77496 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. 101126591–0588–01] 

RIN 0648–XZ58 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Threatened and Not 

Warranted Status for Subspecies and 

Distinct Population Segments of the 

Bearded Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

petition finding; status review; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a 

comprehensive status review of the 

bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and announce a 12-month finding 

on a petition to list the bearded seal as 

a threatened or endangered species. The 

bearded seal exists as two subspecies: 

Erignathus barbatus nauticus and 

Erignathus barbatus barbatus. Based on 

the findings from the status review 

report and consideration of the factors 

affecting these subspecies, we conclude 

that E. b. nauticus consists of two 

distinct population segments (DPSs), the 

Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS. 

Moreover, based on consideration of 

information presented in the status 

review report, an assessment of the 

factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and 

efforts being made to protect the 

species, we have determined the 

Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS are 

likely to become endangered throughout 

all or a significant portion of their 

ranges in the foreseeable future. We 

have also determined that E. b. barbatus 

is not in danger of extinction or likely 

to become endangered throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, we are 

now issuing a proposed rule to list the 

Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of 

the bearded seal as threatened species. 

No listing action is proposed for E. b. 

barbatus. We solicit comments on this 

proposed action. At this time, we do not 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

the Beringia DPS because it is not 

currently determinable. In order to 

complete the critical habitat designation 

process, we solicit information on the 

essential physical and biological 

features of bearded seal habitat for the 

Beringia DPS. 

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–XZ58, 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 

bearded, ringed (Phoca hispida), 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 bearded, ringed, 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 

bearded seal (and the ringed seal) and 

submit this 12-month finding to the 

Office of the Federal Register by 

December 3, 2010. Our 12-month 

petition finding for ringed 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 

bearded 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’ 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 bearded 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77497 

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 

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 timeframe. 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 bearded 

seal is presented in the status review 

report (Cameron et al., 2010; available at 

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

bearded seal is the largest of the 

northern ice-associated seals, with 

typical adult body sizes of 2.1–2.4 m in 

length and weight up to 360 kg. Bearded 

seals have several distinctive physical 

features including a wide girth; a small 

head in proportion to body size; long 

whiskers; and square-shaped fore 

flippers. The life span of bearded seals 

is about 20–25 years. 

Bearded seals have a circumpolar 

distribution south of 85° N. latitude, 

extending south into the southern 

Bering Sea in the Pacific and into 

Hudson Bay and southern Labrador in 

the Atlantic. Bearded seals also occur in 

the Sea of Okhotsk south to the northern 

Sea of Japan (Figure 1). Two subspecies 

of bearded seals are widely recognized: 

Erignathus barbatus nauticus inhabiting 

the Pacific sector, and Erignathus 

barbatus barbatus often described as 

inhabiting the Atlantic sector (Rice, 

1998). The geographic distributions of 

these subspecies are not separated by 

conspicuous gaps. There are regions of 

intergrading generally described as 

somewhere along the northern Russian 

and central Canadian coasts (Burns, 

1981; Rice, 1998). 

Although the validity of the division 

into subspecies has been questioned 

(Kosygin and Potelov, 1971), the BRT 

concluded, and we concur, that the 

evidence discussed in the status review 

report for retaining the two subspecies 

is stronger than any evidence for 

combining them. The BRT defined 

geographic boundaries for the divisions 

between the two subspecies, subject to 

the strong caveat that distinct 

boundaries do not appear to exist in the 

actual populations; and therefore, there 

is considerable uncertainty about the 

best locations for the boundaries. The 

BRT defined 112° W. longitude (i.e., the 

midpoint between the Beaufort Sea and 

Pelly Bay) as the North American 

delineation between the two subspecies 

(Figure 1). Following Heptner et al. 

(1976), who suggested an east-west 

dividing line at Novosibirskiye, the BRT 

defined 145° E. longitude as the 

Eurasian delineation between the two 

subspecies in the Arctic (Figure 1). 

Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and 

Movements 

Bearded seals primarily feed on 

benthic organisms that are more 

numerous in shallow water where light 

can reach the sea floor. As such, the 

bearded seal’s effective range is 

generally restricted to areas where 

seasonal sea ice occurs over relatively 

shallow waters, typically less than 

200 m in depth (see additional 

discussion below). 

Bearded seals are closely associated 

with sea ice, particularly during the 

critical life history periods related to 

reproduction and molting, and they can 

be found in a broad range of different 

ice types. Sea ice provides the bearded 

seal and its young some protection from 

predators during the critical life history 

periods of whelping and nursing. It also 

allows molting bearded seals a dry 

platform to raise skin temperature and 

facilitate epidermal growth, and is 

important throughout the year as a 

platform for resting and perhaps 

thermoregulation. Of the ice-associated 

seals in the Arctic, bearded seals seem 

to be the least particular about the type 

and quality of ice on which they are 

observed. Bearded seals generally prefer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ice habitat that is in constant motion 

and produces natural openings and 

areas of open water, such as leads, 

fractures, and polynyas for breathing, 

hauling out on the ice, and access to 

water for foraging. They usually avoid 

areas of continuous, thick, shorefast ice 

and are rarely seen in the vicinity of 

unbroken, heavy, drifting ice or large 

areas of multi-year ice. Although 

bearded seals prefer sea ice with natural 

access to the water, observations 

indicate that bearded seals are able to 

make breathing holes in thinner ice. 

Being so closely associated with sea 

ice, particularly pack ice, the seasonal 

movements and distribution of bearded 

seals are linked to seasonal changes in 

ice conditions. To remain associated 

with their preferred ice habitat, bearded 

seals generally move north in late-spring 

and summer as the ice melts and 

retreats, and then move south in the fall 

as sea ice forms. 

The region that includes the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas is the largest area of 

continuous habitat for bearded seals. 

The Bering-Chukchi Platform is a 

shallow intercontinental shelf that 

encompasses about half of the Bering 

Sea, spans the Bering Strait, and covers 

nearly all of the Chukchi Sea. Bearded 

seals can reach the bottom everywhere 

along the shallow shelf, and so it 

provides them favorable foraging 

habitat. The Bering and Chukchi Seas 

are generally covered by sea ice in late 

winter and spring, and are mostly ice 

free in late summer and fall. As the ice 

retreats in the spring most adult bearded 

seals in the Bering Sea are thought to 

move north through the Bering Strait, 

where they spend the summer and early 

fall at the southern edge of the Chukchi 

and Beaufort Sea pack ice and at the 

wide, fragmented margin of multi-year 

ice. A smaller number of bearded seals, 

mostly juveniles, remain near the coasts 

of the Bering and Chukchi Seas for the 

summer and early fall. As the ice forms 

again in the fall and winter, most seals 

move south with the advancing ice edge 

through Bering Strait and into the 

Bering Sea where they spend the winter. 

There are fewer accounts of the 

seasonal movements of bearded seals in 

other areas. Compared to the dramatic 

long range seasonal movements of 

bearded seals in the Chukchi and Bering 

Seas, bearded seals are considered to be 

relatively sedentary over much of the 

rest of their range, undertaking more 

local movements in response to ice 

conditions. These differences may 

simply be the result of the general 

persistence of ice over shallow waters in 

the High Arctic. In the Sea of Okhotsk, 

bearded seals remain in broken ice as 

the sea ice expands and retreats, 

inhabiting the southern pack ice edge 

beyond the fast ice in winter and 

moving north toward shore in spring 

and summer. In the White, Barents, and 

Kara Seas, bearded seals also conduct 

seasonal migrations following the ice 

edge, as may bearded seals in Baffin 

Bay. Excluded by shorefast ice from 

much of the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago during winter, bearded 

seals are scattered throughout many of 

the inlets and fjords of this region from 

July to October, though at least in some 

years, a portion of the population is 

known to overwinter in a few isolated 

open water areas north of Baffin Bay. 

Throughout most of their range, adult 

bearded seals are seldom found on land. 

However, some adults in the Sea of 

Okhotsk, and more rarely in a few other 

regions, use haul-out sites ashore in late 

summer and early autumn until ice floes 

begin to appear at the coast. This is most 

common in the western Sea of Okhotsk 

and along the coasts of western 

Kamchatka where bearded seals form 

numerous shore rookeries that can have 

tens to hundreds of individuals each. 

Reproduction 

In general, female and male bearded 

seals attain sexual maturity around ages 

5–6 and 6–7, respectively. Adult female 

bearded seals ovulate after lactation, 

and are presumably then receptive to 

males. Mating is believed to usually take 

place at the surface of the water, but it 

is unknown if it also occurs underwater 

or on land or ice, as observed in some 

other phocids. The social dynamics of 

mating in bearded seals are not well 

known; however, theories regarding 

their mating system have centered 

around serial monogamy and 

promiscuity, and on the nature of 

competition among breeding males to 

attract and gain access to females. 

