed seals. However, bycatch 

mortality in Lake Ladoga particularly 

warrants additional investigation, as 

does consideration of ways to minimize 

seal entanglement in fishing gear. Given 

the very low numbers of the Saimaa 

ringed seal, we consider the risk posed 

to this subspecies from mortality 

incidental to fishing activities to be a 

significant factor in our classification of 

the Saimaa ringed seal as endangered. 

Analysis of Demographic Risks 

Threats to a species’ long-term 

persistence are manifested 

demographically as risks to its 

abundance; productivity; spatial 

structure and connectivity; and genetic 

and ecological diversity. These 

demographic risks provide the most 

direct indices or proxies of extinction 

risk. A species at very low levels of 

abundance and with few populations 

will be less tolerant to environmental 

variation, catastrophic events, genetic 

processes, demographic stochasticity, 

ecological interactions, and other 

processes. A rate of productivity that is 

unstable or declining over a long period 

of time can indicate poor resiliency to 

future environmental change. A species 

that is not widely distributed across a 

variety of well-connected habitats is at 

increased risk of extinction due to 

environmental perturbations, including 

catastrophic events. A species that has 

lost locally adapted genetic and 

ecological diversity may lack the raw 

resources necessary to exploit a wide 

array of environments and endure shortand long-term environmental changes. 

The key factors limiting the viability 

of all five ringed seal subspecies are the 

forecasted reductions in ice extent and, 

in particular, depths and duration of 

snow cover on ice. Early snow melts 

already are evident in much of the 

species’ range. Increasingly late ice 

formation in autumn is forecasted, 

contributing to expectations of 

substantial decreases in snow 

accumulation. The ringed seal’s specific 

requirement for habitats with adequate 

spring snow cover is manifested in the 

pups’ low tolerance for exposure to wet, 

cold conditions and their vulnerability 

to predation. Premature failure of the 

snow cover has caused high mortality 

due to freezing and predation. Climate 

warming will result in increasingly 

early snow melts, exposing vulnerable 

ringed seal pups to predators and 

hypothermia. 

The BRT considered the current risks 

to the persistence of Arctic, Okhotsk, 

Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals as low 

to moderate. Given the low population 

size (less than 300 seals) of the Saimaa 

ringed seal, the present risk to 

population persistence was judged by 

the BRT to be high for all of the 

demographic attributes. 

Within the foreseeable future, the BRT 

judged the risks to Arctic ringed seal 

persistence to be moderate (diversity 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and abundance) to high (productivity 

and spatial structure). As noted above, 

the impacts to Arctic ringed seals may 

be somewhat ameliorated initially if the 

subspecies’s range retracts northward 

with sea ice habitats, but by the end of 

the century snow depths are projected 

to be insufficient for lair formation and 

maintenance throughout much of the 

subspecies’ range. The BRT also judged 

the risks to persistence of the Okhotsk 

ringed seal in the foreseeable future to 

be moderate (diversity) to high 

(abundance, productivity, and spatial 

structure). Okhotsk ringed seals will 

have limited opportunity to shift their 

range northward because the sea ice will 

retract toward land. 

Risks to ringed seal persistence within 

the foreseeable future were judged by 

the BRT to be highest for the Baltic, 

Ladoga, and, in particular, Saimaa 

ringed seal. Risks were judged as 

moderate (diversity) to high (abundance 

productivity, and spatial structure) for 

Baltic ringed seals; moderate (diversity), 

or high to very high (abundance, 

productivity, and spatial structure) for 

Ladoga ringed seals; and high to very 

high (abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity) for Saimaa 

ringed seals. As noted above, Ladoga 

and Saimaa ringed seals are landlocked 

populations that will be unable to 

respond to the pronounced degradation 

of ice and snow habitats forecasted to 

occur by shifting their range. In 

addition, the range of the Baltic ringed 

seal is bounded to the north by land, 

and so there is limited opportunity for 

this subspecies to shift its range. The 

low density of the Saimaa ringed seal 

population coupled with limited 

dispersal opportunities and depensatory 

effects continue to put this subspecies at 

risk of extinction. An estimate of the 

demographic effective population size 

of Saimaa ringed seals indicated that 

low population size is exacerbated by 

habitat fragmentation and that the 

subspecies is ‘‘vulnerable to extinction 

due to demographic stochasticity alone’’ 

(Kokko et al., 1998). 