Bearded seals vocalize during the 

breeding season, with a peak in calling 

during and after pup rearing. Male 

vocalizations are believed to advertise 

mate quality to females, signal 

competing males of a claim on a female, 

or proclaim a territory. 

During the winter and spring, as sea 

ice begins to break up, perinatal females 

find broken pack ice over shallow areas 

on which to whelp, nurse young, and 

molt. A suitable ice platform is likely a 

prerequisite to whelping, nursing, and 

rearing young (Heptner et al., 1976; 

Burns, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992; 

Lydersen and Kovacs, 1999; Kovacs, 

2002). Because bearded seals whelp on 

ice, populations have likely adapted 

their phenology to the ice regimes of the 

regions that they inhabit. Wide-ranging 

observations of pups generally indicate 

whelping occurs from March to May 

with a peak in April, but there are 

considerable geographical differences in 

reported timing, which may reflect real 

variation, but that may also result from 

inconsistent sighting efforts across years 

and locations. Details on the spatial 

distribution of whelping can be found in 

section 2.5.1 of the status review report. 

Females bear a single pup that 

averages 33.6 kg in mass and 131.3 cm 

in length. Pups begin shedding their 

natal (lanugo) coats in utero, and they 

are born with a layer of subcutaneous 

fat. These characteristics are thought to 

be adaptations to entering the water 

soon after birth as a means of avoiding 

predation. 

Females with pups are generally 

solitary, tending not to aggregate. Pups 

enter the water immediately after or 

within hours of birth. Pups nurse on the 

ice, and by the time they are a few days 

old they spend half their time in the 

water. Recent studies using recorders 

and telemetry on pups have reported a 

lactation period of about 24 days, a 

transition to diving and more efficient 

swimming, mother-guided movements 

of greater than 10 km, and foraging 

while still under maternal care. 

Detailed studies on bearded seal 

mothers show they forage extensively, 

diving shallowly (less than 10 m), and 

spending only about 10 percent of their 

time hauled out with pups and the 

remainder nearby at the surface or 

diving. Despite the relative 

independence of mothers and pups, 

their bond is described as strong, with 

females being unusually tolerant of 

threats in order to remain or reunite 

with pups. A mixture of crustaceans and 

milk in the stomachs of pups indicates 

that independent foraging occurs prior 

to weaning, at least in some areas. 

Molting 

Adult and juvenile bearded seals molt 

annually, a process that in mature 

phocid seals typically begins shortly 

after mating. Bearded seals haul out of 

the water more frequently during 

molting, a behavior that facilitates 

higher skin temperatures and may 

accelerate shedding and regrowth of 

hair and epidermis. Though not studied 

in bearded seals, molting has been 

described as diffuse, with individuals 

potentially shedding hair throughout 

the year but with a pulse in the spring 

and summer. This is reflected in the 

wide range of estimates for the timing of 

molting, though these estimates are also 

based on irregular observations. 

The need for a platform on which to 

haul out and molt from late spring to 

mid-summer, when sea ice is rapidly 

melting and retreating, may necessitate 

movement for bearded seals between 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77499 

habitats for breeding and molting. In the 

Sea of Okhotsk, the spatial distribution 

of bearded seals is similar between 

whelping and molting seasons so only 

short movements occur. In contrast, 

bearded seals that whelp and mate in 

the Bering Sea migrate long distances to 

summering grounds at the ice edge in 

the Chukchi Sea, a period of movement 

that coincides with the observed timing 

of molting. Similar migrations prior to 

and during the molting period have 

been presumed for bearded seals in the 

White and southeastern Barents Seas to 

more easterly and northern areas of the 

Barents Sea, where ice persists through 

the summer. Also during the interval 

between breeding and molting, passive 

movements on ice over large distances 

have been postulated between the White 

and Barents Seas, and from there further 

east to the Kara Sea. A post-breeding 

migration of bearded seals to molting 

grounds has also been postulated to 

occur from the southern Laptev Sea 

westward into the eastern Kara Sea. In 

some locations where bearded seals use 

terrestrial haul-out sites seasonally, the 

molting period overlaps with this use. 

However, the molting phenology of 

bearded seals on shore is unknown. 

Food Habits 

Bearded seals are considered to be 

foraging generalists because they have a 

diverse diet with a large variety of prey 

items throughout their circumpolar 

range. Bearded seals feed primarily on 

a variety of invertebrates and some 

fishes found on or near the sea bottom. 

They are also able to switch their diet 

to include schooling pelagic fishes 

when advantageous. The bulk of the diet 

appears to consist of relatively few prey 

types, primarily bivalve mollusks and 

crustaceans like crabs and shrimps. 

However, fishes like sculpins, Arctic 

cod (Boreogadus saida), polar cod 

(Arctogadus glacialis), or saffron cod 

(Eleginus gracilis) can also be a 

significant component. There is 

conflicting evidence regarding the 

importance of fish in the bearded seal 

diet throughout its range. Several 

studies have found high frequencies of 

fishes in the diet, but it is not known 

whether major consumption of fish is 

related to the availability of prey 

resources or the preferential selection of 

prey. Seasonal changes in diet 

composition have been observed 

throughout the year. For example, clams 

and fishes have been reported as more 

important in spring and summer months 

than in fall and winter. 

Species Delineation 

The BRT reviewed the best scientific 

and commercial data available on the 

bearded seal’s taxonomy and concluded 

that there are two widely recognized 

subspecies of bearded seals: Erignathus 

barbatus barbatus, often described as 

inhabiting the Atlantic sector of the 

seal’s range; and Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus, inhabiting the Pacific sector of 

the range. Distribution maps published 

by Burns (1981) and Kovacs (2002) 

provide the known northern and 

southern extents of the distribution. As 

discussed above, the BRT defined 

geographic boundaries for the divisions 

between the two subspecies (Figure 1), 

subject to the strong caveat that distinct 

boundaries do not appear to exist in the 

actual populations. Our DPS analysis 

follows. 

Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996) two elements are 

considered when evaluating whether a 

population segment qualifies as a DPS 

under the ESA: (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 

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). 

Evaluation of Discreteness 

The range of the bearded seal occurs 

in cold, seasonally or annually icecovered Arctic and subarctic waters, 

without persistent intrusions of warm 

water or other conditions that would 

pose potential physiological barriers. 

Furthermore, the seasonal timings of 

reproduction and molting vary little 

throughout the bearded seal’s 

distribution, suggesting that there are no 

obvious ecological separation factors. 

The underwater vocalizations of 

males during the breeding season 

recorded in Alaskan, Canadian, and 

Norwegian waters are often more similar 

between adjacent geographical regions 

than between more distant sites, 

suggesting that bearded seals may have 

strong fidelity to specific breeding sites. 

However, these observed differences in 

vocalizations may be due to other 

factors such as ecological influences or 

sexual selection, and not to distance or 

geographic barriers. Bearded seals are 

known to make seasonal movements of 

greater than 1,000 km, and so only very 

large geographical barriers would have 

the potential by themselves to maintain 

discreteness between breeding 

concentrations. As primarily benthic 

feeders, bearded seals may be 

constrained to relatively shallow waters 

and so expanses of deep water may also 

pose barriers to movement. 

Erignathus barbatus nauticus: Given 

the bearded seal’s circumpolar 

distribution and their ability to travel 

long distances, it is difficult to imagine 

that land masses pose a significant 

barrier to the movement of this 

subspecies, with one exception: The 

great southerly extent of the Kamchatka 

Peninsula. The seasonal ice does not 

extend south to the tip of that 

peninsula, and the continental shelf is 

very narrow along its eastern Bering Sea 

coast. The seals’ affinity for ice and 

shallow waters may help to confine 

bearded seals to their respective sea 

basins in the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. 

Heptner et al. (1976) and Krylov et al. 

(1964) described a typical annual 

pattern of bearded seals in the Sea of 

Okhotsk to be one of staying near the ice 

edge when ice is present, and then 

moving north and closer to shore as the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ice recedes in summer. Unlike other 

researchers describing tendencies of the 

species as a whole, Krylov et al. (1964) 

described the bearded seal as more or 

less sedentary, based primarily on 

observations of seals in the Sea of 

Okhotsk. Indeed, published maps 

indicate that the southeastern coast of 

the Kamchatka Peninsula is the only 

location where the distribution of the 

bearded seal is not contiguous (Burns, 

1981; Kovacs, 2002; Blix, 2005), and 

there are no known records of bearded 

seals moving between the Sea of 

Okhotsk and Bering Sea. 

Kosygin and Potelov (1971) 

conducted a study of craniometric and 

morphological differences between 

bearded seals in the White, Barents, and 

Kara Seas, and bearded seals in the 

Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. They 

reported differences in measurements 

between the three regions, although they 

suggested that the differences were not 

significant enough to justify dividing 

the population into subspecies. 