Conservation Efforts 

When considering the listing of a 

species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 

requires us to consider efforts by any 

State, foreign nation, or political 

subdivision of a State or foreign nation 

to protect the species. Such efforts 

would include measures by Native 

American tribes and organizations, local 

governments, and private organizations. 

Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and 

Federal consultation requirements (16 

U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation 

measures. In addition to identifying 

these efforts, under the ESA and our 

Policy on the Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003), we must 

evaluate the certainty of implementing 

the conservation efforts and the 

certainty that the conservation efforts 

will be effective on the basis of whether 

the effort or plan establishes specific 

conservation objectives, identifies the 

necessary steps to reduce threats or 

factors for decline, includes quantifiable 

performance measures for the 

monitoring of compliance and 

effectiveness, incorporates the 

principles of adaptive management, and 

is likely to improve the species’ viability 

at the time of the listing determination. 

International Conservation Efforts 

Specifically To Protect Ringed Seals 

Baltic ringed seals: (1) Some protected 

areas in Sweden, Finland, the Russian 

Federation, and Estonia include Baltic 

ringed seal habitat; (2) The Baltic ringed 

seal is included in the Red Book of the 

Russian Federation as ‘‘Category 2’’ 

(decreasing abundance), is classified as 

‘‘Endangered’’ in the Red Data Book of 

Estonia, and is listed as ‘‘Near 

Threatened’’ on the Finnish and 

Swedish Red Lists; (3) Hunting of Baltic 

ringed seals has been suspended in 

Baltic Sea region countries, although 

Finland is permitting the harvest of 

small numbers of ringed seals in 

Bothnia Bay beginning in 2010; and (4) 

Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) 

recommendation 27–28/2 (2006) on 

conservation of seals in the Baltic Sea 

established a seal expert group to 

address and coordinate seal 

conservation and management across 

the Baltic Sea region. This expert group 

has made progress toward completing a 

set of related tasks identified in the 

HELCOM recommendation, including 

coordinating development of national 

management plans and developing 

monitoring programs. The national red 

lists and red data books noted above 

highlight the conservation status of 

listed species and can inform 

conservation planning and 

prioritization. 

Ladoga ringed seals: (1) Hunting of 

ringed seals in Lake Ladoga has been 

prohibited since 1980; (2) In May 2009, 

Ladoga Skerries National Park, which 

will encompass northern and northwest 

Lake Ladoga, was added to the Russian 

Federation’s list of protected areas to be 

established; and (3) The Ladoga ringed 

seal is included in the Red Data Books 

of the Russian Federation, the Leningrad 

Region, and Karelia. 

Saimaa ringed seals: (1) The Saimaa 

ringed seal is classified as a non-game 

species, and has been protected from 

hunting under Finnish law since 1955; 

(2) The Saimaa ringed seal is designated 

as an ‘‘Endangered’’ species on the 

Finnish Red List; (3) To conserve seal 

breeding areas, new construction on 

Lake Saimaa is not permitted within 

designated shoreline conservation areas 

(water bodies excluded), some of which 

are located within two national parks; 

(4) New construction on Lake Saimaa 

outside of designated shoreline 

conservation areas has been regulated 

since 1999 to limit the density of new 

buildings; however, it has been reported 

that lakeshore development has still 

increased substantially; (5) To reduce 

mortalities due to fishery interactions, 

restrictions have been placed on certain 

types of fishing gear within the breeding 

areas of the Saimaa ringed seal, and 

seasonal closure agreements have been 

signed with numerous fishing 

associations. However, continuing loss 

of seals, in particular juveniles, due to 

drowning in fishing gear has been 

reported. A working group for 

reconciliation of fishing and 

conservation of Saimaa ringed seals has 

recommended establishing a single 

contiguous protected area by December 

2010 within which a mandatory 

seasonal net fishing closure and other 

fishing restrictions would be 

implemented. The Finnish Ministry of 

Agriculture and Forestry recently 

reported that the Finnish government 

has signed agreements with most of the 

Saimaa Lake fishing associations and 

that it is continuing to negotiate 

agreements with a few associations. 

However, in May 2010 the European 

Commission sent formal notice to 

Finland that it had not implemented 

adequate measures to protect the Saimaa 

ringed seal and that better targeted 

measures are still needed. 