Fedoseev (1973, 2000) also suggested 

that differences in the numbers of lip 

vibrissae as well as length and weight 

indicate population structure between 

the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Thus, 

under the first factor for determining 

discreteness, the BRT concluded, and 

we concur, that the available evidence 

indicates the discreteness of two 

population segments: (1) The Sea of 

Okhotsk, and (2) the remainder of the 

range of E. b. nauticus, hereafter 

referred to as the Beringia population 

segment. Considerations of crossboundary management do not outweigh 

or contradict the division proposed 

above based on biological grounds. In 

all countries in the range of the Beringia 

segment (Russia, United States, and 

Canada) annual harvest rates are 

considered small relative to the local 

populations and harvest is assumed to 

have little impact on abundance. In 

addition, if the Kamchatka Peninsula 

serves as a geographic barrier, the entire 

population of bearded seals in the Sea 

of Okhotsk may lie entirely within 

Russian jurisdiction. 

Erignathus barbatus barbatus: The 

Greenland and Norwegian Seas, which 

separate northern Europe and Russia 

from Greenland, form a very deep basin 

that could potentially act as a type of 

physical barrier to a primarily benthic 

feeder. Risch et al. (2007) described 

distinct differences in male 

vocalizations at breeding sites in 

Svalbard and Canada; however, they 

also suggested that ecological influences 

or sexual selection, and not a 

geographical feature restricting gene 

flow, could be the cause of these 

differences. Gjertz et al. (2000) 

described at least one pup known to 

travel from Svalbard nearly to the 

Greenland coast across Fram Strait, and 

Davis et al. (2008) failed to find a 

significant difference between 

populations on either side of the 

Greenland Sea. Both of these studies 

suggest that the expanse of deep water 

is apparently not a geographic barrier to 

bearded seals. However, it should be 

noted that not all of the DNA samples 

used in the study by Davis et al. (2008) 

were collected during the time of 

breeding, and so might not reflect the 

potential for additional genetic 

discreteness if discrete breeding groups 

disperse and mix during the nonbreeding period. When considered 

altogether, the BRT concluded, and we 

concur, that subdividing E. b. barbatus 

into two or more DPSs is not warranted 

because the best scientific and 

commercial data available does not 

indicate that the populations are 

discrete. 

The core range of the bearded seal 

includes the waters of five countries 

(Russia, United States, Canada, 

Greenland, and Norway) with 

management regimes sufficiently similar 

that considerations of cross-boundary 

management and regulatory 

mechanisms do not support a positive 

discreteness determination. In addition, 

in all countries in the range of E. b. 

barbatus, annual harvest rates are 

considered small relative to the local 

populations and harvest is assumed to 

have little impact on abundance. Since 

we conclude that the E. b. barbatus 

populations are not discrete, we do not 

address whether they would be 

considered significant. 

Evaluation of Significance 

Having concluded that E. b. nauticus 

is composed of two discrete segments, 

here we review information that the 

BRT found informative for evaluating 

the biological and ecological 

significance of these segments. 

Throughout most of their range, adult 

bearded seals are rarely found on land 

(Kovacs, 2002). However, some adults in 

the Sea of Okhotsk, and more rarely in 

Hudson Bay (COSEWIC, 2007), the 

White, Laptev, Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas (Heptner et al., 1976; 

Burns, 1981; Nelson, 1981; Smith, 

1981), and Svalbard (Kovacs and 

Lydersen, 2008) use haul-out sites 

ashore in late summer and early 

autumn. In these locations, sea ice 

either melts completely or recedes 

beyond the limits of shallow waters 

where seals are able to feed (Burns and 

Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981). By far the 

largest and most numerous and 

predictable of these terrestrial haul-out 

sites are in the Sea of Okhotsk, where 

they are distributed continuously 

throughout the bearded seal range, and 

may comprise tens to more than a 

thousand individuals (Scheffer, 1958; 

Tikhomorov, 1961; Krylov et al., 1964; 

Chugunkov, 1970; Tavrovskii, 1971; 

Heptner et al., 1976; Burns, 1981). 

Indeed, the Sea of Okhotsk is the only 

portion of the range of E. b. nauticus 

reported to have any such aggregation of 

adult haul-out sites (Fay, 1974; Burns 

and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981; Nelson, 

1981). Although it is not clear for how 

long bearded seals have exhibited this 

haul-out behavior, its commonness is 

unique to the Sea of Okhotsk, possibly 

reflecting responses or adaptations to 

changing conditions at the range 

extremes. This difference in haul-out 

behavior may also provide insights 

about the resilience of the species to the 

effects of climate warming in other 

regions. 

The Sea of Okhotsk covers a vast area 

and is home to many thousands of 

bearded seals. Similarly, the range of the 

Beringia population segment includes a 

vast area that provides habitat for many 

thousands of bearded seals. Loss of 

either segment of the subspecies’ range 

would result in a substantially large gap 

in the overall range of the subspecies. 

The existence of bearded seals in the 

unusual or unique ecological setting 

found in the Sea of Okhotsk, as well as 

the fact that loss of either the Okhotsk 

or Beringia segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon, 

support our conclusion that the Beringia 

and Okhotsk population segments of E. 

b. nauticus are each significant to the 

subspecies as a whole. 

DPS Conclusions 

In summary, the Beringia and 

Okhotsk population segments of E. b. 

nauticus are discrete because they are 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, and behavioral factors. They 

are significant because the loss of either 

of the two DPSs would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon, 

and the Okhotsk DPS exists in an 

ecological setting that is unusual or 

unique for the taxon. We therefore 

conclude that these two population 

segments meet both the discreteness and 

significance criteria of the DPS policy. 

We consider these two population 

segments to be DPSs (the Beringia DPS 

and the Okhotsk DPS) (Figure 1). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77501 

Abundance and Trends 

No accurate worldwide abundance 

estimates exist for bearded seals. Several 

factors make it difficult to accurately 

assess the bearded seal’s 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 bearded seals expensive 

and logistically 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. 

Logistical challenges also make it 

difficult to collect the necessary 

behavioral data to make proper 

adjustments to seal counts. Until very 

recently, no suitable behavioral data 

have been available to correct for the 

proportion of seals in the water at the 

time of surveys. Research is just 

beginning to address these limitations, 

and so current and accurate abundance 

estimates are not yet available. We make 

estimates based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, 

combining recent and historical data. 

Beringia DPS 

Data analyzed from aerial surveys 

conducted in April and May 2007 

produced an abundance estimate of 

63,200 bearded seals in an area of 

81,600 sq km in the eastern Bering Sea 

(Ver Hoef et al., 2010). This is a partial 

estimate for bearded seals in the U.S. 

waters of the Bering Sea because the 

survey area did not include some 

known bearded seal habitat in the 

eastern Bering Sea and north of St. 

Lawrence Island. The estimate is similar 

in magnitude to the western Bering Sea 

estimates reported by Fedoseev (2000) 

from surveys in 1974–1987, which 

ranged from 57,000 to 87,000. The BRT 

considers the current total Bering Sea 

bearded seal population to be about 

double the partial estimate reported by 

Ver Hoef et al. (2010) for U.S. waters, or 

approximately 125,000 individuals. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10DE10.090</GPH>
77502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Aerial surveys flown along the coast 

from Shishmaref to Barrow during May– 

June 1999 and 2000 provided average 

annual bearded seal density estimates. 

A crude abundance estimate based on 

these densities, and without any 

correction for seals in the water, is 

13,600 bearded seals. These surveys 

covered only a portion (U.S. coastal) of 

the Chukchi Sea. Assuming that the 

waters along the Chukchi Peninsula on 

the Russian side of the Chukchi Sea 

contain similar numbers of bearded 

seals, the combined total would be 

about 27,000 individuals. 

Aerial surveys of the eastern Beaufort 

Sea conducted in June during 1974– 

1979, provided estimates that averaged 

2,100 bearded seals, uncorrected for 

seals in the water. The ice-covered 

continental shelf of the western Beaufort 

Sea is roughly half the area surveyed, 

suggesting a crude estimate for the 

entire Beaufort Sea in June of about 

3,150, uncorrected for seals in the water. 

For such a large area in which the 

subsistence use of bearded seals is 

important to Alaska Native and 

Inuvialuit communities, this number is 

likely to be a substantial underestimate. 

A possible explanation is that many of 

the subsistence harvests of bearded seals 

in this region may occur after a rapid 

seasonal influx of seals from the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas in the early summer, 

later than the period in which the 

surveys were flown. 

In the East Siberian Sea, Obukhov 

(1974) described bearded seals as rare, 

but present during July–September, 

based on year-round observations 

(1959–1965) of a region extending about 

350 km east from the mouth of the 

Kolyma River. Typically, one bearded 

seal was seen during 200–250 km of 

travel. Geller (1957) described the zone 

between the Kola Peninsula and 

Chukotka as comparatively poor in 

marine mammals relative to the more 

western and eastern portions of the 

northern Russian coasts. We are not 

aware of any other information about 

bearded seal abundance in the East 

Siberian Sea. 