International Agreements 

The International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red List identifies 

and documents those species believed 

by its reviewers to be most in need of 

conservation attention if global 

extinction rates are to be reduced, and 

is widely recognized as the most 

comprehensive, apolitical global 

approach for evaluating the 

conservation status of plant and animal 

species. In order to produce Red Lists of 

threatened species worldwide, the IUCN 

Species Survival Commission draws on 

a network of scientists and partner 

organizations, which uses a 

standardized assessment process to 

determine species’ risks of extinction. 

However, it should be noted that the 

IUCN Red List assessment criteria differ 

from the listing criteria provided by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77491 

ESA. The ringed seal is currently 

classified as a species of ‘‘Least Concern’’ 

on the IUCN Red List. The Red List 

assessment notes that, given the risks 

posed to the ringed seal by climate 

change, the conservation status of all 

ringed seal subspecies should be 

reassessed within a decade. The 

European Red List compiles 

assessments of the conservation status 

of European species according to IUCN 

red listing guidelines. The assessment 

for the ringed seal currently classifies 

the Saimaa ringed seal as ‘‘Endangered’’ 

and the Ladoga ringed seal as 

‘‘Vulnerable.’’ The Baltic ringed seal is 

classified as a species of ‘‘Least Concern’’ 

on the European Red List, with the 

caveats that population numbers remain 

low and that there are significant 

conservation concerns in some part of 

the Baltic Sea. Similar to inclusion in 

national red lists and red data books, 

these listings highlight the conservation 

status of listed species and can inform 

conservation planning and 

prioritization. 

The Convention on the Conservation 

of European Wildlife and Natural 

Habitats (Bern Convention) is a regional 

treaty on conservation. Current parties 

to the Bern Convention within the range 

of the ringed seal include Norway, 

Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. 

The agreement calls for signatories to 

provide special protection for fauna 

species listed in Appendix II (species to 

be strictly protected) and Appendix III 

to the convention (species for which any 

exploitation is to be regulated). The 

Saimaa and Ladoga ringed seals are 

listed under Appendix II, and other 

ringed seals fall under Appendix III. As 

discussed above, the Saimaa ringed seal 

has been protected from hunting since 

1955, hunting of Ladoga ringed seals has 

been prohibited since 1980, and hunting 

of Baltic ringed seals has also been 

suspended (but with the recent 

exception noted above). 

The provisions of the Council of the 

European Union’s Directive 92/43/EEC 

on the Conservation of Natural Habitats 

of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats 

Directive) are intended to promote the 

conservation of biodiversity in 

European Union (EU) member 

countries. EU members meet the habitat 

conservation requirements of the 

directive by designating qualified sites 

for inclusion in a special conservation 

areas network known as Natura 2000. 

Current members of the EU within the 

range of the ringed seal include Sweden, 

Finland, and Estonia. Annex II to the 

Habitats Directive lists species whose 

conservation is to be specifically 

considered in designating special 

conservation areas, Annex IV identifies 

species determined to be in need of 

strict protection, and Annex V identifies 

species whose exploitation may require 

specific management measures to 

maintain favorable conservation status. 

The Saimaa ringed seal is listed in 

Annex II (as a priority species) and IV, 

the Baltic ringed seal is listed in Annex 

II and V, and the Arctic ringed seal is 

listed in Annex V. Some designated 

Natura 2000 sites include Baltic or 

Saimaa ringed seal habitat. Although 

Finland has implemented specific 

management measures and designated 

conservation areas for Saimaa ringed 

seals, as discussed above, the European 

Commission has sent its first formal 

notice to Finland that better targeted 

measures are urgently needed. 

In 2005 the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) designated the 

Baltic Sea Area outside of Russian 

territorial waters as a Particularly 

Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), which 

provides a framework under IMOS’s 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL 73/78) for developing 

internationally agreed upon measures to 

reduce risks posed from maritime 

shipping activities. To date, a maritime 

traffic separation scheme is the sole 

protective measure associated with the 

Baltic PSSA. Expansion of Russian oil 

terminals is contributing to a marked 

increase in oil transport in the Baltic 

Sea; however, the Russian Federation 

has declined to support the Baltic Sea 

PSSA designation. 