Although the present population size 

of the Beringia DPS is very uncertain, 

based on these reported abundance 

estimates, the current population size is 

estimated at 155,000 individuals. 

Okhotsk DPS 

Fedoseev (2000) presented multiple 

years of unpublished seal survey data 

from 1968 to 1990; however, specific 

methodologies were not provided for 

any of the surveys or analyses. Most of 

these surveys were designed primarily 

for ringed and ribbon seals, as they were 

more abundant and of higher 

commercial value. Recognizing the 

sparse documentation of the survey 

methods and data, as well as the 20 

years or more that have elapsed since 

the last survey, the BRT recommends 

considering the 1990 estimate of 95,000 

individuals to be the current estimated 

population size of the Okhotsk DPS. 

Erignathus barbatus barbatus 

Cleator (1996) suggested that a 

minimum of 190,000 bearded seals 

inhabit Canadian waters based on 

summing the different available indices 

for bearded seal abundance. The BRT 

recommends considering the current 

bearded seal population in Hudson Bay, 

the Canadian Archipelago, and western 

Baffin Bay to be 188,000 individuals. 

This value was chosen based on the 

estimate for Canadian waters of 190,000, 

minus 2,000 to account for the average 

number estimated to occur in the 

Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea 

(which is part of the E. b. nauticus 

subspecies). There are few estimates of 

abundance available for other parts of 

the range of E. b. barbatus, and there is 

sparse documentation of the methods 

used to produce these estimates. 

Consequently, the BRT considered all 

regional estimates for E. b. barbatus to 

be unreliable, except for those in 

Canadian waters. The population size of 

E. b. barbatus is therefore very 

uncertain, but NMFS experts estimate it 

to be 188,000 individuals. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Bearded 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 

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 the Beringia 

DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. 

barbatus 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 bearded seals (see ADDRESSES). 

As discussed above, data on bearded 

seal abundance and trends of most 

populations are unavailable or 

imprecise, and there is little basis for 

quantitatively linking projected 

environmental conditions or other 

factors to bearded 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 bearded 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 bearded seals 

therefore requires a focus on observed 

and projected changes in sea ice, ocean 

temperature, ocean pH (acidity), and 

associated changes in bearded seal prey 

species. 

The threats (analyzed below) 

associated with impacts of the warming 

climate on the habitat of bearded seals, 

to the extent that they may pose risks to 

these seals, are expected to manifest 

throughout the current breeding and 

molting range (for sea ice related 

threats) or throughout the entire range 

(for ocean warming and acidification) of 

each of the population units, 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 

Bearded 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 autumnwinter 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, 

Hudson Bay, and the Sea of Okhotsk are 

known as seasonal ice zones, where first 

year sea ice is renewed every winter. 

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 icealbedo feedback mechanism in which 

melting of snow and sea ice lowers 

reflectivity and thereby further increases 

surface warming by absorption of solar 

radiation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77503 

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 bearded 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 

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 

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, 

warming 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 scenarios. Uncertainty in the 

amount of warming out to mid-century 

is primarily a function of model-tomodel 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 

two 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 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 bearded seals, we therefore 

considered the full 21st century 

projections 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 12 different 

regions throughout the bearded seal’s 

range, including five regions for the 

Beringia DPS, one region for the 

Okhotsk DPS, and six regions for E. b. 

barbatus. Models that met the 

performance criteria were used to 

project sea ice extent for the months of 

November and April–July through 2100. 

For the Beringia DPS, in two regions 

(Chukchi and east Siberian Seas) 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, and in the 

western Bering Sea a single model met 

the performance criteria. For E. b. 

barbatus, none of the models performed 

satisfactorily in six of the seven regions 

(a single model was retained in the 

Barents Sea). The models also did not 

meet the performance criteria for 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), evaluation of other existing 

analyses (Hudson Bay) or results from 

the hemispheric predictions (the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin 

Bay, Greenland Sea, and the Kara and 

Laptev Seas), were used for regions 

where ice projections could not be 

obtained. 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. 

These predicted regional sea ice 

conditions are summarized below in 

assessing the potential impacts of 

changes in sea ice on bearded seals. 

While our inferences about future 

regional ice 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 onset of 

potential impacts to bearded seals is 

complicated by the coarse resolution of 

the IPCC models. 

Northern Hemisphere Predictions 

Projections of Northern Hemisphere 

sea ice extent 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 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. May shows 

diminishing sea ice cover at 2050 and 

2090 in the Barents and Bering Seas and 

Sea of Okhotsk. The month of June 

begins to show substantial changes as 

the century progresses. Current 

conditions occasionally exhibit a lack of 

sea ice near the Bering Strait by 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 Arctic by mid-century. 

Potential Impacts of Changes in Sea Ice 

on Bearded Seals 

In order to feed on the seafloor, 

bearded seals are known to nearly 

always occupy shallow waters 

(Fedoseev, 2000; Kovacs, 2002). The 

preferred depth range is often described 

as less than 200 m (Kosygin, 1971; 

Heptner et al., 1976; Burns and Frost, 

1979; Burns, 1981; Fedoseev, 1984; 

Nelson et al., 1984; Kingsley et al., 1985; 

Fedoseev, 2000; Kovacs, 2002), though 

adults have been known to dive to 

around 300 m (Kovacs, 2002; Cameron 

and Boveng, 2009), and six of seven 

pups instrumented near Svalbard have 

been recorded at depths greater than 488 

m (Kovacs, 2002). The BRT defined the 

core distribution of bearded seals (e.g., 

whelping, nursing, breeding, molting, 

and most feeding) as those areas of 

known extent that are in water less than 

500 m deep. 

An assessment of the risks to bearded 

seals posed by climate change must 

consider the species’ life-history 

functions, how they are linked with sea 

ice, and how altering that link will 

affect the vital rates of reproduction and 

survival. The main functions of sea ice 

relating to the species’ life-history are: 

(1) A dry and stable platform for 

whelping and nursing of pups in April 

and May (Kovacs et al., 1996; Atkinson, 

1997); (2) a rearing habitat that allows 

mothers to feed and replenish energy 

reserves lost while nursing; (3) a habitat 

that allows a pup to gain experience 

diving, swimming, and hunting with its 

mother, and that provides a platform for 

resting, relatively isolated from most 

terrestrial and marine predators; (4) a 

habitat for rutting males to hold 

territories and attract post-lactating 

females; and (5) a platform suitable for 

extended periods of hauling out during 

molting. 

Whelping and nursing: Pregnant 

females are considered to require sea ice 

as a dry birthing platform (Kovacs et al., 

1996; Atkinson, 1997). Similarly, pups 

are thought to nurse only while on ice. 

If suitable ice cover is absent from 

shallow feeding areas during whelping 

and nursing, bearded seals would be 

forced to seek either sea ice habitat over 

deeper water or coastal regions in the 

vicinity of haul-out sites on shore. A 

shift to whelping and nursing on land 

would represent a major behavioral 

change that could compromise the 

ability of bearded seals, particularly 

pups, to escape predators, as this is a 

highly developed response on ice versus 

land. Further, predators abound on 

continental shorelines, in contrast with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77505 

sea ice habitat where predators are 

sparse; and small islands where 

predators are relatively absent offer 

limited areas for whelping and nursing 

as compared to the more extensive 

substrate currently provided by suitable 

sea ice. 

Bearded seal mothers feed throughout 

the lactation period, continuously 

replenishing fat reserves lost while 

nursing pups (Holsvik, 1998; Krafft et 

al., 2000). Therefore, the presence of a 

sufficient food resource near the nursing 

location is also important. Rearing 

young in poorer foraging grounds would 

require mothers to forage for longer 

periods and (or) compromise their own 

body condition, both of which could 

impact the transfer of energy to 

offspring and affect survival of pups, 

mothers, or both. 

Pup maturation: When not on the ice, 

there is a close association between 

mothers and pups, which travel together 

at the surface and during diving 

(Lydersen et al, 1994; Gjertz et al., 2000; 

Krafft et al., 2000). Pups develop diving, 

swimming, and foraging skills over the 

nursing period, and perhaps beyond 

(Watanabe et al., 2009). Learning to 

forage in a sub-optimal habitat could 

impair a pup’s ability to learn effective 

foraging skills, potentially impacting its 

long-term survival. Further, hauling out 

reduces thermoregulatory demands 

which, in Arctic climates, may be 

critical for maintaining energy balance. 

Hauling out is especially important for 

growing pups, which have a 

disproportionately large skin surface 

and rate of heat loss in the water 

(Harding et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 

2010). 

Mating: Male bearded seals are 

believed to establish territories under 

the sea ice and exhibit complex acoustic 

and diving displays to attract females. 

Breeding behaviors are exhibited by 

males up to several weeks in advance of 

females’ arrival at locations to give 

birth. Mating takes place soon after 

females wean their pups. The stability 

of ice cover is believed to have 

influenced the evolution of this mating 

system. 

Molting: There is a peak in the molt 

during May–June, when most bearded 

seals (except young of the year) tend to 

haul out on ice to warm their skin. 

Molting in the water during this period 

could incur energetic costs which might 

reduce survival rates. 

For any of these life history events, a 

greater tendency of bearded seals to 

aggregate while hauled out on land or in 

reduced ice could increase intra- and 

inter-specific competition for resources, 

the potential for disease transmission, 

and predation; all of which could affect 

annual survival rates. In particular, a 

reduction in suitable sea ice habitat 

would likely increase the overlap in the 

distribution of bearded seals and walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus), another iceassociated benthic feeder with similar 

habitat preferences and diet. The walrus 

is also a predator of bearded seal, 

though seemingly infrequent. Hauling 

out closer to shore or on land could also 

increase the risks of predation from 

polar bears, terrestrial carnivores, and 

humans. 

For a long-lived and abundant animal 

with a large range, the mechanisms 

identified above (i.e., low ice extent or 

absence of sea ice over shallow feeding 

areas) are not likely to be significant to 

an entire population in any one year. 

Rather, the overall strength of the 

impacts is likely a function of the 

frequency of years in which they occur, 

and the proportion of the population’s 

range over which they occur. The low 

ice years, which will occur more 

frequently than in the past, may have 

impacts on recruitment via reduced pup 

survival if, for example, pregnant 

females are ineffective or slow at 

adjusting their breeding locales for 

variability of the position of the sea ice 

front. 

Potential mechanisms for resilience 

on relatively short time scales include 

adjustments to the timing of breeding in 

response to shorter periods of ice cover, 

and adjustments of the breeding range 

in response to reduced ice extent. The 

extent to which bearded seals might 

adapt to more frequent years with early 

ice melt by shifting the timing of 

reproduction is uncertain. There are 

many examples of shifts in timing of 

reproduction by pinnipeds and 

terrestrial mammals in response to body 

condition and food availability. In most 

of these cases, sub-optimal conditions 

led to reproduction later in the season, 

a response that would not likely be 

beneficial to bearded seals. A shift to an 

earlier melt date may, however, over the 

longer term provide selection pressure 

for an evolutionary response over many 

generations toward earlier reproduction. 

It is impossible to predict whether 

bearded seals would be more likely to 

occupy ice habitats over the deep waters 

of the Arctic Ocean basin or more 

terrestrial habitats if sea ice failed to 

extend over the shelf. Outside the 

critical life history periods related to 

reproduction and molting there is 

evidence that bearded seals might not 

require the presence of sea ice for 

hauling out, and instead remain in the 

water for weeks or months at a time. 

Even during the spring and summer 

bearded seals also appear to possess 

some plasticity in their ability to occupy 

different habitats at the extremes of their 

range. For example, throughout most of 

their range, adult bearded seals are 

seldom found on land; however, in the 

Sea of Okhotsk, bearded seals are 

known to use haul-out sites ashore 

regularly and predictably during the ice 

free periods in late summer and early 

autumn. Also, western and central 

Baffin Bay are unique among whelping 

areas as mothers with dependent pups 

have been observed on pack ice over 

deep water (greater than 500 m). These 

behaviors are extremely rare in the core 

distributions of bearded seals; therefore, 

the habitats that necessitate them 

should be considered sub-optimal. 

Consequently, predicted reductions in 

sea ice extent, particularly when such 

reductions separate ice from shallow 

water feeding habitats, can be 

reasonably used as a proxy for 

predicting years of reduced survival and 

recruitment, though not the magnitude 

of the impact. In addition, the frequency 

of predicted low ice years can serve as 

a useful tool for assessing the 

cumulative risks posed by climate 

change. 

Assessing the potential impacts of the 

predicted changes in sea ice cover and 

the frequency of low ice years on the 

conservation status of bearded seals 

requires knowledge or assumptions 

about the relationships between sea ice 

and bearded seal vital rates. Because no 

quantitative studies of these 

relationships have been conducted, we 

relied upon two studies in the Bering 

Sea that estimated bearded seal 

preference for ice concentrations based 

on aerial survey observations of seal 

densities. Simpkins et al. (2003) found 

that bearded seals near St. Lawrence 

Island in March preferred 70–90 percent 

ice coverage, as compared with 0–70 

percent and 90–100 percent. 

Preliminary results from another study 

in the Bering Sea (Ver Hoef et al., In 

review) found substantially lower 

probability of bearded seal occurrence 

in areas of 0–25 percent ice coverage 

during April–May. Lacking a more 

direct measure of the relationship 

between bearded seal vital rates and ice 

coverage, we considered areas within 

the current core distribution of bearded 

seals where the decadal averages and 

minimums of ice projections (centered 

on the years 2050 and 2090) were below 

25 percent concentrations as inadequate 

for whelping and nursing. We also 

assumed that the sea ice requirements 

for molting in May–June are less 

stringent than those for whelping and 

rearing pups, and that 15 percent ice 

concentration in June would be 

minimally sufficient for molting. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Beringia DPS: In the Bering Sea, early 

springtime sea ice habitat for bearded 

seal whelping should be sufficient in 

most years through 2050 and out to the 

second half of the 21st century, when 

the average ice extent in April is 

forecasted to be approximately 50 

percent of the present-day extent. The 

general trend in projections of sea ice 

for May (nursing, rearing and some 

molting) through June (molting) in the 

Bering Sea is toward a longer ice-free 

period resulting from more rapid spring 

melt. Until at least the middle of the 

21st century, projections show some 

years with near-maximum ice extent; 

however, less ice is forecasted on 

average, manifested as more frequent 

years in which the spring retreat occurs 

earlier and the peak ice extent is lower. 

By the end of the 21st century, 

projections for the Bering Sea indicate 

that there will commonly be years with 

little or no ice in May, and that sea ice 

in June is expected to be non-existent in 

most years. 

Projections of sea ice concentration 

indicate that there will typically be 25 

percent or greater ice concentration in 

April–May over a substantial portion of 

the shelf zone in the Bering Sea through 

2055. By 2095 ice concentrations of 25 

percent or greater are projected only in 

small zones of the Gulf of Anadyr and 

in the area between St. Lawrence Island 

and Bering Strait by May. In the 

minimal ice years the projections 

indicate there will be little or no ice of 

25 percent or greater concentration over 

the shelf zone in the Bering Sea during 

April and May, perhaps commencing as 

early as the next decade. Conditions 

will be particularly poor for the molt in 

June when typical ice predictions 

suggest less than 15 percent ice by midcentury. Projections suggest that the 

spring and summer ice edge could 

retreat to deep waters of the Arctic 

Ocean basin, potentially separating sea 

ice suitable for pup maturation and 

molting from benthic feedings areas. 

In the East Siberian, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas, the average ice extents 

during April and May (i.e., the period of 

whelping, nursing, mating and some 

molting) are all predicted to be very 

close to historical averages out to the 

end of the 21st century. However, the 

annual variability of this extent is 

forecasted to continue to increase, and 

single model runs indicate the 

possibility of a few years in which April 

and May sea ice would cover only half 

(or in the case of the Chukchi Sea, none) 

of the Arctic shelf in these regions by 

the end of the century. In June, also a 

time of molting, the average sea ice 

extent is predicted to cover no more 

than half of the shelf in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas by the end of the century. 

By the end of the century, the East 

Siberian Sea is not projected to 

experience losses in ice extent of these 

magnitudes until July. 

The projections indicate that there 

will typically be 25 percent or greater 

ice concentration in April–June over the 

entire shelf zones in the Beaufort, 

Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas through 

the end of the century. In the minimal 

ice years 25 percent or greater ice 

concentration is projected over the shelf 

zones in April and May in these regions 

through the end of the century, except 

in the eastern Chukchi and central 

Beaufort Seas. By June 2095, ice suitable 

for molting (i.e., 15 percent or more 

concentration) is projected to be mostly 

absent in these regions in minimal 

years, except in the western Chukchi 

Sea and northern East Siberian Sea. 

A reduction in spring and summer sea 

ice concentrations could conceivably 

result in the development of new areas 

containing suitable habitat or 

enhancement of existing suboptimal 

habitat. For example, the East Siberian 

Sea has been said to be relatively low in 

bearded seal numbers and has 

historically had very high ice 

concentrations and long seasonal ice 

coverage. Ice concentrations projected 

for May–June near the end of the 

century in this region include 

substantial areas with 20–80 percent ice, 

potentially suitable for bearded seal 

reproduction, molting, and foraging. 