HELCOM’s main goal since the 

Helsinki convention first entered force 

in 1980 has been to address Baltic Sea 

pollution caused by hazardous 

substances and to restore and safeguard 

the ecology of the Baltic. HELCOM acts 

as a coordinating body among the nine 

countries with coasts along the Baltic 

Sea. Activities of HELCOM have led to 

significant reductions in a number of 

monitored hazardous substances in the 

Baltic Sea. However, pollution caused 

by hazardous substances continues to 

pose risks. 

The Agreement on Cooperation in 

Research, Conservation, and 

Management of Marine Mammals in the 

North Atlantic (North Atlantic Marine 

Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]) was 

established in 1992 by a regional 

agreement among the governments of 

Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and the 

Faroe Islands to cooperatively conserve 

and manage marine mammals in the 

North Atlantic. NAMMCO has provided 

a forum for the exchange of information 

and coordination among member 

countries on ringed seal research and 

management. 

There are no known regulatory 

mechanisms that effectively address the 

factors believed to be contributing to 

reductions in ringed seal sea ice habitat 

at this time. The primary international 

regulatory mechanisms addressing GHG 

emissions and global warming are the 

United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and the Kyoto 

Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol’s 

first commitment period sets targets for 

action only through 2012. There is no 

regulatory mechanism governing GHG 

emissions in the years beyond 2012. The 

United States, although a signatory to 

the Kyoto Protocol, has not ratified it; 

therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is nonbinding on the United States. 

Domestic U.S. Regulatory Mechanisms 

Several laws exist that directly or 

indirectly promote the conservation and 

protection of ringed seals. These include 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, as Amended, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, and the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act. Although there are some existing 

domestic regulatory mechanisms 

directed at reducing GHG emissions, 

these mechanisms are not expected to 

be effective in counteracting the 

increase in global GHG emissions 

within the foreseeable future. 

At this time, we are not aware of any 

formalized conservation efforts for 

ringed seals that have yet to be 

implemented, or which have recently 

been implemented, but have yet to show 

their effectiveness in removing threats 

to the species. Therefore, we do not 

need to evaluate any conservation 

efforts under the PECE. 

NMFS has established a comanagement agreement with the Ice 

Seal Committee (ISC) to conserve and 

provide co-management of subsistence 

use of ice seals by Alaska Natives. The 

ISC is an Alaska Native Organization 

dedicated to conserving seal 

populations, habitat, and hunting in 

order to help preserve native cultures 

and traditions. The ISC co-manages ice 

seals with NMFS by monitoring 

subsistence harvest and cooperating on 

needed research and education 

programs pertaining to ice seals. 

NMFS’s National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory is engaged in an active 

research program for ringed seals. The 

new information from research will be 

used to enhance our understanding of 

the risk factors affecting ringed seals, 

thereby improving our ability to develop 

effective management measures for the 

species. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Determinations 

We have reviewed the status of the 

ringed seal, fully considering the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, including the status review 

report. We have reviewed threats to the 

five subspecies of the ringed seal, as 

well as other relevant factors, and given 

consideration to conservation efforts 

and special designations for ringed seals 

by states and foreign nations. In 

consideration of all of the threats and 

potential threats to ringed seals 

identified above, the assessment of the 

risks posed by those threats, the 

possible cumulative impacts, and the 

uncertainty associated with all of these, 

we draw the following conclusions: 

Arctic subspecies: (1) There are no 

specific estimates of population size 

available for the Arctic subspecies, but 

most experts would postulate that the 

population numbers in the millions. (2) 

The depth and duration of snow cover 

are forecasted to decrease substantially 

throughout the range of the Arctic 

ringed seal. Within this century, snow 

cover is forecasted to be inadequate for 

the formation and occupation of birth 

lairs over most of the subspecies’ range. 

(3) Because ringed seals stay with the 

ice as it annually advances and retreats, 

the southern edge of the ringed seal’s 

range may initially shift northward. 

Whether ringed seals will continue to 

move north with retreating ice over the 

deeper, less productive Arctic Basin 

waters and whether the species that 

they prey on will also move north is 

uncertain. (4) The Arctic ringed seal’s 

pupping and nursing seasons are 

adapted to the phenology of ice and 

snow. The projected decreases in sea 

ice, and especially snow cover, will 

likely lead to decreased pup survival 

and a substantial decline in the 

abundance of the Arctic subspecies. We 

conclude that the Arctic subspecies of 

the ringed seal is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, but is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we propose to list the Arctic 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened under the ESA. 