However, it is prudent to assume that 

the net difference between sea ice 

related habitat creation and loss will be 

negative, especially because other 

factors like ocean warming and 

acidification (discussed below) are 

likely to impact habitat. 

A substantial portion of the Beringia 

DPS currently whelps in the Bering Sea, 

where a longer ice-free period is 

forecasted in May and June. To adapt to 

this sea ice regime, bearded seals would 

likely have to shift their nursing, 

rearing, and molting areas to the ice 

covered seas north of the Bering Strait, 

potentially with poor access to food, or 

to coastal haul-out sites on shore, 

potentially with increased risks of 

disturbance, predation, and 

competition. Both of these scenarios 

would require bearded seals to adapt to 

novel (i.e., suboptimal) conditions, and 

to exploit habitats to which they may 

not be well adapted, likely 

compromising their reproduction and 

survival rates. Further, the spring and 

summer ice edge may retreat to deep 

waters of the Arctic Ocean basin, which 

could separate sea ice suitable for pup 

maturation and molting from benthic 

feeding areas. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the projected changes in sea ice 

habitat pose significant threats to the 

persistence of the Beringia DPS, and it 

is likely to become an endangered 

species in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Okhotsk DPS: 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. 

The Sea of Okhotsk is located southwest 

of the Bering Sea, and thus can be 

expected to have earlier radiative 

heating in the spring. The region is 

dominated in winter and spring, 

however, by cold continental air masses 

and offshore flow. Sea ice is formed 

rapidly and is generally advected 

southward. As this region is dominated 

by cold air masses for much of the 

winter and spring, we would expect that 

the present seasonal cycle of first year 

sea ice will continue to dominate the 

future habitat of the Sea of Okhotsk. 

Based on the temperature proxies, a 

continuation of sea ice formation or 

presence is expected for March (some 

whelping and nursing) in the Sea of 

Okhotsk through the end of this century, 

though the ice may be limited to the 

northern region in most years after midcentury. However, little to no sea ice is 

expected in May by 2050, and in April 

by the end of the century, months 

critical for whelping, nursing, pup 

maturation, breeding, and molting. 

Hence, the most significant threats 

posed to the Okhotsk DPS were judged 

to be decreases in sea ice habitat 

suitable for these important life history 

events. 

Over the long term, bearded seals in 

the Sea of Okhotsk do not have the 

prospect of following a shift in the 

average position of the ice front 

northward. Therefore, the question of 

whether a future lack of sea ice will 

cause the Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals 

to go extinct depends in part on how 

successful the populations are at 

moving their reproductive activities 

from ice to haul-out sites on shore. 

Although some bearded seals in this 

area are known to use land for hauling 

out, this only occurs in late summer and 

early autumn. We are not aware of any 

occurrence of bearded seals whelping or 

nursing young on land, so this predicted 

loss of sea ice is expected to be 

significantly detrimental to the long 

term viability of the population. We 

conclude that the expected changes in 

sea ice habitat pose a significant threat 

to the Okhotsk DPS and it is likely to 

become an endangered species in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77507 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

E. b. barbatus: The models predict 

that ice in April–June will continue to 

persist in the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago throughout this century. 

Even in the low ice years at the end of 

the century, the many channels 

throughout the archipelago are still 

expected to contain ice. Predictions for 

Baffin Bay were similar, showing April– 

June ice concentrations near historical 

levels out to 2050. Sea ice cover and 

extent is predicted to diminish 

somewhat during the last half of the 

century, but average conditions should 

still provide sufficient ice for the life 

history needs of bearded seals. At least 

until the end of the 21st century, some 

ice is always predicted along eastern 

Greenland in April and May. In June, 

however, the low ice concentrations in 

minimum years will not be sufficient for 

molting. 

Joly et al. (2010) used a regional sea 

ice-ocean model and air temperature 

projections to predict sea ice conditions 

in Hudson Bay out to 2070. Compared 

to present averages, the extent of sea ice 

in April is expected to change very little 

by 2070, though reductions of 20 

percent in June ice and 60 percent in 

July ice are expected by 2070. The 

authors also predict that sea ice in 

Hudson Bay would become up to 50 

percent thinner over this time, though 

this would still likely provide enough 

buoyancy for bearded seals. 

Projections of sea ice extent for the 

Barents Sea indicate that ice in April 

will continue to decline in a relatively 

constant linear trend throughout the 

21st century. The trend for May declines 

faster, predicting half as much ice by 

2050, and less than a quarter as much 

ice by 2090. The White Sea (a southern 

inlet of the Barents Sea) is forecast to be 

ice-free in May by 2050. The trend in ice 

loss for June is faster still, predicting 

that ice will all but disappear in the 

Barents Sea region in the next few 

decades. Whelping is believed to occur 

in the drifting pack ice throughout the 

Barents Sea. Concentrations of mothers 

with pups have been observed in loose 

pack ice along several hundred 

kilometers of the seasonal ice edge from 

southern Svalbard to the north-central 

Barents Sea. Observations also suggest 

whelping occurs in the White Sea, with 

lower densities of pups reported in the 

central and southern White Sea and in 

the western Kara Sea. Bearded seals in 

the Barents Sea are believed to conduct 

seasonal migrations following the ice 

edge. The impacts of an ice-free Barents 

Sea would depend largely on the ability 

of bearded seals to relocate to more ice 

covered waters. However, there is little 

or no basis to determine the likelihood 

of this occurring. 

Although sea ice has covered the Kara 

and Laptev Seas throughout most of the 

year in the past, a west-to-east reduction 

in the concentration of springtime sea 

ice is predicted over the next century. 

By the end of the century, in some years 

half of the Kara Sea could be ice free in 

May, and in June by mid-century. In 

most years however, ice (albeit in low 

concentrations) is forecasted to cover 

the Kara Sea shelf. Similarly, out to the 

end of the century, the Laptev Sea is 

predicted to always have springtime ice. 

In July, by century’s end, significant 

portions of both seas are predicted to be 

ice free in most years. Unlike most 

regions, the peak of molting in these 

seas is reportedly well into July 

(Chapskii, 1938; Heptner et al., 1976), so 

bearded seals in these areas would need 

to modify the location or timing of their 

molt to avoid the consequences of 

increased metabolism by molting in the 

water and/or incomplete molting. 

Bearded seals in the White and Laptev 

Seas are known to occasionally haul out 

on shore during late-summer and earlyautumn (Heptner et al., 1976). This 

behavior could mitigate the impacts of 

an ice-free July. 

Bearded seals are considered rare in 

the Laptev Sea (Heptner et al., 1976), 

which currently has extremely high 

concentrations of ice throughout most of 

the year. As such, an effect of global 

warming may well be to increase 

suitable haul-out habitat for bearded 

seals in the Kara and Laptev Seas, 

potentially offsetting to some extent a 

decrease of habitat further west. It is 

prudent to assume, though, that the net 

difference between sea ice related 

habitat creation and loss will be 

negative, especially because other 

factors like ocean warming and 

acidification (discussed below) are 

likely to impact habitat and there is no 

information about the quality of feeding 

habitat that may underlie the haul-out 

habitat in the future. 

Given the projected reductions in 

spring and summer sea ice, the threat 

posed to E. b. barbatus by potential 

spatial separation of sea ice resting areas 

from benthic feeding habitat appears to 

be moderate to high (but lower than for 

the Beringia DPS). A decline in sea ice 

suitable for molting also appears to pose 

a moderate threat. If suitable sea ice is 

absent during molting, bearded seals 

would have to relocate to other icecovered waters, potentially with poorer 

access to food, or to coastal regions in 

the vicinity of haul-out sites on shore. 

Further, these behavioral changes could 

increase the risks of disturbance, 

predation, and competition. Both 

scenarios would require bearded seals to 

adapt to novel (i.e., suboptimal) 

conditions, and to exploit habitats to 

which they may not be well adapted, 

likely compromising their survival rates. 

Nevertheless, conditions during 

April–June should still provide 

sufficient ice for the life history needs 

of bearded seals within major portions 

of the range of E. b. barbatus through 

the end of this century, including in the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin 

Bay, and Hudson Bay. The BRT 

estimated that 188,000 bearded seals 

occur in these areas. We therefore 

conclude the threats posed by the 

projected changes in sea ice habitat are 

not likely to place E. b. barbatus in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

We also analyzed whether E. b. 

barbatus is threatened or endangered 

within a significant portion of its range. 

To address this issue, we first 

considered whether the subspecies is 

threatened in any portion of its range 

and then whether that portion is 

significant. We find that the greatest 

threats posed by the projected changes 

in sea ice habitat are in the Barents, 

White, and Kara Seas. As discussed 

above, by 2090 the Barents Sea is 

predicted to show a loss in sea ice of 

more than 75 percent in May, and to be 

virtually ice-free in June and July. The 

White Sea, a southern inlet of the 

Barents Sea, is forecast to be ice-free in 

May by 2050. In addition, half of the 

Kara Sea is expected to be ice-free in 

May by 2090, and in June by 2050. We 

noted above that the BRT considered all 

regional estimates of abundance for E. b. 

barbatus to be unreliable, except those 

in Canadian waters. We similarly have 

no information on the relative 

significance of these regions to bearded 

seals. We do not, however, have any 

information indicating that these areas 

are significant to the subspecies’ 

biology, ecology, or general 

conservation needs. These areas do not 

appear to contain particularly highquality habitat for bearded seals, or to 

have characteristics that would make 

bearded seals less susceptible to the 

threats posed by climate change (i.e., 

contribute significantly to the resilience 

of the subspecies). By contrast, the large 

habitat areas in Hudson Bay, the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and Baffin 

Bay, which support an estimated 

188,000 bearded seals, are expected to 

persist through the end of the century. 

Accordingly, we conclude that E. b. 

barbatus is not likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Impacts on Bearded 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 2 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. The most likely impact of 

ocean acidification on bearded seals 

will be through the loss of benthic 

calcifiers and lower trophic 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 of the oceans is predicted to 

drive species ranges toward higher 

latitudes. Additionally, climate change 

can strongly influence fish distribution 

and abundance. What can be predicted 

with some certainty is that further shifts 

in spatial distribution and northward 

range extensions are inevitable, and that 

the species composition of the plankton 

and fish communities will continue to 

change under a warming climate. 

Bearded seals of different age classes 

are thought to feed at different trophic 

levels, so any ecosystem change could 

be expected to impact bearded seals in 

a variety of ways. Changes in bearded 

seal prey, anticipated in response to 

ocean warming and loss of sea ice and, 

potentially, ocean acidification, have 

the potential for negative impacts, but 

the possibilities are complex. These 

ecosystem responses may have very 

long lags as they propagate through 

trophic webs. Because of bearded seals’ 

apparent dietary flexibility, these threats 

are of less concern than the direct 

effects of potential sea ice degradation. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Subsistence, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Recreational, scientific, and 

educational utilization of bearded seals 

is currently at low levels and is not 

expected to increase to significant threat 

levels in the foreseeable future. The 

solitary nature of bearded seals has 

made them less suitable for commercial 

exploitation than many other seal 

species. Still, they may have been 

depleted by commercial harvests in 

some areas of the Sea of Okhotsk and 

the Bering, Barents, and White Seas 

during the mid-20th century. There is 

currently no significant commercial 

harvest of bearded seals and significant 

harvests seem unlikely in the 

foreseeable future. 

Bearded seals have been a very 

important species for subsistence of 

indigenous people in the Arctic for 

thousands of years. The current 

subsistence harvest is substantial in 

some areas, but there is little or no 

evidence that subsistence harvests have 

or are likely to pose serious risks to the 

species. Climate change is likely to alter 

patterns of subsistence harvest of 

marine mammals by changing their 

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 the 

interacting variables and imprecision of 

climate and sea 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 

climate-induced changes in 

populations. We conclude that 

overutilization does not currently 

threaten the Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk 

DPS, or E. b. barbatus. 

C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation 

A variety of diseases and parasites 

have been documented to occur in 

bearded seals. The seals have likely coevolved with many of these and the 

observed prevalence is typical and 

similar to other species of seals. The 

transmission of many known diseases of 

pinnipeds is often facilitated by animals 

crowding together and by the 

continuous or repeated occupation of a 

site. The pack ice habitat and the more 

solitary behavior of bearded seals may 

therefore limit disease transmission. 

Other than at shore-based haul-out sites 

in the Sea of Okhotsk in summer and 

fall, bearded seals do not crowd together 

and rarely share small ice floes with 

more than a few other seals, so 

conditions that would favor disease 

transmission do not exist for most of the 

year. Abiotic and biotic changes to 

bearded seal habitat potentially could 

lead to exposure to new pathogens or 

new levels of virulence, but we consider 

the potential threats to bearded seals as 

low. 

Polar bears are the primary predators 

of bearded seals. Other predators 

include brown bears (Ursus arctos), 

killer whales (Orcinus orca), sharks, and 

walruses. Predation under the future 

scenario of reduced sea ice is difficult 

to assess. Polar bear predation may 

decrease, but predation by killer whales, 

sharks, and walrus may increase. The 

range of plausible scenarios is large, 

making it impossible to predict the 

direction or magnitude of the net impact 

on bearded seal mortality. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

A primary concern about the 

conservation status of the bearded 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 bearded 

seal habitat. The risk posed to bearded 

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 recognize that the lack 

of effective mechanisms to regulate 

global GHG emissions is contributing to 

the risks posed to bearded seals by these 

emissions. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Pollution and Contaminants 

Research on contaminants and 

bearded seals is limited compared to the 

extensive information available for 

ringed seals. Pollutants such as 

organochlorine compounds (OC) and 

heavy metals have been found in most 

bearded seal populations. The variety, 

sources, and transport mechanisms of 

the contaminants vary across the 

bearded seal’s range, but these 

compounds appear to be ubiquitous in 

the Arctic marine food chain. Statistical 

analysis of OCs in marine mammals has 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77509 

shown that, for most OCs, the European 

Arctic is more contaminated than the 

Canadian and U.S. Arctic. Present and 

future impacts of contaminants on 

bearded 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 bearded 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 bearded seals, 

primarily through noise, physical 

disturbance, and pollution, particularly 

in the event of a large oil spill or 

blowout. 

Within the range of the bearded 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. 

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 

particularly vulnerable to fouling of 

their dense lanugo coat. Though 

bearded seal pups exhibit some prenatal 

molting, they are generally not fully 

molted at birth, and thus would be 

particularly prone to physical impacts 

of contacting oil. Adults, juveniles, and 

weaned young of the year rely on 

blubber for insulation, so effects on their 

thermoregulation are expected to be 

minimal. Other acute effects of oil 

exposure which have been shown to 

reduce seal’s health and possibly 

survival include skin irritation, 

disorientation, lethargy, conjunctivitis, 

corneal ulcers, and liver lesions. 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 bearded 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. 

In summary, the threats to bearded 

seals from oil and gas activities are 

greatest where these activities converge 

with breeding aggregations or in 

migration corridors such as in the 

Bering Strait. In particular, bearded 

seals in ice-covered remote regions are 

most vulnerable to oil and gas activities, 

primarily due to potential oil spill 

impacts. 

Commercial Fisheries Interactions and 

Bycatch 

Commercial fisheries may impact 

bearded 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 bearded seal bycatch could 

only be found for commercial fisheries 

that operate in Alaska waters. Based on 

data from 2002–2006, there has been an 

annual average of 1.0 mortalities of 

bearded seals incidental to commercial 

fishing operations. Although no 

information could be found regarding 

bearded seal bycatch in the Sea of 

Okhotsk, given the intensive levels of 

commercial fishing that occur in this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

sea, bycatch of bearded seals likely 

occurs there as well. 

For indirect impacts, we note that 

commercial fisheries target a number of 

known bearded seal prey species, such 

as walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma) and cod. These fisheries 

may affect bearded seals indirectly 

through reduction in prey biomass and 

through other fishing mediated changes 

in their prey species. Bottom trawl 

fisheries also have the potential to 

indirectly affect bearded seals through 

destruction or modification of benthic 

prey and/or their habitat. 

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 to bearded seals 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 bearded 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 

bearded seal food webs. 

Current and future shipping activities 

in the Arctic pose varying levels of 

threats to bearded seals depending on 

the type and intensity of the shipping 

activity and its degree of spatial and 

temporal overlap with bearded seal 

habitats. These factors are inherently 

difficult to know or predict, making 

threat assessment highly uncertain. 

Most ships in the Arctic purposefully 

avoid areas of ice and thus prefer 

periods and areas which minimize the 

chance of encountering ice. This 

necessarily mitigates many of the risks 

of shipping to populations of bearded 

seals, since they are closely associated 

with ice throughout the year. 

Icebreakers pose special risks to bearded 

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 icecovered areas where bearded seals occur 

will likely also increase. 

The potential threats and general 

threat assessment in the Sea of Okhotsk 

are largely the same as they are in the 

Arctic, though with less detail available 

regarding the spatial and temporal 

correspondence of ships and bearded 

seals, save one notable exception. 

Though noise and oil pollution from 

vessels are expected to have the same 

general relevance in the Sea of Okhotsk, 

oil and gas activities near Sakhalin 

Island are currently at high levels and 

poised for another major expansion of 

the offshore oil fields that would require 

an increasing number of tankers. About 

25 percent of the Okhotsk bearded seal 

population uses this area during 

whelping and molting, and as a 

migration corridor (Fedoseev, 2000). 