Okhotsk subspecies: (1) The best 

available scientific data suggest a 

conservative estimate of 676,000 ringed 

seals in the Sea of Okhotsk, apparently 

reduced from historical numbers. (2) 

Before the end of the current century, 

ice suitable for pupping and nursing is 

forecasted to be limited to the 

northernmost regions of the Sea of 

Okhotsk, and projections suggest that 

snow cover may already be inadequate 

for birth lairs. The Sea of Okhotsk is 

bounded to the north by land, which 

will limit the ability of Okhotsk ringed 

seals to respond to deteriorating sea ice 

and snow conditions by shifting their 

range northward. (3) Although some 

Okhotsk ringed seals have been reported 

resting on island shores during the icefree season, these sites provide inferior 

pupping and nursing habitat. (4) The 

Okhotsk ringed seal’s pupping and 

nursing seasons are adapted to the 

phenology of ice and snow. Decreases in 

sea ice habitat suitable for pupping, 

nursing, and molting will likely lead to 

declines in abundance and productivity 

of the Okhotsk subspecies. We conclude 

that the Okhotsk subspecies of the 

ringed seal is not in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but is likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

we propose to list the Okhotsk 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened under the ESA. 

Baltic subspecies: (1) Current 

estimates of 10,000 Baltic ringed seals 

suggest that the population has been 

significantly reduced from historical 

numbers. (2) Reduced productivity in 

the Baltic subspecies in recent decades 

resulted from impaired fertility 

associated with pollutants. (3) Dramatic 

reductions in sea ice extent are 

projected by mid-century and beyond in 

the Baltic Sea, coupled with declining 

depth and insulating properties of snow 

cover on Baltic Sea ice. The Baltic Sea 

is bounded to the north by land, which 

will limit the ability of Baltic ringed 

seals to respond to deteriorating sea ice 

and snow conditions by shifting their 

range northward. (4) Although Baltic 

ringed seals have been reported resting 

on island shores or offshore reefs during 

the ice-free season, these sites provide 

inferior pupping and nursing habitat. (5) 

The Baltic ringed seal’s pupping and 

nursing seasons are adapted to the 

phenology of ice and snow. The 

projected substantial reductions in sea 

ice extent and deteriorating snow 

conditions are expected to lead to 

decreased survival of pups and a 

substantial decline in the abundance of 

the Baltic subspecies. We conclude that 

the Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal 

is not in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range, 

but is likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

propose to list the Baltic subspecies of 

the ringed seal as threatened under the 

ESA. 

Ladoga subspecies: (1) The 

population size of the ringed seal in 

Lake Ladoga is currently estimated at 

3,000 to 5,000 seals. (2) Reduced ice and 

snow cover are expected in Lake Ladoga 

within this century based on regional 

projections. As ice and snow conditions 

deteriorate, the landlocked population 

of Ladoga ringed seals will be unable to 

respond by shifting its range. (3) 

Although Ladoga ringed seals have been 

reported resting on rocks and island 

shores during the ice-free season, these 

sites provide inferior pupping and 

nursing habitat. (4) The Ladoga ringed 

seal’s pupping and nursing seasons are 

adapted to the phenology of ice and 

snow. Reductions in ice and snow are 

expected to lead to decreased survival of 

pups and a substantial decline in the 

abundance of this subspecies. We 

conclude that the Ladoga subspecies of 

the ringed seal is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, but is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we propose to list the Ladoga 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened under the ESA. 

Saimaa subspecies: (1) The Saimaa 

ringed seal population currently 

numbers less than 300 animals, and has 

been significantly reduced from 

historical numbers. (2) Although the 

population has slowly grown under 

active management, it currently exists at 

levels where it is at risk of extinction 

from demographic stochasticity and 

small population effects. (3) Reduced 

ice and snow cover are expected in Lake 

Saimaa within this century. As ice and 

snow conditions deteriorate, the 

landlocked population of Saimaa ringed 

seal will be unable to respond by 

shifting its range. (4) Although Saimaa 

ringed seals have been reported resting 

on rocks and island shores during the 

ice-free season, these sites provide 

inferior pupping and nursing habitat. (5) 

The Saimaa ringed seal’s pupping and 

nursing seasons are adapted to the 

phenology of ice and snow. Reductions 

in ice and snow cover are expected to 

lead to decreased survival of pups and 

a substantial decline in the abundance 

of this subspecies. (6) Ongoing mortality 

incidental to fishing activities is also a 

significant conservation concern. We 

conclude that the Saimaa subspecies of 

the ringed seal is in danger of extinction 

throughout its range, consistent with its 

current listing as endangered under the 

ESA. 

Prohibitions and Protective Measures 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain 

activities that directly or indirectly 

affect endangered species. These 

prohibitions apply to all individuals, 

organizations and agencies subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. Section 4(d) of the 

ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to implement regulations ‘‘to 

provide for the conservation of 

[threatened] species’’ that may include 

extending any or all of the prohibitions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77493 

of section 9 to threatened species. 

Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits 

violations of protective regulations for 

threatened species implemented under 

section 4(d). Based on the status of each 

of the ringed seal subspecies and their 

conservation needs, we conclude that 

the ESA section 9 prohibitions are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

their conservation. We are therefore 

proposing protective regulations 

pursuant to section 4(d) for the Arctic, 

Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga subspecies 

of ringed seal to include all of the 

prohibitions in section 9(a)(1). 

Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA 

require Federal agencies to consult with 

us to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or conduct are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or a species 

proposed for listing, or to adversely 

modify critical habitat or proposed 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

must enter into consultation with us. 

Examples of Federal actions that may 

affect Arctic ringed seals include 

permits and authorizations relating to 

coastal development and habitat 

alteration, oil and gas development 

(including seismic exploration), toxic 

waste and other pollutant discharges, 

and cooperative agreements for 

subsistence harvest. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

ESA provide us with authority to grant 

exceptions to the ESA’s section 9 ‘‘take’’ 

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of a listed species. The type 

of activities potentially requiring a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) research/ 

enhancement permit include scientific 

research that targets ringed seals. 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permits are required for non-Federal 

activities that may incidentally take a 

listed species in the course of otherwise 

lawful activity. 

Our Policies on Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

On July 1, 1994, we and FWS 

published a series of policies regarding 

listings under the ESA, including a 

policy for peer review of scientific data 

(59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, 

to the maximum extent possible, those 

activities that would or would not 

constitute a violation of section 9 of the 

ESA (59 FR 34272). We must also follow 

the Office of Management and Budget 

policy for peer review as described 

below. 

Role of Peer Review 

The intent of the peer review policy 

is to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Prior to a final listing, we will 

solicit the expert opinions of three 

qualified specialists, concurrent with 

the public comment period. 

Independent specialists will be selected 

from the academic and scientific 

community, Federal and State agencies, 

and the private sector. 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal Government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. The scientific 

information contained in the ringed seal 

status review report (Kelly et al., 2010) 

that supports this proposal to list the 

Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened species under the ESA 

received independent peer review. 

The intent of the peer review policy 

is to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Prior to a final listing, we will 

solicit the expert opinions of three 

qualified specialists, concurrent with 

the public comment period. 

Independent specialists will be selected 

from the academic and scientific 

community, Federal and state agencies, 

and the private sector. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

The intent of this policy is to increase 

public awareness of the effect of our 

ESA listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the species’ range. We 

will identify, to the extent known at the 

time of the final rule, specific activities 

that will be considered likely to result 

in violation of section 9, as well as 

activities that will not be considered 

likely to result in violation. Because the 

Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seal 

occur outside the jurisdiction of the 

United States, we are presently unaware 

of any activities that could result in 

violation of section 9 of the ESA for 

these subspecies; however, because the 

possibility for violations exists (for 

example, import into the United States), 

we have proposed maintaining the 

section 9 protection. Activities that we 

believe could result in violation of 

section 9 prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ of 

the Arctic ringed seal include: (1) 

Unauthorized harvest or lethal takes of 

Arctic ringed seals; (2) in-water 

activities that produce high levels of 

underwater noise, which may harass or 

injure Arctic ringed seals; and (3) 

discharging or dumping toxic chemicals 

or other pollutants into areas used by 

Arctic ringed seals. 

We believe, based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions will not result in a violation of 

section 9: (1) Federally funded or 

approved projects for which ESA 

section 7 consultation has been 

completed and mitigated as necessary, 

and that are conducted in accordance 

with any terms and conditions we 

provide in an incidental take statement 

accompanying a biological opinion; and 

(2) takes of Arctic ringed seals that have 

been authorized by NMFS pursuant to 

section 10 of the ESA. These lists are 

not exhaustive. They are intended to 

provide some examples of the types of 

activities that we might or might not 

consider as constituting a take of Arctic 

ringed seals. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1532(3)) defines critical habitat as ‘‘(i) 

the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed * * * on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed * * * upon a determination 

by the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species.’’ Section 3 of the ESA also 

defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’ 

‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to 

mean ‘‘to use and 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 this 

chapter are no longer necessary.’’ 

Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires 

that, to the extent practicable and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. Designation of critical 

habitat must be based on the best 

scientific data available, and must take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. Once critical habitat 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

is designated, section 7 of the ESA 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

they do not fund, authorize, or carry out 

any actions that are likely to destroy or 

adversely modify that habitat. This 

requirement is in addition to the section 

7 requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure their actions do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

In determining what areas qualify as 

critical habitat, 50 CFR 424.12(b) 

requires that NMFS ‘‘consider those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of a given 

species including space for individual 

and population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing of offspring; and habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historical 

geographical and ecological distribution 

of a species.’’ The regulations further 

direct NMFS to ‘‘focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements * * * that are essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ and specify 

that the ‘‘known primary constituent 

elements shall be listed with the critical 

habitat description.’’ The regulations 

identify primary constituent elements 

(PCEs) as including, but not limited to: 

‘‘Roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning 

sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or 

dryland, water quality or quantity, host 

species or plant pollinator, geological 

formation, vegetation type, tide, and 

specific soil types.’’ 

The ESA directs the Secretary of 

Commerce to consider the economic 

impact, the national security impacts, 

and any other relevant impacts from 

designating critical habitat, and under 

section 4(b)(2), the Secretary may 

exclude any area from such designation 

if the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

those of inclusion, provided that the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. At this time, 

the Arctic ringed seal’s critical habitat is 

not determinable. We will propose 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal 

in a separate rulemaking. To assist us 

with that rulemaking, we specifically 

request information to help us identify 

the PCEs or ‘‘essential features’’ of the 

Arctic ringed seal’s habitat, and to what 

extent those features may require 

special management considerations or 

protection, as well as the economic 

attributes within the range of the Arctic 

ringed seal that could be impacted by 

critical habitat designation. Although 

the range of the Arctic ringed seal is 

circumpolar, 50 CFR 424.12(h) specifies 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated within foreign countries or 

in other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction. 

Therefore, we request information only 

on potential areas of critical habitat 

within the United States or waters 

within U.S. jurisdiction. 

Public Comments Solicited 

Relying on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

exercised our best professional 

judgment in developing this proposal to 

list the Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and 

Ladoga ringed seals. To ensure that the 

final action resulting from this proposal 

will be as accurate and effective as 

possible, we are soliciting comments 

and suggestions concerning this 

proposed rule from the public, other 

concerned governments and agencies, 

Alaska Natives, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on this proposal as well as 

on the status review report (See DATES

and ADDRESSES). Comments are 

particularly sought concerning: 

(1) The current population status of 

ringed seals; 

(2) Biological or other information 

regarding the threats to ringed seals; 

(3) Information on the effectiveness of 

ongoing and planned ringed seal 

conservation efforts by states or local 

entities; 

(4) Activities that could result in a 

violation of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA if 

such prohibitions applied to the Arctic 

ringed seal; 

(5) Information related to the 

designation of critical habitat, including 

identification of those physical or 

biological features which are essential to 

the conservation of the Arctic ringed 

seal and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(6) Economic, national security, and 

other relevant impacts from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arctic ringed seal. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods (see 

ADDRESSES). We will review all public 

comments and any additional 

information regarding the status of these 

subspecies and will complete a final 

determination within 1 year of 

publication of this proposed rule, as 

required under the ESA. Final 

promulgation of the regulation(s) will 

consider the comments and any 

additional information we receive, and 

such communications may lead to a 

final regulation that differs from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearings 

50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the 

Secretary to promptly hold at least one 

public hearing if any person requests 

one within 45 days of publication of a 

proposed rule to list a species. Such 

hearings provide the opportunity for 

interested individuals and parties to 

give opinions, exchange information, 

and engage in a constructive dialogue 

concerning this proposed rule. We 

encourage the public’s involvement in 

this matter. If hearings are requested, 

details regarding location(s), date(s), and 

time(s) will be published in a 

forthcoming Federal Register notice. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

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

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 

actions. (See NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6.) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analyses 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act are not applicable to the listing 

process. In addition, this rule is exempt 

from review under E.O. 12866. This rule 

does not contain a collection of 

information requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

E.O. 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific directives for 

consultation in situations where a 

regulation will preempt state law or 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on state and local governments 

(unless required by statute). Neither of 

those circumstances is applicable to this 

rule. 

E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77495 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and co-management 

agreements, which differentiate tribal 

governments from the other entities that 

deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 

Government. This relationship has 

given rise to a special Federal trust 

responsibility involving the legal 

responsibilities and obligations of the 

United States toward Indian Tribes and 

the application of fiduciary standards of 

due care with respect to Indian lands, 

tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 

tribal rights. E.O. 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments—outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. Section 161 of Public Law 

108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by 

section 518 of Public Law 108–447 (118 

Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies 

to consult with Alaska Native 

corporations on the same basis as Indian 

tribes under E.O. 13175. 

We intend to coordinate with tribal 

governments and native corporations 

which may be affected by the proposed 

action. We will provide them with a 

copy of this proposed rule for review 

and comment and offer the opportunity 

to consult on the proposed action. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking can be found on our 

Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ and is 

available upon request from the NMFS 

office in Juneau, Alaska (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

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

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

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

2. In § 223.102, in the table, amend 

paragraph (a) by adding paragraphs 

(a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

Species 1

Where listed Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Citation(s) for 

critical habitat 

Common name Scientific name designation(s) 

(a) * * * 

(4) Ringed seal, 

Arctic subspecies.

Phoca hispida 

hispida.

The Arctic subspecies of ringed seal includes all breeding populations of 

ringed seals east of 157 degrees 

east longitude, and east of the 

Kamchatka Peninsula, in the Pacific 

Ocean.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL 

RULE].

NA. 

(5) Ringed seal, 

Baltic subspecies.

Phoca hispida 

botnica.

The Baltic subspecies of ringed seal includes all breeding populations of 

ringed seals within the Baltic Sea.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL 

RULE].

NA. 

(6) Ringed seal, 

Ladoga subspecies.

Phoca hispida 

ladogensis.

The Ladoga subspecies of ringed seal 

includes all breeding populations of 

ringed seals within Lake Ladoga.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL 

RULE].

NA. 

(7) Ringed seal, 

Okhotsk subspecies.

Phoca hispida 

ochotensis.

The Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seal 

includes all breeding populations of 

ringed seals west of 157 degrees 

east longitude, or west of the 

Kamchatka Peninsula, in the Pacific 

Ocean.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE 

WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL 

RULE].

NA. 

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

* * * * * 

3. In Subpart B of part 223, add 

§ 223.212 to read as follows: 

§ 223.212 Arctic subspecies of ringed seal. 

The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) 

through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1538) relating to endangered species 

shall apply to the Arctic subspecies of 

ringed seal listed in § 223.102(a)(4). 

4. In Subpart B of part 223, add 

§ 223.213 to read as follows: 

§ 223.213 Baltic subspecies of ringed seal. 

The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) 

through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1538) relating to endangered species 

shall apply to the Baltic subspecies of 

ringed seal listed in § 223.102(a)(5). 

5. In Subpart B of part 223, add 

§ 223.214 to read as follows: 

§ 223.214 Ladoga subspecies of ringed 

seal. 

The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) 

through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1538) relating to endangered species 

shall apply to the Ladoga subspecies of 

ringed seal listed in § 223.102(a)(6). 

6. In Subpart B of part 223, add 

§ 223.215 to read as follows: 

§ 223.215 Okhotsk subspecies of ringed 

seal. 

The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) 

through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1538) relating to endangered species 

shall apply to the Okhotsk subspecies of 

ringed seal listed in § 223.102(a)(7). 

[FR Doc. 2010–30934 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4