The main aggregations of bearded 

seals in the northern Sea of Okhotsk are 

likely within the commercial shipping 

routes, but vessel frequency and timing 

relative to periods when seals are 

hauled out on ice are presently 

unknown. Some ports are kept open 

year-round by icebreakers, largely to 

support year-round fishing, so there is 

greater probability here of spatial and 

temporal overlaps with bearded seals 

hauled out on ice. In a year with 

reduced ice, bearded seals were more 

concentrated close to shore (Fedoseev, 

2000), suggesting that seals could 

become increasingly prone to shipping 

impacts as ice diminishes. 

As is the case with the Arctic, a 

quantitative assessment of actual threats 

and impacts in the Sea of Okhotsk is 

unrealistic due to a general lack of 

published information on shipping 

patterns. Modifications to shipping 

routes, and possible choke points 

(where increases in vessel traffic are 

focused at sensitive places and times for 

bearded seals) due to diminishing ice 

are likely, but there is little data on 

which to base even qualitative 

predictions. However, the predictions 

regarding shipping impacts in the Arctic 

are generally applicable, and because of 

significant increases in predicted 

shipping, it appears that bearded seals 

inhabiting the Sea of Okhotsk, in 

particular the shelf area off central and 

northern Sakhalin Island, are at 

increased risk of impacts. 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 icecovered regions of this sea. 

Summary for Factor E 

We find that the threats posed by 

pollutants, oil and gas industry 

activities, fisheries, and shipping do not 

individually or cumulatively raise 

concern about them placing bearded 

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. This is of particular note for 

bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk, 

where oil and gas related activities are 

expected to increase, and are judged to 

pose a moderate threat. 

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 degree of risk posed by the 

threats associated with the impacts of 

global climate change on bearded seal 

habitat is uncertain due to a lack of 

quantitative information linking 

environmental conditions to bearded 

seal vital rates, and a lack of information 

about how resilient bearded seals will 

be to these changes. The BRT 

considered the current risks (in terms of 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity) to the 

persistence of the Beringia DPS, the 

Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. barbatus as low 

or very low. The BRT judged the risks 

to the persistence of the Beringia DPS 

within the foreseeable future to be 

moderate (abundance and diversity) to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77511 

high (productivity and spatial 

structure), and to the Okhotsk DPS to be 

high for abundance, productivity, and 

spatial structure, and moderate for 

diversity. The risks to persistence of E. 

b. barbatus within the foreseeable future 

were judged to be moderate. 

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 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 

ESA. The bearded seal is currently 

classified as a species of ‘‘Least Concern’’ 

on the IUCN Red List. These listings 

highlight the conservation status of 

listed species and can inform 

conservation planning and 

prioritization. 

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 bearded seal research and 

management. 

There are no known regulatory 

mechanisms that effectively address the 

factors believed to be contributing to 

reductions in bearded 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 only sets targets for 

action 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 bearded 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 growth 

in global GHG emissions within the 

foreseeable future. 

At this time, we are not aware of any 

formalized conservation efforts for 

bearded 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’ 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory is 

engaged in an active research program 

for bearded seals. The new information 

from research will be used to enhance 

our understanding of the risk factors 

affecting bearded seals, thereby 

improving our ability to develop 

effective management measures for the 

species. 

Proposed Determinations 

We have reviewed the status of the 

bearded seal, fully considering the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, including the status review 

report. We have reviewed threats to the 

Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, and E. 

b. barbatus, as well as other relevant 

factors, and given consideration to 

conservation efforts and special 

designations for bearded seals by states 

and foreign nations. In consideration of 

all of the threats and potential threats to 

bearded 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: 

Beringia DPS: (1) The present 

population size of the Beringia DPS is 

very uncertain, but is estimated to be 

about 155,000 individuals. (2) It is 

highly likely that reductions will occur 

in both the extent and timing of sea ice 

in the range of the Beringia DPS, in 

particular in the Bering Sea. To adapt to 

this ice regime, bearded seals would 

likely have to shift their nursing, 

rearing, and molting areas to ice-covered 

seas north of the Bering Strait, where 

projections suggest there is potential for 

the ice edge to retreat to deep waters of 

the Arctic basin. (3) There appears to be 

a moderate to high threat that 

reductions in spring and summer sea ice 

could result in spatial separation of sea 

ice resting areas from benthic feeding 

habitat. Reductions in sea ice suitable 

for molting and pup maturation also 

appear to pose moderate to high threats. 

(4) Within the foreseeable future, the 

risks to the persistence of the Beringia 

DPS appear to be moderate (abundance 

and diversity) to high (productivity and 

spatial structure). We conclude that the 

Beringia DPS is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and we propose to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

list this DPS as threatened under the 

ESA. 

Okhotsk DPS: (1) The present 

population size of the Okhotsk DPS is 

very uncertain, but is estimated to be 

about 95,000 individuals. (2) Decreases 

in sea ice habitat suitable for whelping, 

nursing, pup maturation, and molting 

pose the greatest threats to the 

persistence of the Okhotsk DPS. As ice 

conditions deteriorate, Okhotsk bearded 

seals will be limited in their ability to 

shift their range northward because the 

Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the north 

by land. (3) Although some bearded 

seals in the Sea of Okhotsk are known 

to use land for hauling out, this only 

occurs in late summer and early 

autumn. We are not aware of any 

occurrence of bearded seals whelping or 

nursing young on land, so the predicted 

loss of sea ice is expected to be 

significantly detrimental to the long 

term viability of the population. (4) 

Within the foreseeable future the risks 

to the persistence of the Okhotsk DPS 

due to demographic problems 

associated with abundance, 

productivity, and spatial structure are 

expected to be high. We conclude that 

the Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and we 

propose to list this DPS as threatened 

under the ESA. 

E. b. barbatus: (1) The present 

population size of E. b. barbatus is very 

uncertain, but is estimated to be about 

188,000 individuals in Canadian waters. 

(2) Although significant loss of sea ice 

habitat is projected in the range of E. b. 

barbatus in this century, major portions 

of the current range are predicted to be 

at the core of future ice distributions. (3) 

Within the foreseeable future, the risks 

to the persistence of E. b. barbatus in 

terms of abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity appear to 

be moderate, reflecting the expected 

persistence of favorable sea ice habitat 

in major portions of the subspecies’ 

range. We find that E. b. barbatus is not 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. We 

therefore conclude that listing E. b. 

barbatus as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA is not warranted. 

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 

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 the 

Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of 

the bearded seal 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 Okhotsk 

DPS and the Beringia DPS of the 

bearded 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 the Beringia DPS of bearded 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 bearded 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 

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 bearded 

seal status review report (Cameron et 

al., 2010) that supports this proposal to 

list the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk 

DPS 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 DPS occurs outside of 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 that DPS; 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 Beringia DPS of bearded seals 

include: (1) Unauthorized harvest or 

lethal takes of bearded seals in the 

Beringia DPS; (2) in-water activities that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77513 

produce high levels of underwater 

noise, which may harass or injure 

bearded seals in the Beringia DPS; and 

(3) discharging or dumping toxic 

chemicals or other pollutants into areas 

used by the Beringia DPS of bearded 

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 bearded seals in the Beringia 

DPS 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 bearded seals in 

the Beringia DPS. 

Critical Habitat 

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

1532(5A)) 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.’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1532(3)). 

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 

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 Beringia DPS’s critical habitat is not 

determinable. We will propose critical 

habitat for the Beringia DPS of the 

bearded 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 this 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 

Beringia DPS that could be impacted by 

critical habitat designation. 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. 

Because the known distribution of the 

Okhotsk DPS of the bearded seal occurs 

in areas outside the jurisdiction of the 

United States, no critical habitat will be 

designated as part of the proposed 

listing action for this DPS. 

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 Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk 

DPS of the bearded seal. 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 

bearded seals; 

(2) Biological or other information 

regarding the threats to bearded seals; 

(3) Information on the effectiveness of 

ongoing and planned bearded 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 

Beringia DPS of the bearded 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 Beringia DPS of 

the bearded seal and which may require 

special management consideration or 

protection; and 

(6) Economic, national security, and 

other relevant impacts from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Beringia DPS of the bearded 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 the 

Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

77514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 the 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 

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)(8) and (a)(9) 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) * * * 

(8) Bearded seal, 

Beringia DPS.

Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus.

The Beringia DPS includes all breeding populations of bearded 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. 

(9) Bearded seal, 

Okhotsk DPS.

Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus.

The Okhotsk DPS includes all breeding populations of bearded 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 FR 4722, 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 

§ 223.216 to read as follows: 

§ 223.216 Beringia DPS of Bearded 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 Beringia DPS of 

bearded seal listed in § 223.102(a)(8). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77515 

4. In Subpart B of part 223, add 

§ 223.217 to read as follows: 

§ 223.217 Okhotsk DPS of Bearded 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 DPS of 

bearded seal listed in § 223.102(a)(9). 

[FR Doc. 2010–30931 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS4