[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77476-77495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30934]



[[Page 77475]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VII





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 223



 Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for 
Subspecies of the Ringed Seal; Endangered and Threatened Species; 
Proposed Threatened and Not Warranted Status for Subspecies and 
Distinct Population Segments of the Bearded Seal; Proposed Rules

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

[[Page 77476]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 101126590-0589-01]
RIN 0648-XZ59


Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for 
Subspecies of the Ringed Seal

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; status review; 
request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of the 
ringed seal (Phoca hispida) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 
announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the ringed seal as a 
threatened or endangered species. Based on consideration of information 
presented in the status review report, an assessment of the factors in 
the ESA, and efforts being made to protect the species, we have 
determined the Arctic (Phoca hispida hispida), Okhotsk (Phoca hispida 
ochotensis), Baltic (Phoca hispida botnica), and Ladoga (Phoca hispida 
ladogensis) subspecies of the ringed seal are likely to become 
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range in 
the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we issue a proposed rule to list 
these subspecies of the ringed seal as threatened species, and we 
solicit comments on this proposed action. At this time, we do not 
propose to designate critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal 
because it is not currently determinable. In order to complete the 
critical habitat designation process, we also solicit information on 
essential physical and biological features of Arctic ringed seal 
habitat.

DATES: Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be 
received by close of business on February 8, 2011. Requests for public 
hearings must be made in writing and received by January 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XZ59, 
by any one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
    <bullet> Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
    <bullet> Fax: (907) 586-7557.
    <bullet> Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
    All comments received are a part of the public record. No comments 
will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov for public viewing until 
after the comment period has closed. Comments will generally be posted 
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required 
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    The proposed rule, maps, status review report, and other materials 
relating to this proposal can be found on the Alaska Region Web site 
at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 
(907) 271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7235; or Marta 
Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD (301) 713-
1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2008, we initiated status 
reviews of ringed, bearded (Erignathus barbatus), and spotted seals 
(Phoca largha) under the ESA (73 FR 16617). On May 28, 2008, we 
received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 
these three species of seals as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 
primarily due to concerns about threats to their habitat from climate 
warming and loss of sea ice. The Petitioner also requested that 
critical habitat be designated for these species concurrent with 
listing under the ESA. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that when a petition to 
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is 
found to present substantial scientific and commercial information, we 
make a finding on whether the petitioned action is (a) Not warranted, 
(b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from immediate proposal 
by other pending proposals of higher priority. This finding is to be 
made within 1 year of the date the petition was received, and the 
finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
    After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition, 
and other literature and information available in our files, we found 
(73 FR 51615; September 4, 2008) that the petition met the requirements 
of the regulations under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), and we determined that 
the petition presented substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, we proceeded with the 
status reviews of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals and solicited 
information pertaining to them.
    On September 8, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
alleging that we failed to make the requisite 12-month finding on its 
petition to list the three seal species. Subsequently, the Court 
entered a consent decree under which we agreed to finalize the status 
review of the ringed seal (and the bearded seal) and submit this 12-
month finding to the Office of the Federal Register by December 3, 
2010. Our 12-month petition finding for bearded seals is published as a 
separate notice concurrently with this finding. Spotted seals were also 
addressed in a separate Federal Register notice (75 FR 65239; October 
22, 2010; see also, 74 FR 53683, October 20, 2009).
    The status review report of the ringed seal is a compilation of the 
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of 
the species, including the past, present, and future threats to this 
species. The Biological Review Team (BRT) that prepared this report was 
composed of eight marine mammal biologists, a fishery biologist, a 
marine chemist, and a climate scientist from NMFS's Alaska and 
Northeast Fisheries Science Centers, NOAA's Pacific Marine 
Environmental Lab, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The 
status review report underwent independent peer review by five 
scientists with expertise in ringed seal biology, Arctic sea ice, 
climate change, and ocean acidification.

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions

    There are two key tasks associated with conducting an ESA status 
review. The first is to delineate the taxonomic group under 
consideration; and the second is to conduct an extinction risk 
assessment to determine whether the petitioned species is threatened or 
endangered. To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of 
organisms must constitute a ``species,'' which section 3(16) of the ESA 
defines as ``any

[[Page 77477]]

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' (DPS) is not 
commonly used in scientific discourse, so the USFWS and NMFS developed 
the ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' to provide a 
consistent interpretation of this term for the purposes of listing, 
delisting, and reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996). We describe and use this policy below to guide our 
determination of whether any population segments of this species meet 
the DPS criteria of the DPS policy.
    The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as 
``any species which is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The foreseeability of a species' future status is case 
specific and depends upon both the foreseeability of threats to the 
species and foreseeability of the species' response to those threats. 
When a species is exposed to a variety of threats, each threat may be 
foreseeable in a different time frame. For example, threats stemming 
from well-established, observed trends in a global physical process may 
be foreseeable on a much longer time horizon than a threat stemming 
from a potential, though unpredictable, episodic process such as an 
outbreak of disease that may never have been observed to occur in the 
species.
    In the 2008 status review of the ribbon seal (Boveng, et al., 2008; 
see also 73 FR 79822, December 30, 2008), NMFS scientists used the same 
climate projections used in our risk assessment here, but terminated 
the analysis of threats to ribbon seals at 2050. One reason for that 
approach was the difficulty of incorporating the increased divergence 
and uncertainty in climate scenarios beyond that time. Other reasons 
included the lack of data for threats other than those related to 
climate change beyond 2050, and the fact that the uncertainty embedded 
in the assessment of the ribbon seal's response to threats increased as 
the analysis extended farther into the future.
    Since that time, NMFS scientists have revised their analytical 
approach to the foreseeability of threats and responses to those 
threats, adopting a more threat-specific approach based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available for each respective threat. 
For example, because the climate projections in the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Fourth Assessment Report extend 
through the end of the century (and we note the IPCC's Fifth Assessment 
Report, due in 2014, will extend even farther into the future), we used 
those models to assess impacts from climate change through the end of 
the century. We continue to recognize that the farther into the future 
the analysis extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we 
incorporated that limitation into our assessment of the threats and the 
species' response. For other threats, where the best scientific and 
commercial data does not extend as far into the future, such as for 
occurrences and projections of disease or parasitic outbreaks, we 
limited our analysis to the extent of such data. We believe this 
approach creates a more robust analysis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.

Species Information

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
ringed seal is presented in the status review report (Kelly et al., 
2010a; available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/).
    The ringed seal is the smallest of the northern seals, with typical 
adult body sizes of 1.5 m in length and 70 kg in weight. The average 
life span of ringed seals is about 15-28 years. As the common name of 
this species suggests, its coat is characterized by ring-shaped 
markings. Ringed seals are adapted to remaining in heavily ice-covered 
areas throughout the fall, winter, and spring by using the stout claws 
on their fore flippers to maintain breathing holes in the ice.

Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements

    Ringed seals are circumpolar and are found in all seasonally ice 
covered seas of the Northern Hemisphere as well as in certain 
freshwater lakes. They range throughout the Arctic Basin and southward 
into adjacent seas, including the southern Bering Sea and Newfoundland. 
Ringed seals are also found in the Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan in 
the western North Pacific, the Baltic Sea in the North Atlantic, and 
landlocked populations inhabit lakes Ladoga and Saimaa east of the 
Baltic Sea (Figure 1).
    Throughout most of its range, the Arctic subspecies does not come 
ashore and uses sea ice as a substrate for resting, pupping, and 
molting. During the ice-free season in more southerly regions including 
the White Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Baltic Sea, ringed seals 
occasionally rest on island shores or offshore reefs. In lakes Ladoga 
and Saimaa, ringed seals typically rest on rocks and island shores when 
ice is absent. In all subspecies except the Okhotsk, pups normally are 
born in subnivean lairs (snow caves) on the sea ice (Arctic and Baltic 
ringed seals) or in subnivean lairs along shorelines (Saimaa and Ladoga 
ringed seals) in late winter to early spring. Although use of subnivean 
lairs has been reported for Okhotsk ringed seals, this subspecies 
apparently depends primarily on sheltering in the lee of ice hummocks.
    The seasonality of ice cover strongly influences ringed seal 
movements, foraging, reproductive behavior, and vulnerability to 
predation. Born et al. (2004) recognized three ``ecological seasons'' 
as important to ringed seals off northwestern Greenland: The ``open-
water season,'' the ice-covered ``winter,'' and ``spring,'' when the 
seals breed and after the breeding season haul out on the ice to molt. 
Tracking seals in Alaska and the western Canadian Arctic, Kelly et al. 
(2010b) used different terms to refer to these ecological seasons. 
Kelly et al. (2010b) referred to the open-water period when ringed 
seals forage most intensively as the ``foraging period,'' early winter 
through spring when seals rest primarily in subnivean lairs on the ice 
as the ``subnivean period,'' and the period between abandonment of the 
lairs and ice break-up as the ``basking period.''
    Open-water (foraging) period: Short and long distance movements by 
ringed seals have been documented during the open-water period. 
Overall, the record from satellite tracking indicates that ringed seals 
breeding in shorefast ice practice one of two strategies during the 
open-water foraging period. Some seals forage within 100 km of their 
shorefast ice breeding habitat while others make extensive movements of 
hundreds or thousands of kilometers to forage in highly productive 
areas and along the pack ice edge. Movements during the open-water 
period by ringed seals that breed in the pack ice are unknown. Tracking 
and observational records indicate that adult Arctic ringed seals 
breeding in the shorefast ice show inter-annual fidelity to breeding 
sites. Saimaa and Ladoga ringed seals show similar site fidelity. High 
quality, abundant food is important to the annual energy budgets of 
ringed seals. Fall and early winter periods, prior to the occupation of 
breeding sites, are important in allowing ringed seals to accumulate 
enough fat stores to support estrus and lactation.

[[Page 77478]]

    Winter (subnivean period): At freeze-up in fall, ringed seals 
surface to breathe in the remaining open water of cracks and leads. As 
these openings freeze over, the seals push through the ice to breathe 
until it is too thick. They then open breathing holes by abrading the 
ice with the claws on their fore flippers. As the ice thickens, the 
seals continue to maintain the breathing holes by scratching at the 
walls. The breathing holes can be maintained in ice 2 m or greater in 
thickness but often are concentrated in the thinner ice of refrozen 
cracks.
    As snow accumulates and buries the breathing hole, the seals 
breathe through the snow layer. Ringed seals excavate lairs in the snow 
above breathing holes where snow depth is sufficient. These subnivean 
lairs are occupied for resting, pupping, and nursing young in annual 
shorefast and pack ice. Snow accumulation on sea ice is typically 
sufficient for lair formation only where pressure ridges or ice 
hummocks cause the snow to form drifts at least 45 cm deep (at least 
50-65 cm for birth lairs). Such drifts typically occur only where 
average snow depths (on flat ice) are 20-30 cm or more. A general lack 
of such ridges or hummocks in lakes Ladoga and Saimaa limits suitable 
snow drifts to island shorelines, where most lairs in Lake Ladoga and 
virtually all lairs in Lake Saimaa are found.
    Subnivean lairs provide refuge from air temperatures too low for 
survival of ringed seal pups. Lairs also conceal ringed seals from 
predators, an advantage especially important to the small pups that 
start life with minimal tolerance for immersion in cold water. When 
forced to flee into the water to avoid predators, the pups that survive 
depend on the subnivean lairs to subsequently warm themselves. Ringed 
seal movements during the subnivean period typically are quite limited, 
especially where ice cover is extensive.
    Spring (basking period): Numbers of ringed seals hauled out on the 
surface of the ice typically begin to increase during spring as the 
temperatures warm and the snow covering the seals' lairs melts. 
Although the snow cover can melt rapidly, the ice remains largely 
intact and serves as a substrate for the molting seals that spend many 
hours basking in the sun. Adults generally molt from mid-May to mid-
July, although there is regional variation. The relatively long periods 
of time that ringed seals spend out of the water during the molt has 
been ascribed to the need to maintain elevated skin temperatures. 
Feeding is reduced and the seal's metabolism declines during the molt. 
As seals complete this phase of the annual pelage cycle, they spend 
increasing amounts of time in the water.

Food Habits

    Ringed seals eat a wide variety of prey in the marine environment. 
Most ringed seal prey is small, and preferred fishes tend to be 
schooling species that form dense aggregations. Ringed seals rarely 
prey upon more than 10-15 species in any one area, and not more than 2-
4 of those species are considered important prey. Despite regional and 
seasonal variations in the diet of ringed seals, fishes of the cod 
family tend to dominate the diet of ringed seals from late autumn 
through early spring in many areas. Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) is 
often reported to be among the most important prey species, especially 
during the ice-covered periods of the year. Other members of the cod 
family, including polar cod (Arctogadus glacialis), saffron cod 
(Eleginus gracilis), and navaga (Eleginus navaga), are also seasonally 
important to ringed seals in some areas. Arctic cod is not found in the 
Sea of Okhotsk, but capelin (Mallotus villosus) are abundant in the 
region. Other fishes reported to be locally important to ringed seals 
include smelt (Osmerus sp.) and herring (Clupea sp.). Invertebrates 
appear to become more important to ringed seals in many areas during 
the open-water season, and are often found to dominate the diets of 
young seals. In the brackish water of the Baltic Sea, the prey 
community includes a mixture of marine and freshwater fish species, as 
well as invertebrates. In the freshwater environment of Lake Saimaa, 
several schooling fishes were reported to be the most important prey 
species; and in Lake Ladoga, a variety of fish species were found in 
the diet of ringed seals.

Reproduction

    Sexual maturity in ringed seals varies with population status and 
can be as late as 7 years for males and 9 years for females and as 
early as 3 years for both sexes. Ringed seals breed annually, with 
timing varying regionally. Mating takes place while mature females are 
still nursing their pups and is thought to occur under the ice in the 
vicinity of birth lairs. Little is known about the breeding system of 
ringed seals; however, males are often reported to be territorial 
during the breeding season.
    A single pup is born in a subnivean lair on either the shorefast 
ice or pack ice. In much of the Arctic, pupping occurs in late March 
through April, but the timing varies with latitude. Pupping in the Sea 
of Okhotsk takes place in March and April. In the Baltic Sea, Lake 
Saimaa, and Lake Ladoga, pups are born in February through March. At 
birth, ringed seal pups are approximately 60-65 cm in length and weigh 
4.5-5.0 kg with regional variation. The pups are born with a white 
natal coat (lanugo) that provides insulation, particularly when dry, 
until it is shed after 4-6 weeks. Pups nurse for as long as 2 months in 
stable shorefast ice and for as little as 3-6 weeks in moving ice. Pups 
normally are weaned before break-up of spring ice. At weaning, pups are 
four times their birth weights, and they lose weight for several months 
after weaning.

Species Delineation

    The BRT reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available 
on the ringed seal's taxonomy and concluded that there are five 
currently recognized subspecies of the ringed seal: Arctic ringed seal; 
Baltic ringed seal; Okhotsk ringed seal; Ladoga ringed seal; and Saimaa 
ringed seal (Phoca hispida saimensis). The BRT noted, however, that 
further investigation would be required to discern whether there are 
additional distinct units, especially within the Arctic subspecies, 
whose genetic structuring has yet to be thoroughly investigated. We 
agree with the BRT's conclusions that these five subspecies of the 
ringed seal qualify as ``species'' under the ESA. Our DPS analysis 
follows, and the geographic distributions of the five subspecies are 
shown in Figure 1.
    Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), two elements 
are considered in a decision regarding the potential identification of 
a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to 
the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) 
the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies 
to which it belongs. A population segment of a vertebrate species may 
be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
    If a population segment is considered to be discrete under one or 
both of the above conditions, its biological and ecological 
significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated in light of

[[Page 77479]]

the ESA's legislative history indicating that the authority to list 
DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of 
genetic diversity (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). 
This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the 
discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon, (3) evidence that the discrete population segment 
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be 
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its 
historic range, or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment 
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.
    If a population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a 
DPS) its evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based 
on the ESA's definitions of those terms and a review of the factors 
enumerated in section 4(a)(1).
    With respect to discreteness criterion 1 above, we concluded that 
resolution of ringed seal population segments beyond the subspecies 
level is not currently possible using the best available scientific and 
commercial data. We also did not find sufficient differences in the 
conservation status or management within any of the ringed seal 
subspecies among their respective range countries to justify the use of 
international boundaries to satisfy the discreteness criterion of our 
DPS Policy. We therefore conclude that there are no population segments 
within any of the subspecies that satisfy the discreteness criteria of 
our DPS Policy. Since there are no discrete population segments within 
any of the subspecies, we cannot take the next step of determining 
whether any discrete population segment is significant to the taxon to 
which it belongs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE10.089

Abundance and Trends

    Several factors make it difficult to accurately assess ringed 
seals' abundance and trends. The remoteness and dynamic nature of their 
sea ice habitat, time spent below the surface, and their broad 
distribution and seasonal movements make surveying ringed seals 
expensive and logistically

[[Page 77480]]

challenging. Additionally, the species' range crosses political 
boundaries and there has been limited international cooperation to 
conduct range-wide surveys. Details of survey methods and data are 
often limited or have not been published, making it difficult to judge 
the reliability of the reported numbers. Some studies have relied on 
surveys of seal holes and then estimated the number of seals based on 
various assumptions of the ratio of seals to holes. Most surveys are 
conducted during the basking period and the numbers of seals on ice is 
multiplied by some factor to estimate population size or determine a 
population index. While a few, recent studies have used data recorders 
and haul-out models to develop correction factors for seals submerged 
and unseen, many studies present only estimates for seals visible on 
ice (i.e., ``basking population''). The timing of annual snow and ice 
melts also varies widely from year to year and, unless surveys are 
conducted to coincide with similar ice and weather conditions, 
comparisons between years (even if conducted during the same time of 
year) can be erroneous. With these limitations in mind, the best 
scientific and commercial data on abundance and trends are summarized 
below for each of the ringed seal subspecies.

Arctic Ringed Seal

    The Arctic ringed seal is the most abundant of the ringed seal 
subspecies and has a circumpolar distribution. The BRT divided the 
distribution of Arctic ringed seals into five regions: Greenland Sea 
and Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and the White, 
Barents and Kara Seas. These regions were largely chosen to reflect the 
geographical groupings of published studies and not to imply any actual 
population structure. These areas also do not represent the full 
distribution of Arctic ringed seals as estimates are not available in 
some areas (e.g., areas of the Russian Arctic coast and the Canadian 
Arctic Archipelago).
    The only available comprehensive estimate for the Greenland Sea and 
Baffin Bay region is 787,000, based on surveys conducted in 1979. 
Consistency in harvest records over time lends some confidence that the 
population has not changed significantly.
    The Hudson Bay ringed seal population was estimated at 53,346 based 
on the mid-point of estimates from aerial surveys conducted in 2007 and 
2008. Prior surveys conducted in western Hudson Bay in the 1970s 
produced an estimate of 455,000 seals, which was much larger than the 
218,300 reported in the 1950s. The earlier studies did not account for 
seals using pack ice habitats which might account for the difference. A 
more recent survey in 1995 provided an estimate of approximately 
280,000 seals when missed seals were accounted for.
    Population assessments of ringed seals in the Beaufort and Chukchi 
Seas have been mostly confined to U.S. and Canadian waters. Based on 
the available abundance estimates for study areas within this region 
and extrapolations for pack ice areas without survey data, a reasonable 
estimate for the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas is 1 million seals. 
Estimates derived for all Alaskan shorefast ice habitats in both the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas based on aerial surveys conducted in the mid 
1980s were 250,000 ringed seals in the shorefast ice and 1-1.5 million 
including seals in the pack-ice habitat.
    The White, Barents, Kara, and East Siberian Seas encompass at least 
half of the worldwide distribution of Arctic ringed seals. The total 
population across these seas may be as many as 220,000 seals based on 
available survey data, primarily from 1975-1993.

Okhotsk Ringed Seal

    Based on aerial surveys, ringed seal abundance in the Sea of 
Okhotsk from 1968-1990 was estimated at between 676,000 and 855,000 
seals. These estimates include a general (not species-specific) 30 
percent adjustment to account for seals in the water. Fluctuations in 
population estimates since catch limits were initiated in 1968 were 
suspected to be natural (Fedoseev, 2000). Based on these surveys, a 
conservative estimate of the current total population of ringed seals 
in the Sea of Okhotsk would be 676,000 seals. Aerial surveys conducted 
in the Sea of Okhotsk from 1968-1969 provided a population estimate of 
800,000. This was the same as the estimate previously back-calculated 
from catch data in 1966 when a population decline due to hunting was 
identified. These calculations also suggested that ringed seal 
abundance in the Sea of Okhotsk had been in a state of steady decline 
since 1955 when estimates suggested the population exceeded 1 million 
seals.

Baltic Ringed Seal

    The Baltic ringed seal population was estimated at 10,000 seals 
based on comprehensive surveys conducted in 1996. Historical estimates 
of population size for the Baltic ringed seal range from 50,000 to 
450,000 seals in 1900 (Kokko et al., 1999). These estimates were 
derived as back calculations from historical bounty records. The large 
range in the estimates reflects uncertainty in the hunting dynamics and 
whether the populations were historically subject to density 
dependence. By the 1940s, the population had been reduced to 25,000 
seals in large part due to Swedish and Finnish removal efforts. Ringed 
seals in the Baltic are found in three general regions, the Bothnian 
Bay, Gulf of Finland, and Gulf of Riga plus the Estonian west coast. 
Low numbers of ringed seals are also present in the Bothnian Sea and 
the southwestern region of Finland. The greatest concentration of 
Baltic ringed seals is found in the Bothnian Bay.

Ladoga Ringed Seal

    The population size of ringed seals in Lake Ladoga is currently 
suggested to range between 3,000 and 5,000 seals based on an aerial 
survey in 2001. This represents a decline from estimates of 20,000 and 
5,000-10,000 seals reported for the 1930s and the 1960s, respectively 
(Chapskii, 1974). Results from a Russian aerial survey in the 1970s 
estimated the population of ringed seals in Lake Ladoga to be 3,500-
4,700 seals.

Saimaa Ringed Seal

    The current population estimate of ringed seals in Lake Saimaa is 
less than 300, and the mean population growth rate from 1990-2004 was 
1.026. Lake Saimaa is a complex body of water, and the population 
trends and abundance for Saimaa ringed seals have differed across the 
various regions. It has been projected that the population of Saimaa 
ringed seals may reach 400 by 2015, but with the caveat that seals may 
no longer be present in some regions of the lake. Historical abundance 
of ringed seals in Lake Saimaa is estimated to have been between 4,000 
and 6,000 animals approximately 5,000 years ago (Sipil[auml] and 
Hyv[auml]rinen, 1998; Sipil[auml], 2006). However, using a back-casting 
process based on reported bounty statistics, the population was 
estimated in 1893 to be between 100 and 1,300 seals. In 1993, the 
Saimaa seal was listed as endangered under the ESA (58 FR 26920; May 6, 
1993) and as depleted under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
1972, as amended. At that time, the population was estimated at 160-180 
seals (57 FR 60162; December 18, 1992).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Ringed Seal

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine, 
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or

[[Page 77481]]

threatened because of any one or a combination of the following 
factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued 
existence. These factors are discussed below, with each subspecies of 
the ringed seal considered under each factor. The reader is also 
directed to section 4.2 of the status review report for a more detailed 
discussion of the factors affecting the five subspecies of the ringed 
seal (see ADDRESSES). As discussed above, the data on ringed seal 
abundance and trends of most populations are unavailable or imprecise, 
especially in the Arctic and Okhotsk subspecies, and there is little 
basis for quantitatively linking projected environmental conditions or 
other factors to ringed seal survival or reproduction. Our risk 
assessment therefore primarily evaluated important habitat features and 
was based upon the best available scientific and commercial data and 
the expert opinion of the BRT members.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

    The main concern about the conservation status of ringed seals 
stems from the likelihood that their sea ice habitat has been modified 
by the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus 
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the 
foreseeable future. A second concern, related by the common driver of 
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) emissions, is the modification of 
habitat by ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and 
other important aspects of the marine ecosystem. A reliable assessment 
of the future conservation status of each of the subspecies of the 
ringed seal therefore requires a focus on the observed and projected 
changes in sea ice, snow cover, ocean temperature, ocean pH (acidity), 
and associated changes in ringed seal prey species.
    The threats (analyzed below) associated with impacts of the warming 
climate on the habitat of ringed seals, to the extent that they may 
pose risks to these seals, are expected to manifest throughout the 
current breeding and molting range (for snow and ice related threats) 
or throughout the entire range (for ocean warming and acidification) of 
each of the subspecies, since the spatial resolution of data pertaining 
to these threats is currently limited.
Overview of Global Climate Change and Effects on the Annual Formation 
of the Ringed Seal's Sea Ice Habitat
    Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere can be divided into 
first[hyphen]year sea ice that formed in the most recent 
autumn[hyphen]winter period, and multi[hyphen]year sea ice that has 
survived at least one summer melt season. The Arctic Ocean is covered 
by a mix of multi-year sea ice. More southerly regions, such as the 
Bering Sea, Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, the Baltic Sea, Hudson Bay, and 
the Sea of Okhotsk are known as seasonal ice zones, where first year 
sea ice is renewed every winter. Similarly, freshwater ice in lakes 
Ladoga and Saimaa forms and melts annually. Both the observed and the 
projected effects of a warming global climate are most extreme in 
northern high[hyphen]latitude regions, in large part due to the 
ice[hyphen]albedo feedback mechanism in which melting of snow and sea 
ice lowers reflectivity and thereby further increases surface warming 
by absorption of solar radiation.
    Sea ice extent at the end of summer (September) 2007 in the Arctic 
Ocean was a record low (4.3 million sq km), nearly 40 percent below the 
long-term average and 23 percent below the previous record set in 2005 
(5.6 million sq km) (Stroeve et al., 2008). Sea ice extent in September 
2010 was the third lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind 
2007 and 2008 (second lowest). Most of the loss of sea ice was on the 
Pacific side of the Arctic. Of even greater long-term significance was 
the loss of over 40 percent of Arctic multi-year 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 multi-year sea ice and the reduction of sea 
ice thickness is of greater physical importance. It would take many 
years to restore the ice thickness through annual growth, and the loss 
of multi-year sea ice makes it unlikely that the Arctic will return to 
previous climatological conditions. Continued loss of sea ice will be a 
major driver of changes across the Arctic over the next decades, 
especially in late summer and autumn.
    Sea ice and other climatic conditions that influence ringed seal 
habitats are quite different between the Arctic and seasonal ice zones. 
In the Arctic, sea ice loss is a summer feature with a delay in freeze 
up occurring into the following fall. Sea ice persists in the Arctic 
from late fall through mid[hyphen]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[hyphen]Arctic. Although there are connections between sea ice 
conditions in the Arctic and the seasonal ice zones, the early loss of 
summer sea ice in the Arctic cannot be extrapolated to the seasonal ice 
zones, which are behaving differently than the Arctic. For example, the 
Bering Sea has had 4 years of colder than normal winter and spring 
conditions from 2007 to 2010, with near record sea ice extents, 
rivaling the sea ice maximum in the mid-1970s, despite record retreats 
in summer.
IPCC Model Projections
    The analysis and synthesis of information presented by the IPCC in 
its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) represents the scientific consensus 
view on the causes and future of climate change. The IPCC AR4 used a 
range of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced under six 
``marker'' scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios 
(SRES) (IPCC, 2000) to project plausible outcomes under clearly-stated 
assumptions about socio-economic factors that will influence the 
emissions. Conditional on each scenario, the best estimate and likely 
range of emissions were projected through the end of the 21st century. 
It is important to note that the SRES scenarios do not contain explicit 
assumptions about the implementation of agreements or protocols on 
emission limits beyond current mitigation policies and related 
sustainable development practices.
    Conditions such as surface air temperature and sea ice area are 
linked in the IPCC climate models to GHG emissions by the physics of 
radiation processes. When CO<INF>2</INF> is added to the atmosphere, it 
has a long residence time and is only slowly removed by ocean 
absorption and other processes. Based on IPCC AR4 climate models, 
expected increases in global warming--defined as the change in global 
mean surface air temperature (SAT)--by the year 2100 depends strongly 
on the assumed emissions of CO<INF>2</INF> and other GHGs. By contrast, 
global warming projected out to about 2040-2050 will be primarily due 
to emissions that have already occurred and those that will occur over 
the next decade. Thus, conditions projected to mid-century are less 
sensitive to assumed future emission

[[Page 77482]]

scenarios. Uncertainty in the amount of warming out to mid-century is 
primarily a function of model-to-model differences in the way that the 
physical processes are incorporated, and this uncertainty can be 
addressed in predicting ecological responses by incorporating the range 
in projections from different models.
    Comprehensive Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) 
are the major objective tools that scientists use to understand the 
complex interaction of processes that determine future climate change. 
The IPCC used the simulations from about 2 dozen AOGCMs developed by 17 
international modeling centers as the basis for the AR4 (IPCC, 2007). 
The AOGCM results are archived as part of the Coupled Model 
Intercomparison Project-Phase 3 (CMIP3) at the Program for Climate 
Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). The CMIP3 AOGCMs provide 
reliable projections, because they are built on well-known dynamical 
and physical principles, and they simulate quite well many large scale 
aspects of present-day conditions. However, the coarse resolution of 
most current climate models dictates careful application on small 
scales in heterogeneous regions.
    There are three main contributors to divergence in AOGCM climate 
projections: Large natural variations, the range in emissions 
scenarios, and across-model differences. The first of these, 
variability from natural variation, can be incorporated by averaging 
the projections over decades, or, preferably, by forming ensemble 
averages from several runs of the same model. The second source of 
variation arises from the range in plausible emissions scenarios. As 
discussed above, the impacts of the scenarios are rather similar before 
mid-21st century. For the second half of the 21st century, however, and 
especially by 2100, the choice of the emission scenario becomes the 
major source of variation among climate projections and dominates over 
natural variability and model-to-model differences (IPCC, 2007). 
Because the current consensus is to treat all SRES emissions scenarios 
as equally likely, one option for representing the full range of 
variability in potential outcomes would be to project from any model 
under all of the six ``marker'' scenarios. This can be impractical in 
many situations, so the typical procedure for projecting impacts is to 
use an intermediate scenario, such as A1B or B2 to predict trends, or 
one intermediate and one extreme scenario (e.g., A1B and A2) to 
represent a significant range of variability. The third primary source 
of variability results from differences among models in factors such as 
spatial resolution. This variation can be addressed and mitigated in 
part by using the ensemble means from multiple models.
    There is no universal method for combining AOGCMs for climate 
projections, and there is no one best model. The approach taken by the 
BRT for selecting the models used to project future sea ice and snow 
conditions is summarized below.
Data and Analytical Methods
    NMFS scientists have recognized that the physical basis for some of 
the primary threats faced by the species had been projected, under 
certain assumptions, through the end of the 21st century, and that 
these projections currently form the most widely accepted version of 
the best available data about future conditions. In our risk assessment 
for ringed seals, we therefore considered all the projections through 
the end of the 21st century to analyze the threats stemming from 
climate change.
    The CMIP3 (IPCC) model simulations used in the BRT analyses were 
obtained from PCMDI on-line (PCMDI, 2010). The six IPCC models 
previously identified by Wang and Overland (2009) as performing 
satisfactorily at reproducing the magnitude of the observed seasonal 
cycle of sea ice extent in the Arctic under the A1B (``medium'') and A2 
(``high'') emissions scenarios were used to project monthly sea ice 
concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere in March-July for each of the 
decadal periods 2025-2035, 2045-2055, and 2085-2095. Snow cover on sea 
ice in the Northern Hemisphere was forecasted using one of the six 
models, the Community Climate System Model, version 3 (CCSM3, National 
Center for Atmospheric Research) (under the A1B scenario), a model that 
is known for incorporating advanced sea ice physics, and for which snow 
data were available. To incorporate natural variability, this model was 
run seven times.
    Climate models generally perform better on continental or larger 
scales, but because habitat changes are not uniform throughout the 
hemisphere, the six IPCC models used to project sea ice conditions in 
the Northern Hemisphere were further evaluated independently on their 
performance at reproducing the magnitude of the observed seasonal cycle 
of sea ice extent in 14 different regions throughout the ringed seal's 
range, including 12 regions for the Arctic ringed seal, one region for 
the Okhotsk ringed seal, and one region for the Baltic, Ladoga, and 
Saimaa ringed seals. For Arctic ringed seals, in three regions (Chukchi 
Sea, east Siberian Sea, and the central Arctic) six of the models 
simulated sea ice conditions in reasonable agreement with observations, 
in two regions (Beaufort and eastern Bering Seas) four models met the 
performance criteria, in two regions (western Bering and the Barents 
Seas) a single model (CCSM3) met the performance criteria, and in five 
regions (Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, east 
Greenland, and the Kara and Laptev Seas) none of the models performed 
satisfactorily. The models also did not meet the performance criteria 
for the Baltic region and the Sea of Okhotsk. Other less direct means 
of predicting regional ice cover, such as comparison of surface air 
temperature predictions with past climatology (Sea of Okhotsk), other 
existing analyses (Baltic Sea and Hudson Bay), and results from the 
hemispheric predictions (Baffin Bay, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, 
and the East Greenland, Kara, and Laptev Seas), were used for regions 
where ice projections could not be obtained. For the Baltic Sea we 
reviewed the analysis of Jylha et al. (2008). They used seven regional 
climate models and found good agreement with observations for the 1902-
2000 comparison period. For Hudson Bay we referred to the analysis of 
Joly et al. (2010). They used a regional sea ice-ocean model to 
investigate the response of sea ice and oceanic heat storage in the 
Hudson Bay system to a climate-warming scenario.
    Regional predictions of snow cover were based on results from the 
hemispheric projections for Arctic and Okhotsk ringed seals, and on 
other existing analyses for Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed seals. 
For the Baltic Sea we referred to the analysis of Jylha et al. (2008) 
noted above. For lakes Ladoga and Saimaa we considered the analysis of 
Saelthun et al. (1998; cited in Kuusisto, 2005). They used a modified 
hydrological model to analyze the effects of climate change on 
hydrological conditions and runoff in Finland and the Scandinavian 
Peninsula.
    While our inferences about future regional ice and snow conditions 
are based upon the best available scientific and commercial data, we 
recognize that there are uncertainties associated with predictions 
based on hemispheric projections or indirect means. We also note that 
judging the timing of the onset of potential impacts to ringed seals is 
complicated by the coarse resolution of the IPCC models.

[[Page 77483]]

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice and Snow Cover Predictions
    Projections of Northern Hemisphere sea ice concentrations for 
November indicate a major delay in fall freeze-up by 2050 north of 
Alaska and in the Barents Sea. By 2090, the average sea ice 
concentration in November is below 50 percent in the Russian Arctic, 
and some models show a nearly ice free Arctic, except for the region of 
the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In March and April, winter type 
conditions persist out to 2090. There is some reduction of sea ice by 
2050 in the outer portions of the seasonal ice zones, but the sea ice 
south of Bering Strait, eastern Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, and the Kara 
and Laptev Seas remains substantial. The month of May shows diminishing 
sea ice cover at 2050 and 2090 in the Barents and Bering Seas and the 
Sea of Okhotsk. By the month of June, projections begin to show 
substantial changes as the century progresses. Current conditions 
occasionally exhibit a lack of sea ice near the Bering Strait during 
June. By 2050, however, this sea ice loss becomes a major feature, with 
open water continuing along the northern Alaskan coast in most models. 
Open water in June spreads to the East Siberian Shelf by 2090. The 
eastern Barents Sea experiences a reduction in sea ice between 2030 and 
2050. The models indicate that sea ice in Baffin Bay will be affected 
very little until the end of the century.
    In July, the Arctic Ocean shows a marked effect of global warming, 
with the sea ice retreating to a central core as the century 
progresses. The loss of multi-year sea ice over the last 5 years has 
provided independent evidence for this conclusion. By 2050, the 
continental shelves of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas 
are nearly ice free in July, with ice concentrations less than 20 
percent in the ensemble mean projections. The Kara and Laptev Seas also 
show a reduction of sea ice in coastal regions by mid-century in most 
but not all models. The Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the adjacent 
Arctic Ocean north of Canada and Greenland, however, are predicted to 
become a refuge for sea ice through the end of the century. This 
conclusion is supported by typical Arctic wind patterns, which tend to 
blow onshore in this region. Indeed, this refuge region is why sea ice 
scientists use the phrase: A nearly sea ice free summer in the Arctic 
by mid-century.
    As the Arctic Ocean warms and is covered by less ice, precipitation 
is expected to increase overall including during the winter months. 
Five climate models used by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 
forecasted an average increase in precipitation over the Arctic Ocean 
of 14 percent by the end of the century (Walsh et al., 2005). The 
impact of increased winter precipitation on the depth of snow on sea 
ice, however, will be counteracted by delays in the formation of sea 
ice. Over most of the Arctic Ocean, snow cover reaches its maximal 
depth in May, but most of that accumulation takes place in the autumn 
(Sturm et al., 2002). Snow depths reach 50 percent of the annual 
maximum by the end of October and 67 percent of their maximum by the 
end of November (Radionov et al., 1997). Thus, delays of 1-2 months in 
the date of ice formation would result in substantial decreases in 
spring snow depths despite the potential for increased winter 
precipitation. Thinner ice will be more susceptible to deforming and 
producing pressure ridges and ice hummocks favoring snow drifts where 
depths exceed those on flat ice (Iacozaa and Barber, 1999; Strum  et 
al., 2006). However, as noted above, average snow depths of 20-30 cm or 
more are typically necessary to form drifts that are deep enough for 
ringed seal lair formation. As spring air temperatures continue to 
warm, snow melt will continue to come earlier in the year. The CCSM3 
model forecasted that the accumulation of snow on sea ice will decrease 
by almost 50 percent by the end of this century, with more than half of 
that decline projected to occur by 2050. Although the forecasted snow 
accumulations in the seven integrations of the model varied, all 
predicted substantial declines over the century.
Regional Sea Ice and Snow Cover Predictions by Subspecies
    Arctic ringed seal: In the East Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort, Kara-
Laptev, and Greenland Seas, as well as in Baffin Bay, and the Canadian 
Arctic Archipelago, little or no decline in ice extent is expected in 
April and May during the remainder of this century. In most of these 
areas, a moderate decline in sea ice is predicted during June within 
this century, while substantial declines in sea ice are projected in 
July and November after mid-century. The central Arctic (defined as 
regions north of 80[deg] N. latitude) also shows declines in sea ice 
cover that are most apparent in July and November after 2050. For 
Hudson Bay, under a warmer climate scenario (for the years 2041-2070) 
Joly et al. (2010) projected a reduction in the sea ice season of 7-9 
weeks, with substantial reductions in sea ice cover most apparent in 
July and during the first months of winter.
    In the Bering Sea, April and May ice cover is projected to decline 
throughout this century, with substantial inter-annual variability 
forecasted in the eastern Bering Sea. The projection for May indicates 
that there will commonly be years with little or no ice in the western 
Bering Sea beyond mid-century. Very little ice has remained in the 
eastern Bering Sea in June since the mid-1970s. Sea ice cover in the 
Barents Sea in April and May is also projected to decline throughout 
this century, and in the months of June and July, ice is expected to 
disappear rapidly in the coming decades.
    Based on model projections, April snow depths over much of the 
range of the Arctic ringed seal averaged 25-35 cm in the first decade 
of this century, consistent with on-ice measurements by Russian 
scientists (Weeks, 2010). By mid-century, a substantial decrease in 
areas with April snow depths of 25-35 cm is projected (much of it 
reduced to 20-15 cm). The deepest snow (25-30 cm) is forecasted to be 
found just north of Greenland, in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and 
in an area tapering north from there into the central Arctic Basin. 
Southerly regions, such as the Bering Sea and Barents Sea, are 
forecasted to have snow depths of 10 cm or less my mid-century. By the 
end of the century, April snow depths of 20-25 cm are forecasted only 
for a portion of the central Arctic, most of the Canadian Arctic 
Archipelago, and a few small, isolated areas in a few other regions. 
Areas with 25-30 cm of snow are projected to be limited to a few small 
isolated pockets in the Canadian Arctic by 2090-2099.
    Okhotsk ringed seal: As noted above, none of the IPCC models 
performed satisfactorily at projecting sea ice for the Sea of Okhotsk, 
and so projected surface air temperatures were examined relative to 
current climate conditions as a proxy to predict sea ice extent and 
duration. Based on that analysis, ice is expected to persist in the Sea 
of Okhotsk in March during the remainder of this century, although ice 
may be limited to the northern region in most years after mid-century. 
Conditions for sea ice in April are likely to be limited to the far 
northern reaches of the Sea of Okhotsk or non-existent by 2100. Little 
to no sea ice is expected in May by mid-century. Average snow depth 
projections for April show depths of 15-20 cm only in the northern 
portions of the Sea of Okhotsk in the past 10 years and nowhere in that 
sea by mid-century. By the end of the century average snow depths are 
projected to be 10 cm or less even in the northern Sea of Okhotsk.

[[Page 77484]]

    Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed seals: For the Baltic Sea, the 
analysis of regional climate models by Jylh[auml] et al. (2008) was 
considered. They used seven regional climate models and found good 
agreement with observations for the 1902-2000 comparison period. For 
the forecast period 2071-2100, one model predicted a change to mostly 
mild conditions, while the remaining models predicted unprecedentedly 
mild conditions. They noted that their estimates for a warming climate 
were in agreement with other studies that found unprecedentedly mild 
ice extent conditions in the majority of years after about 2030. The 
model we used to project snow depths (CCSM3) did not provide adequate 
resolution for the Baltic Sea. The climate models analyzed by 
Jylh[auml] et al. (2008), however, forecasted decreases of 45-60 days 
in duration of snow cover by the end of the century in the northern 
Baltic Sea region. The shortened seasonal snow cover would result 
primarily from earlier spring melts, but also from delayed onset of 
snow cover. Depth of snow is forecasted to decrease 50-70 percent in 
the region over the same period. The depth of snow also will be 
decreased by mid-winter thaws and rain events. Simulations of the snow 
cover indicated that an increasing proportion of the snow pack will 
consist of icy or wet snow.
    Ice cover has diminished about 12 percent over the past 50 years in 
Lake Ladoga. Although we are not aware of any ice forecasts specific to 
lakes Ladoga and Saimaa, the simulations of future climate reported by 
Jylh[auml] et al. (2008) suggest warming winters with reduced ice and 
snow cover. Snow cover in Finland and the Scandinavian Peninsula is 
projected to decrease 10-30 percent before mid-century and 50-90 
percent by 2100 (Saelthun et al., 1998, cited in Kuusisto, 2005).
Effects of Changes in Ice and Snow Cover on Ringed Seals
    Ringed seals are vulnerable to habitat loss from changes in the 
extent or concentration of sea ice because they depend on this habitat 
for pupping, nursing, molting, and resting. The ringed seal's broad 
distribution, ability to undertake long movements, diverse diet, and 
association with widely varying ice conditions suggest resilience in 
the face of environmental variability. However, the ringed seal's long 
generation time and ability to produce only a single pup each year may 
limit its ability to respond to environmental challenges such as the 
diminishing ice and snow cover projected in a matter of decades. Ringed 
seals apparently thrived during glacial maxima and survived warm 
interglacial periods. How they survived the latter periods or in what 
numbers is not known. Declines in sea ice cover in recent decades are 
more extensive and rapid than any known for at least the last few 
thousand years (Polyak et al., 2010).
    Ringed seals create birth lairs in areas of accumulated snow on 
stable ice including the shore-fast ice over continental shelves along 
Arctic coasts, bays, and inter-island channels. While some authors 
suggest that shorefast ice is the preferred pupping habitat of ringed 
seals due to its stability throughout the pupping and nursing period, 
others have documented ringed seal pupping on drifting pack ice both 
nearshore and offshore. Both of these habitats can be affected by 
earlier warming and break-up in the spring, which shortens the length 
of time pups have to grow and mature in a protected setting. Harwood et 
al. (2000) reported that an early spring break-up negatively impacted 
the growth, condition, and apparent survival of unweaned ringed seal 
pups. Early break-up was believed to have interrupted lactation in 
adult females, which in turn, negatively affected the condition and 
growth of pups.
    Unusually heavy ice has also been implicated in shifting 
distribution, high winter mortality, and reduced productivity of ringed 
seals. It has been suggested that reduced ice thickness associated with 
warming in some areas could lead to increased biological productivity 
that might benefit ringed seals, at least in the short-term. However, 
any transitory and localized benefits of reduced ice thickness are 
expected to be outweighed by the negative effects of increased 
thermoregulatory costs and vulnerability of seal pups to predation 
associated with earlier ice break-up and reduced snow cover.
    Ringed seals, especially the newborn, depend on snow cover for 
protection from cold temperatures and predators. Occupation of 
subnivean lairs is especially critical when pups are nursed in late 
March-June. Ferguson et al. (2005) attributed low ringed seal 
recruitment in western Hudson Bay to decreased snow depth in April and 
May. Reduced snowfall results in less snow drift accumulation next to 
pressure ridges, and pups in lairs with thin snow cover are more 
vulnerable to predation than pups in lairs with thick snow cover 
(Hammill and Smith, 1989; Ferguson et al., 2005). When snow cover is 
insufficient, pups can also freeze in their lairs as documented in 1974 
when roofs of lairs in the White Sea were only 5-10 cm thick (Lukin and 
Potelov, 1978). Similarly, pup mortality from freezing and polar bear 
(Ursus maritimus) predation increased when unusually warm spring 
temperatures caused early melting near Baffin Island in the late 1970s 
(Smith and Hammill, 1980; Stirling and Smith, 2004). Prematurely 
exposed pups also are vulnerable to predation by wolves (Canis lupus) 
and foxes (Alopex lagopus and Vulpes vulpes)--as documented during an 
early snow melt in the White Sea in 1977 (Lukin, 1980)--and by gulls 
(Laridae) and ravens (Corvus corax) as documented in the Barents Sea 
(Gjertz and Lydersen, 1983; Lydersen and Gjertz, 1987; Lydersen et al., 
1987; Lydersen and Smith, 1989; Lydersen and Rig, 1990; Lydersen, 
1998). When lack of snow cover has forced birthing to occur in the 
open, some studies have reported that nearly 100 percent of pups died 
from predation (Kumlien, 1879; Lydersen et al., 1987; Lydersen and 
Smith, 1989; Smith et al., 1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991). The high 
fidelity to birthing sites exhibited by ringed seals also makes them 
more susceptible to localized degradation of snow cover (Kelly et al., 
2010).
    Increased rain-on-snow events during the late winter also 
negatively impact ringed seal recruitment by damaging or eliminating 
snow-covered birth lairs, increasing exposure and the risk of 
hypothermia, and facilitating predation by polar bears and other 
predators. Stirling and Smith (2004) documented the collapse of 
subnivean lairs during unseasonal rains near southeastern Baffin Island 
and the subsequent exposure of ringed seals to hypothermia. They 
surmised that most of the pups that survived exposure to cold were 
eventually killed by polar bears, Arctic foxes, or possibly gulls. 
Stirling and Smith (2004) postulated that, should early season rain 
become regular and widespread in the future, mortality of ringed seal 
pups will increase, especially in more southerly parts of their range.
Potential Impacts of Projected Ice and Snow Cover Changes on Ringed 
Seals
    As discussed above, ringed seals divide their time between foraging 
in the water, and reproducing and molting out of the water, where they 
are especially vulnerable to predation. Females must nurse their pups 
for 1-2 months, and the small pups are vulnerable to cold temperatures 
and avian and mammalian predators on the ice, especially during the 
nursing period. Thus, a specific habitat requirement for ringed seals 
is adequate snow for the occupation of subnivean

[[Page 77485]]

lairs, especially in spring when pups are born and nursed.
    Northern Hemisphere snow cover has declined in recent decades and 
spring melt times have become earlier (ACIA, 2005). In most areas of 
the Arctic Ocean, snow melt advanced 1-6 weeks from 1979-2007. 
Throughout most of the ringed seal's range, snow melt occurred within a 
couple of weeks of weaning. Thus, in the past 3 decades, snow melts in 
many areas have been pre-dating weaning. Shifts in the timing of 
reproduction by other pinnipeds in response to changes in food 
availability have been documented. However, the ability of ringed seals 
to adapt to earlier snow melts by advancing the timing of reproduction 
will be limited by snow depths. As discussed above, over most of the 
Arctic Ocean, snow cover reaches its maximal depth in May, but most of 
that accumulation takes place in autumn. It is therefore unlikely that 
snow depths for birth lair formation would be improved earlier in the 
spring. In addition, the pace at which snow melts are advancing is 
rapid relative to the generation time of ringed seals, further 
challenging the potential for an adaptive response.
    Snow drifted to 45 cm or more is needed for excavation and 
maintenance of simple lairs, and birth lairs require depths of 50 to 65 
cm or more (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and Gjertz, 1986; Kelly, 
1988; Furgal et al., 1996; Lydersen, 1998; Lukin et al., 2006). Such 
drifts typically only occur where average snow depths are at least 20-
30 cm (on flat ice) and where drifting has taken place along pressure 
ridges or ice hummocks (Hammill and Smith, 1991; Lydersen and Ryg, 
1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991; Ferguson et al., 2005). We therefore 
considered areas forecasted to have less than 20 cm average snow depth 
in April to be inadequate for the formation of ringed seal birth lairs.
    Arctic ringed seal: The depth and duration of snow cover is 
projected to decrease throughout the range of Arctic ringed seals 
within this century. Whether ringed seals will continue to move north 
with retreating ice over the deeper, less productive Arctic Basin 
waters and whether forage species that they prey on will also move 
north is uncertain (see additional discussion below). Initially, 
impacts may be somewhat ameliorated if the subspecies' range retracts 
northward with its sea ice habitats. By 2100, however, April snow cover 
is forecasted to become inadequate for the formation and occupation of 
ringed seal birth lairs over much of the subspecies' range. The 
projected decreases in ice and, especially, snow cover are expected to 
lead to increased pup mortality from premature weaning, hypothermia, 
and predation.
    Okhotsk ringed seal: Based on temperature proxies, ice is expected 
to persist in the Sea of Okhotsk through the onset of pupping in March 
through the end of this century. Ice suitable for pupping and nursing 
likely will be limited to the northernmost portions of the sea, as ice 
is likely to be limited to that region in April by the end of the 
century. The snow cover projections suggest that snow depths may 
already be inadequate for lairs in the Sea of Okhotsk, and most Okhotsk 
ringed seals apparently now give birth on pack ice in the lee of ice 
hummocks. However, it appears unlikely that this behavior could 
mitigate the threats posed by the expected decreases in sea ice. The 
Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the north by land, which will limit the 
ability of Okhotsk ringed seals to respond to deteriorating sea ice and 
snow conditions by shifting their range northward. Some Okhotsk ringed 
seals have been reported on terrestrial resting sites during the ice-
free season, but these sites provide inferior pupping and nursing 
habitat. Within the foreseeable future, the projected decreases in sea 
ice habitat suitable for pupping, nursing, and molting in the Sea of 
Okhotsk are expected to lead to reduced abundance and productivity.
    Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed seals: The considerable 
reductions in ice extent forecasted by mid-century, coupled with 
deteriorating snow conditions, are expected to substantially alter the 
habitats of Baltic ringed seals. Climate forecasts for northern Europe 
also suggest reduced ice and snow cover for lakes Ladoga and Saimaa 
within this century. These habitat changes are expected to lead to 
decreased survival of pups (due to hypothermia, predation, and 
premature weaning) and considerable declines in the abundance of these 
subspecies in the foreseeable future. Recent (2005-2007) high rates of 
pup mortality in Saimaa ringed seals (more than double those in 1980-
2000) have been attributed to insufficient snow for lair formation and 
occupation. Given the small population size of the Saimaa ringed seal, 
this subspecies is at particular risk from the projected habitat 
changes. Although Baltic, Ladoga, and Saimaa ringed seals have been 
reported using terrestrial resting sites when ice is absent, these 
sites provide inferior pupping and nursing habitat. As sea ice and snow 
conditions deteriorate, Baltic ringed seals will be limited in their 
ability to respond by shifting their range northward because the Baltic 
Sea is bounded to the north by land; and the landlocked seal 
populations in lakes Ladoga and Saimaa will be unable to shift their 
ranges.
Impacts on Ringed Seals Related to Changes in Ocean Conditions
    Ocean acidification is an ongoing process whereby chemical 
reactions occur that reduce both seawater pH and the concentration of 
carbonate ions when CO<INF>2</INF> is absorbed by seawater. Results 
from global ocean CO<INF>2</INF> surveys over the past two decades have 
shown that ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising 
atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> levels. The process of ocean acidification 
has long been recognized, but the ecological implications of such 
chemical changes have only recently begun to be appreciated. The waters 
of the Arctic and adjacent seas are among the most vulnerable to ocean 
acidification. Seawater chemistry measurements in the Baltic Sea 
suggest that this sea is equally vulnerable to acidification as the 
Arctic. We are not aware of specific acidification studies in lakes 
Ladoga and Saimaa. Fresh water systems, however, are much less buffered 
than ocean waters and are likely to experience even larger changes in 
acidification levels than marine systems. The most likely impact of 
ocean acidification on ringed seals will be at lower tropic levels on 
which the species' prey depends. Cascading effects are likely both in 
the marine and freshwater environments. Our limited understanding of 
planktonic and benthic calcifiers in the Arctic (e.g., even their 
baseline geographical distributions) means that future changes will be 
difficult to detect and evaluate.
    Warming water temperatures and decreasing ice likely will result in 
a contraction in the range of Arctic cod, a primary prey of ringed 
seals. The same changes will lead to colonization of the Arctic Ocean 
by more southerly species, including potential prey, predators, and 
competitors. The outcome of new competitive interactions cannot be 
specified, but as sea ice specialists, ringed seals may be at a 
disadvantage in competition with generalists in an ice-diminished 
Arctic. Prey biomass may be reduced as a consequence of increased 
freshwater input and loss of sea ice habitat for amphipods and 
copepods. On the other hand, overall pelagic productivity may increase.
Summary of Factor A
    Climate models consistently project overall diminishing sea ice and 
snow cover at least through the current century, with regional 
variation in the timing and severity of those losses.

[[Page 77486]]

Increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, including 
CO<INF>2</INF>, will drive climate warming and increase acidification 
of the ringed seal's ocean and lake habitats. The impact of ocean 
warming and acidification on ringed seals is expected to be primarily 
through changes in community composition. However, the nature and 
timing of these changes is uncertain.
    Diminishing ice and snow cover are the greatest challenges to 
persistence of all of the ringed seal subspecies. While winter 
precipitation is forecasted to increase in a warming Arctic, the 
duration of ice cover is projected to be substantially reduced, and the 
net effect will be lower snow accumulation on the ice. Within the 
century, snow cover adequate for the formation and occupation of birth 
lairs is forecasted only for parts of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, 
a portion of the central Arctic, and a few small isolated areas in a 
few other regions. Without the protection of lairs, ringed seals, 
especially newborn, are vulnerable to freezing and predation. We 
conclude that the ongoing and projected changes in sea ice habitat pose 
significant threats to the persistence of each of the five subspecies 
of the ringed seal.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Subsistence, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    Ringed seals have been hunted by humans for millennia and remain a 
fundamental subsistence resource for many northern coastal communities 
today. Ringed seals were also harvested commercially in large numbers 
during the 20th century, which led to the depletion of their stocks in 
many parts of their range. Commercial harvests in the Sea of Okhotsk 
and predator-control harvests in the Baltic Sea, Lake Ladoga, and Lake 
Saimaa caused population declines in the past, but have since been 
restricted. Although subsistence harvest of the Arctic subspecies is 
currently substantial in some regions, harvest levels appear to be 
sustainable. Climate change is likely to alter patterns of subsistence 
harvest of marine mammals by changing their local densities or 
distributions in relation to hunting communities. Predictions of the 
impacts of climate change on subsistence hunting pressure are 
constrained by the complexity of interacting variables and imprecision 
of climate and sea ice models at small scales. Accurate information on 
both harvest levels and species' abundance and trends will be needed in 
order to assess the impacts of hunting as well as to respond 
appropriately to potential climate-induced changes in populations. 
Recreational, scientific, and educational uses of ringed seals are 
minimal and are not expected to increase significantly in the 
foreseeable future. We conclude that overutilization does not currently 
threaten any of the five subspecies of the ringed seal.

C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation

    Ringed seals have co-evolved with numerous parasites and diseases, 
and those relationships are presumed to be stable. Evidence of 
distemper virus, for example, has been reported in Arctic ringed seals, 
but there is no evidence of impacts to ringed seal abundance or 
productivity. Abiotic and biotic changes to ringed seal habitat 
potentially could lead to exposure to new pathogens or new levels of 
virulence, but we consider the potential threats to ringed seals as 
low.
    Ringed seals are most commonly preyed upon by Arctic foxes and 
polar bears, and less commonly by other terrestrial carnivores, sharks, 
and killer whales (Orcinus orca). When ringed seal pups are forced out 
of subnivean lairs prematurely because of low snow accumulation and/or 
early melts, gulls and ravens also successfully prey on them. Avian 
predation is facilitated not only by lack of sufficient snow cover but 
also by conditions favoring influxes of birds. Lydersen and Smith 
(1989) pointed out that the small size of newborn ringed seals, coupled 
with their prolonged nursing period, make them vulnerable to predation 
by birds and likely sets a southern limit to their distribution.
    Ringed seals and bearded seals are the primary prey of polar bears. 
Polar bear predation on ringed seals is most successful in moving 
offshore ice, often along floe edges and rarely in ice-free waters. 
Polar bears also successfully hunt ringed seals on stable shorefast ice 
by catching animals when they surface to breathe and when they occupy 
lairs. Hammill and Smith (1991) further noted that polar bear predation 
on ringed seal pups increased 4-fold in a year when average snow depths 
in their study area decreased from 23 to 10 cm. They concluded that 
while a high proportion of pups born each year are lost to predation, 
``without the protection provided by the subnivean lair, pup mortality 
would be much higher.''
    The distribution of Arctic foxes broadly overlaps with that of 
Arctic ringed seals. Arctic foxes prey on newborn seals by tunneling 
into the birth lairs. The range of the red fox overlaps with that of 
the Okhotsk, Baltic, Saimaa, and Ladoga subspecies, and on rare 
occasion red foxes also prey on newborn ringed seals in lairs.
    High rates of predation on ringed seal pups have been associated 
with anomalous weather events that caused subnivean lairs to collapse 
or melt before pups were weaned. Thus, declining snow depths and 
duration of snow cover during the period when ringed seal pups are born 
and nursed can be expected to lead to increased predation on ringed 
seal pups. We conclude that the threat posed to ringed seals by 
predation is currently moderate, but predation risk is expected to 
increase as snow and sea ice conditions change with a warming climate.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    A primary concern about the conservation status of the ringed seal 
stems from the likelihood that its sea ice habitat has been modified by 
the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus 
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the 
foreseeable future. A second major concern, related by the common 
driver of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, is the modification of habitat by 
ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and other 
important aspects of the marine ecosystem. There are currently no 
effective mechanisms to regulate GHG emissions, which are contributing 
to global climate change and associated modifications to ringed seal 
habitat. The risk posed to ringed seals due to the lack of mechanisms 
to regulate GHG emissions is directly correlated to the risk posed by 
the effects of these emissions. The projections we used to assess risks 
from GHG emissions were based on the assumption that no regulation will 
take place (the underlying IPPC emissions scenarios were all ``non-
mitigated'' scenarios). Therefore, the lack of mechanisms to regulate 
GHG emissions is already included in our risk assessment. We thus 
recognize that the lack of effective mechanisms to regulate global GHG 
emissions is contributing to the risks posed to ringed seals by these 
emissions.
    Drowning in fishing gear has been reported as the most common cause 
of death reported for Saimaa ringed seals. Although there have been 
seasonal fishing restrictions instituted in some parts of Lake Saimaa, 
these are apparently insufficient, as annual loss of seals has 
continued. We therefore conclude that the inadequacy of existing 
mechanisms to regulate bycatch of Saimma ringed seals is contributing 
to its endangered status.

[[Page 77487]]

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence Pollution and Contaminants

    Contaminants research on ringed seals is very extensive and has 
been conducted in most parts of the species' range (with the exception 
of the Sea of Okhotsk), particularly throughout the Arctic environment 
where ringed seals are an important diet item in coastal human 
communities. Pollutants such as organochlorine (OC) compounds and heavy 
metals have been found in all of the subspecies of ringed seal (with 
the exception of the Okhotsk ringed seal). The variety, sources, and 
transport mechanisms of contaminants vary across ringed seal 
ecosystems. Statistical analysis of OC compounds in marine mammals has 
shown that, for most OCs, the European Arctic is more contaminated than 
the Canadian and U.S. Arctic.
    Reduced productivity in the Baltic ringed seal in recent decades 
resulted from impaired fertility that was associated with pollutants. 
High levels of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and PCBs 
(polychlorinated biphenyls) were found in Baltic (Bothnian Bay) ringed 
seals in the 1960s and 1970s, and PCB levels were correlated with 
reproductive failure. More recently, PFOSs (perfluorooctane sulfonate; 
a perfluorinated contaminant or PFC) were reported as 15 times greater 
in Baltic ringed seals than in Arctic ringed seals.
    Mercury levels detected in Saimaa ringed seals were higher than 
those reported for the Baltic Sea and Arctic Ocean. It has been 
suggested that high mercury levels may have contributed to the Saimaa 
ringed seal's population decline in the 1960s and 1970s. The high level 
of mercury in the seal's prey and shortage of selenium would reduce the 
seal's capacity for metabolic detoxification. The major source of 
mercury in Lake Saimaa has been noted as the pulp industry.
    Present and future impacts of contaminants on ringed seal 
populations should remain a high priority issue. Climate change has the 
potential to increase the transport of pollutants from lower latitudes 
to the Arctic, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring of 
ringed seal contaminant levels.
Oil and Gas Activities
    Extensive oil and gas reserves coupled with rising global demand 
make it very likely that oil and gas activity will increase throughout 
the U.S. Arctic and internationally in the future. Climate change is 
expected to enhance marine access to offshore oil and gas reserves by 
reducing sea ice extent, thickness, and seasonal duration, thereby 
improving ship access to these resources around the margins of the 
Arctic Basin. Oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
activities include, but are not limited to: Seismic surveys; 
exploratory, delineation, and production drilling operations; 
construction of artificial islands, causeways, ice roads, shore-based 
facilities, and pipelines; and vessel and aircraft operations. These 
activities have the potential to impact ringed seals primarily through 
noise, physical disturbance, and pollution, particularly in the event 
of a large oil spill or blowout.
    Within the range of the Arctic ringed seal, offshore oil and gas 
exploration and production activities are currently underway in the 
United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. In the United 
States, oil and gas activities have been conducted off the coast of 
Alaska since the 1970s, with most of the activity occurring in the 
Beaufort Sea. Although five exploratory wells have been drilled in the 
past, no oil fields have been developed or brought into production in 
the Chukchi Sea to date. In December 2009, an exploration plan was 
approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 
Enforcement (formerly the Minerals Management Service) for drilling at 
five potential sites within three prospects in the Chukchi Sea in 2010. 
These plans have been put on hold until at least 2011 pending further 
review following the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. 
There are no offshore oil or gas fields currently in development or 
production in the Bering Sea.
    Of all the oil and gas produced in the Arctic today, about 80 
percent of the oil and 99 percent of the gas comes from the Russian 
Arctic (AMAP, 2007). With over 75 percent of known Arctic oil, over 90 
percent of known Arctic gas, and vast estimates of undiscovered oil and 
gas reserves, Russia will continue to be the dominant producer of 
Arctic oil and gas in the future (AMAP, 2007). Oil and gas developments 
in the Kara and Barents Seas began in 1992, and large-scale production 
activities were initiated during 1998-2000. Oil and gas production 
activities are expected to grow in the western Siberian provinces and 
Kara and Barents Seas in the future. Recently there has also been 
renewed interest in the Russian Chukchi Sea, as new evidence emerges to 
support the notion that the region may contain world-class oil and gas 
reserves. In the Sea of Okhotsk, oil and natural gas operations are 
active off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, and future 
developments are planned in the western Kamchatka and Magadan regions.
    A major project underway in the Baltic Sea is the Nord Stream 
1,200-km gas line, which will be the longest subsea natural gas 
pipeline in the world. Concerns have been expressed about the potential 
disturbance of World War II landmines and chemical toxins in the 
sediment during construction. There are also concerns about potential 
leaks and spills from the pipeline and impacts on the Baltic Sea marine 
environment once the pipeline is operational. Circulation of waters in 
the Baltic Sea is limited and any contaminants may not be flushed 
efficiently.
    Large oil spills or blowouts are considered to be the greatest 
threat of oil and gas exploration activities in the marine environment. 
In contrast to spills on land, large spills at sea are difficult to 
contain and may spread over hundreds or thousands of kilometers. 
Responding to a spill in the Arctic environment would be particularly 
challenging. Reaching a spill site and responding effectively would be 
especially difficult, if not impossible, in winter when weather can be 
severe and daylight extremely limited. Oil spills under ice or in ice-
covered waters are the most challenging to deal with, simply because 
they cannot be contained or recovered effectively with current 
technology. The difficulties experienced in stopping and containing the 
oil blowout at the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico, where 
environmental conditions and response preparedness are comparatively 
good, point toward even greater challenges of attempting a similar feat 
in a much more environmentally severe and geographically remote 
location.
    Although planning, management, and use of best practices can help 
reduce risks and impacts, the history of oil and gas activities, 
including recent events, indicates that accidents cannot be eliminated. 
Tanker spills, pipeline leaks, and oil blowouts are likely to occur in 
the future, even under the most stringent regulatory and safety 
systems. In the Sea of Okhotsk, an accident at an oil production 
complex resulted in a large (3.5-ton) spill in 1999, and in winter 
2009, an unknown quantity of oil associated with a tanker fouled 3 km 
of coastline and hundreds of birds in Aniva Bay. To date, there have 
been no large spills in the Arctic marine environment from oil and gas 
activities.
    Researchers have suggested that pups of ice-associated seals may be

[[Page 77488]]

particularly vulnerable to fouling of their dense lanugo coats. Adults, 
juveniles, and weaned young of the year rely on blubber for insulation, 
so effects on their thermoregulation are expected to be minimal. A 
variety of other acute effects of oil exposure have been shown to 
reduce seals' health and possibly survival. Direct ingestion of oil, 
ingestion of contaminated prey, or inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors can 
cause serious health effects including death.
    It is important to evaluate the effects of anthropogenic 
perturbations, such as oil spills, in the context of historical data. 
Without historical data on distribution and abundance, it is difficult 
to predict the impacts of an oil spill on ringed seals. Population 
monitoring studies implemented in areas where significant industrial 
activities are likely to occur would allow for comparison of future 
impacts with historical patterns, and thus to determine the magnitude 
of potential effects.
Commercial Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch
    Commercial fisheries may impact ringed seals through direct 
interactions (i.e., incidental take or bycatch) and indirectly through 
competition for prey resources and other impacts on prey populations. 
Estimates of Arctic ringed seal bycatch could only be found for 
commercial fisheries that operate in Alaskan waters. Based on data from 
2002-2006, there has been an annual average of 0.46 mortalities of 
Arctic ringed seals incidental to commercial fishing operations. NAMMCO 
(2002) stated that in the North Atlantic region Arctic ringed seals are 
seldom caught in fishing gear because their distribution does not 
coincide with intensive fisheries in most areas. No information could 
be found regarding ringed seal bycatch levels in the Sea of Okhotsk; 
however, given the intensive levels of commercial fishing that occur in 
this sea, bycatch of ringed seals likely occurs on some level there.
    Drowning in fishing gear has been reported as one of the most 
significant mortality factors for seals in the Baltic Sea, especially 
for young seals, which are prone to getting trapped in fishing nets. 
There are no reliable estimates of seal bycatch in this sea, and 
existing estimates are known to be low in many areas, making risk 
assessment difficult. Based on monitoring of 5 percent of the 
commercial fishing effort in the Swedish coastal fisheries, bycatch of 
Baltic ringed seals was estimated at 50 seals in 2004. In Finland, it 
was estimated that about 70 Baltic ringed seals were caught by fishing 
gear annually during the period 1997-1999. There are no estimates of 
seal bycatch from Lithuanian, Estonian, or Russian waters of the 
Baltic. It has been suggested that decreases in the use of the most 
harmful types of nets (i.e., gillnets and unprotected trap nets), along 
with the development of seal-proof fishing gear, may have resulted in a 
decline in Baltic ringed seal bycatch (Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry, 2007).
    It has been estimated that 200-400 Ladoga ringed seals died 
annually in fishing gear during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fishing 
patterns have reportedly changed since then due to changes in the 
economic market. As of the late 1990s, fishing was not regarded to be a 
threat to Ladoga ringed seal populations, but it was suggested that it 
could become so should market conditions improve (Sipil[auml] and 
Hyv[auml]rinen, 1998). Based on interviews with fishermen in Lake 
Ladoga, Verevkin et al. (2006) reported that at least 483 Ladoga ringed 
seals were killed in fishing gear in 2003, even though official records 
only recorded 60 cases of bycatch. These figures from 2003 suggest that 
bycatch mortality is likely to be a continuing conservation concern for 
Ladoga ringed seals.
    Small-scale fishing was thought to be the most serious threat to 
ringed seals in Lake Saimaa (Sipil[auml] and Hyv[auml]rinen, 1998). 
More than half of the Saimaa seal carcasses that were examined for the 
period 1977-2000 were determined to have died from drowning in fishing 
gear, making this the most common cause of death for Saimaa ringed 
seals. Season and gear restrictions have been implemented in some parts 
of the lake to reduce bycatch. However, during the late 1990s, 1-3 
adult ringed seals were lost annually from drowning in fishing gear 
(Sipil[auml] and Hyv[auml]rinen, 1998), and bycatch mortalities have 
been reported since then, indicating that bycatch mortality remains a 
significant conservation concern.
    For indirect interactions, we note that commercial fisheries target 
a number of known ringed seal prey species such as walleye pollock 
(Theragra chalcogramma), Pacific cod, herring (Clupea sp.), and 
capelin. These fisheries may affect ringed seals indirectly through 
reductions in prey biomass and through other fishing mediated changes 
in ringed seal prey species.
Shipping
    The extraordinary reduction in Arctic sea ice that has occurred in 
recent years has renewed interest in using the Arctic Ocean as a 
potential waterway for coastal, regional, and trans-Arctic marine 
operations. Climate models predict that the warming trend in the Arctic 
will accelerate, causing the ice to begin melting earlier in the spring 
and resume freezing later in the fall, resulting in an expansion of 
potential shipping routes and lengthening the potential navigation 
season.
    The most significant risk posed by shipping activities in the 
Arctic is the accidental or illegal discharge of oil or other toxic 
substances carried by ships, due to their immediate and potentially 
long-term effects on individual animals, populations, food webs, and 
the environment. Shipping activities can also affect ringed seals 
directly through noise and physical disturbance (e.g., icebreaking 
vessels), as well as indirectly through ship emissions and possible 
effects of introduction of exotic species on the lower trophic levels 
of ringed seal food webs.
    Current and future shipping activities in the Arctic pose varying 
levels of threats to ringed seals depending on the type and intensity 
of the shipping activity and its degree of spatial and temporal overlap 
with ringed seal habitats. These factors are inherently difficult to 
know or predict, making threat assessment highly uncertain. However, 
given what is currently known about ringed seal populations and 
shipping activity in the Arctic, some general assessments can be made. 
Arctic ringed seal densities are variable and depend on many factors; 
however, they are often reported to be widely distributed in relatively 
low densities and rarely congregate in large numbers. This may help 
mitigate the risks of more localized shipping threats (e.g., oil spills 
or physical disturbance), since the impacts from such events would be 
less likely to affect large numbers of seals. The fact that nearly all 
shipping activity in the Arctic (with the exception of icebreaking) 
purposefully avoids areas of ice and primarily occurs during the ice-
free or low-ice seasons also helps to mitigate the risks associated 
with shipping to ringed seals, since they are closely associated with 
ice at nearly all times of the year. Icebreakers pose special risks to 
ringed seals because they are capable of operating year-round in all 
but the heaviest ice conditions and are often used to escort other 
types of vessels (e.g., tankers and bulk carriers) through ice-covered 
areas. If icebreaking activities increase in the Arctic in the future 
as expected, the likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., oil spills, 
pollution, noise, disturbance, and habitat alteration) occurring in 
ice-

[[Page 77489]]

covered areas where ringed seals occur will likely also increase.
    Though few details are available regarding actual shipping levels 
in the Sea of Okhotsk, resource development over the last decade stands 
out as a likely significant contributor. It is clear that relatively 
high levels of shipping are needed to support present oil and gas 
operations. In addition, large-scale commercial fishing occurs in many 
parts of the sea. Winter shipping activities in the southern Sea of 
Okhotsk are expected to increase considerably as oil and gas production 
pushes the development and use of new classes of icebreaking ships, 
thereby increasing the potential for shipping accidents and oil spills 
in the ice-covered regions of this sea.
    The Baltic Sea is one of the most heavily trafficked shipping areas 
in the world, with more than 2,000 large ships (including about 200 oil 
tankers) sailing on its waters on an average day. Additionally, ferry 
lines, fishing boats, and cruise ships frequent the Baltic Sea. Both 
the number and size of ships (especially oil tankers) have grown in 
recent years, and the amount of oil transported in the Baltic 
(especially from the Gulf of Finland) has increased significantly since 
2000. The risk of oil exposure for seals living in the Baltic Sea is 
considered to be greatest in the Gulf of Finland, where oil shipping 
routes pass through ringed seal pupping areas as well as close to rocks 
and islets where seals sometimes haul out. Icebreaking during the 
winter is considered to be the most significant marine traffic factor 
for seals in the Baltic Sea, especially in the Bothnian Bay.
    Lakes Ladoga and Saimaa are connected to the Baltic Sea and other 
bodies of water via a network of rivers and canals and are used as 
waterways to transport people, resources, and cargo throughout the 
Baltic region. However, reviews of the biology and conservation of 
Ladoga and Samiaa ringed seals have not identified shipping-related 
activities (other than accidental bycatch in fishing gear) as being 
important risks to the conservation status of these subspecies.
    The threats posed from shipping activity in the Sea of Okhotsk, 
Baltic Sea, and lakes Ladoga and Saimaa are largely the same as they 
are for the Arctic. Two obvious but important distinctions between 
these regions and the Arctic are that these bodies of water are 
geographically smaller and more confined than many areas where the 
Arctic subspecies lives, and they contain much smaller populations of 
ringed seals. Therefore, shipping impacts and ringed seals are more 
likely to overlap spatially in these regions, and a single accident 
(e.g., a large oil spill) could potentially impact these smaller 
populations severely. However, the lack of specific information on 
actual threats and impacts (now and in the future) makes threat 
assessment in these regions similarly uncertain. More information is 
needed in order to adequately assess the risks of shipping to ringed 
seals.
Summary of Factor E
    We find that the threats posed by pollutants, oil and gas 
activities, fisheries, and shipping, do not individually or 
cumulatively raise concern about them placing the Arctic or Okhotsk 
subspecies of ringed seals at risk of becoming endangered. We 
recognize, however, that the significance of these threats would 
increase for populations diminished by the effects of climate change or 
other threats.
    Reduced productivity in the Baltic Sea ringed seal in recent 
decades resulted from impaired fertility that was associated with 
pollutants. We do not have any information to conclude that there are 
currently population-level effects on Baltic ringed seals from 
contaminant exposure. We find that the threats posed by pollutants, 
petroleum development, commercial fisheries, and increased ship traffic 
do not individually or cumulatively pose a significant risk to the 
persistence of the Baltic ringed seal throughout all or a significant 
portion of this subspecies' range. We recognize, however, that the 
significance of these threats would increase for populations diminished 
by the effects of climate change or other threats. We also note that, 
particularly given the elevated contaminant load in the Baltic Sea, 
continued efforts are necessary to ensure that population-level effects 
from contaminant exposure do not recur in Baltic ringed seals in the 
future.
    Drowning of seals in fishing gear and disturbance by human 
activities are conservation concerns for ringed seals in lakes Ladoga 
and Saimaa and could exacerbate the effects of climate change on these 
seal populations. Drowning in fishing gear is also one of the most 
significant sources of mortality for ringed seals in the Baltic Sea. We 
currently do not have any data to conclude that these threats are 
having population-level effects on Ladoga or Baltic ringed seals. 
However, bycatch mortality in Lake Ladoga particularly warrants 
additional investigation, as does consideration of ways to minimize 
seal entanglement in fishing gear. Given the very low numbers of the 
Saimaa ringed seal, we consider the risk posed to this subspecies from 
mortality incidental to fishing activities to be a significant factor 
in our classification of the Saimaa ringed seal as endangered.
Analysis of Demographic Risks
    Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested 
demographically as risks to its abundance; productivity; spatial 
structure and connectivity; and genetic and ecological diversity. These 
demographic risks provide the most direct indices or proxies of 
extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance and with few 
populations will be less tolerant to environmental variation, 
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity, 
ecological interactions, and other processes. A rate of productivity 
that is unstable or declining over a long period of time can indicate 
poor resiliency to future environmental change. A species that is not 
widely distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats is at 
increased risk of extinction due to environmental perturbations, 
including catastrophic events. A species that has lost locally adapted 
genetic and ecological diversity may lack the raw resources necessary 
to exploit a wide array of environments and endure short- and long-term 
environmental changes.
    The key factors limiting the viability of all five ringed seal 
subspecies are the forecasted reductions in ice extent and, in 
particular, depths and duration of snow cover on ice. Early snow melts 
already are evident in much of the species' range. Increasingly late 
ice formation in autumn is forecasted, contributing to expectations of 
substantial decreases in snow accumulation. The ringed seal's specific 
requirement for habitats with adequate spring snow cover is manifested 
in the pups' low tolerance for exposure to wet, cold conditions and 
their vulnerability to predation. Premature failure of the snow cover 
has caused high mortality due to freezing and predation. Climate 
warming will result in increasingly early snow melts, exposing 
vulnerable ringed seal pups to predators and hypothermia.
    The BRT considered the current risks to the persistence of Arctic, 
Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals as low to moderate. Given the 
low population size (less than 300 seals) of the Saimaa ringed seal, 
the present risk to population persistence was judged by the BRT to be 
high for all of the demographic attributes.
    Within the foreseeable future, the BRT judged the risks to Arctic 
ringed seal persistence to be moderate (diversity

[[Page 77490]]

and abundance) to high (productivity and spatial structure). As noted 
above, the impacts to Arctic ringed seals may be somewhat ameliorated 
initially if the subspecies's range retracts northward with sea ice 
habitats, but by the end of the century snow depths are projected to be 
insufficient for lair formation and maintenance throughout much of the 
subspecies' range. The BRT also judged the risks to persistence of the 
Okhotsk ringed seal in the foreseeable future to be moderate 
(diversity) to high (abundance, productivity, and spatial structure). 
Okhotsk ringed seals will have limited opportunity to shift their range 
northward because the sea ice will retract toward land.
    Risks to ringed seal persistence within the foreseeable future were 
judged by the BRT to be highest for the Baltic, Ladoga, and, in 
particular, Saimaa ringed seal. Risks were judged as moderate 
(diversity) to high (abundance productivity, and spatial structure) for 
Baltic ringed seals; moderate (diversity), or high to very high 
(abundance, productivity, and spatial structure) for Ladoga ringed 
seals; and high to very high (abundance, productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity) for Saimaa ringed seals. As noted above, 
Ladoga and Saimaa ringed seals are landlocked populations that will be 
unable to respond to the pronounced degradation of ice and snow 
habitats forecasted to occur by shifting their range. In addition, the 
range of the Baltic ringed seal is bounded to the north by land, and so 
there is limited opportunity for this subspecies to shift its range. 
The low density of the Saimaa ringed seal population coupled with 
limited dispersal opportunities and depensatory effects continue to put 
this subspecies at risk of extinction. An estimate of the demographic 
effective population size of Saimaa ringed seals indicated that low 
population size is exacerbated by habitat fragmentation and that the 
subspecies is ``vulnerable to extinction due to demographic 
stochasticity alone'' (Kokko et al., 1998).
Conservation Efforts
    When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the ESA requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation, 
or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the 
species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes 
and organizations, local governments, and private organizations. Also, 
Federal, tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 
1533(f)), and Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536) 
constitute conservation measures. In addition to identifying these 
efforts, under the ESA and our Policy on the Evaluation of Conservation 
Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), we must evaluate the 
certainty of implementing the conservation efforts and the certainty 
that the conservation efforts will be effective on the basis of whether 
the effort or plan establishes specific conservation objectives, 
identifies the necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for 
decline, includes quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring 
of compliance and effectiveness, incorporates the principles of 
adaptive management, and is likely to improve the species' viability at 
the time of the listing determination.

International Conservation Efforts Specifically To Protect Ringed Seals

    Baltic ringed seals: (1) Some protected areas in Sweden, Finland, 
the Russian Federation, and Estonia include Baltic ringed seal habitat; 
(2) The Baltic ringed seal is included in the Red Book of the Russian 
Federation as ``Category 2'' (decreasing abundance), is classified as 
``Endangered'' in the Red Data Book of Estonia, and is listed as ``Near 
Threatened'' on the Finnish and Swedish Red Lists; (3) Hunting of 
Baltic ringed seals has been suspended in Baltic Sea region countries, 
although Finland is permitting the harvest of small numbers of ringed 
seals in Bothnia Bay beginning in 2010; and (4) Helsinki Commission 
(HELCOM) recommendation 27-28/2 (2006) on conservation of seals in the 
Baltic Sea established a seal expert group to address and coordinate 
seal conservation and management across the Baltic Sea region. This 
expert group has made progress toward completing a set of related tasks 
identified in the HELCOM recommendation, including coordinating 
development of national management plans and developing monitoring 
programs. The national red lists and red data books noted above 
highlight the conservation status of listed species and can inform 
conservation planning and prioritization.
    Ladoga ringed seals: (1) Hunting of ringed seals in Lake Ladoga has 
been prohibited since 1980; (2) In May 2009, Ladoga Skerries National 
Park, which will encompass northern and northwest Lake Ladoga, was 
added to the Russian Federation's list of protected areas to be 
established; and (3) The Ladoga ringed seal is included in the Red Data 
Books of the Russian Federation, the Leningrad Region, and Karelia.
    Saimaa ringed seals: (1) The Saimaa ringed seal is classified as a 
non-game species, and has been protected from hunting under Finnish law 
since 1955; (2) The Saimaa ringed seal is designated as an 
``Endangered'' species on the Finnish Red List; (3) To conserve seal 
breeding areas, new construction on Lake Saimaa is not permitted within 
designated shoreline conservation areas (water bodies excluded), some 
of which are located within two national parks; (4) New construction on 
Lake Saimaa outside of designated shoreline conservation areas has been 
regulated since 1999 to limit the density of new buildings; however, it 
has been reported that lakeshore development has still increased 
substantially; (5) To reduce mortalities due to fishery interactions, 
restrictions have been placed on certain types of fishing gear within 
the breeding areas of the Saimaa ringed seal, and seasonal closure 
agreements have been signed with numerous fishing associations. 
However, continuing loss of seals, in particular juveniles, due to 
drowning in fishing gear has been reported. A working group for 
reconciliation of fishing and conservation of Saimaa ringed seals has 
recommended establishing a single contiguous protected area by December 
2010 within which a mandatory seasonal net fishing closure and other 
fishing restrictions would be implemented. The Finnish Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry recently reported that the Finnish government 
has signed agreements with most of the Saimaa Lake fishing associations 
and that it is continuing to negotiate agreements with a few 
associations. However, in May 2010 the European Commission sent formal 
notice to Finland that it had not implemented adequate measures to 
protect the Saimaa ringed seal and that better targeted measures are 
still needed.

International Agreements

    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (IUCN) Red List identifies and documents those species 
believed by its reviewers to be most in need of conservation attention 
if global extinction rates are to be reduced, and is widely recognized 
as the most comprehensive, apolitical global approach for evaluating 
the conservation status of plant and animal species. In order to 
produce Red Lists of threatened species worldwide, the IUCN Species 
Survival Commission draws on a network of scientists and partner 
organizations, which uses a standardized assessment process to 
determine species' risks of extinction. However, it should be noted 
that the IUCN Red List assessment criteria differ from the listing 
criteria provided by the

[[Page 77491]]

ESA. The ringed seal is currently classified as a species of ``Least 
Concern'' on the IUCN Red List. The Red List assessment notes that, 
given the risks posed to the ringed seal by climate change, the 
conservation status of all ringed seal subspecies should be reassessed 
within a decade. The European Red List compiles assessments of the 
conservation status of European species according to IUCN red listing 
guidelines. The assessment for the ringed seal currently classifies the 
Saimaa ringed seal as ``Endangered'' and the Ladoga ringed seal as 
``Vulnerable.'' The Baltic ringed seal is classified as a species of 
``Least Concern'' on the European Red List, with the caveats that 
population numbers remain low and that there are significant 
conservation concerns in some part of the Baltic Sea. Similar to 
inclusion in national red lists and red data books, these listings 
highlight the conservation status of listed species and can inform 
conservation planning and prioritization.
    The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural 
Habitats (Bern Convention) is a regional treaty on conservation. 
Current parties to the Bern Convention within the range of the ringed 
seal include Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. The 
agreement calls for signatories to provide special protection for fauna 
species listed in Appendix II (species to be strictly protected) and 
Appendix III to the convention (species for which any exploitation is 
to be regulated). The Saimaa and Ladoga ringed seals are listed under 
Appendix II, and other ringed seals fall under Appendix III. As 
discussed above, the Saimaa ringed seal has been protected from hunting 
since 1955, hunting of Ladoga ringed seals has been prohibited since 
1980, and hunting of Baltic ringed seals has also been suspended (but 
with the recent exception noted above).
    The provisions of the Council of the European Union's Directive 92/
43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(Habitats Directive) are intended to promote the conservation of 
biodiversity in European Union (EU) member countries. EU members meet 
the habitat conservation requirements of the directive by designating 
qualified sites for inclusion in a special conservation areas network 
known as Natura 2000. Current members of the EU within the range of the 
ringed seal include Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Annex II to the 
Habitats Directive lists species whose conservation is to be 
specifically considered in designating special conservation areas, 
Annex IV identifies species determined to be in need of strict 
protection, and Annex V identifies species whose exploitation may 
require specific management measures to maintain favorable conservation 
status. The Saimaa ringed seal is listed in Annex II (as a priority 
species) and IV, the Baltic ringed seal is listed in Annex II and V, 
and the Arctic ringed seal is listed in Annex V. Some designated Natura 
2000 sites include Baltic or Saimaa ringed seal habitat. Although 
Finland has implemented specific management measures and designated 
conservation areas for Saimaa ringed seals, as discussed above, the 
European Commission has sent its first formal notice to Finland that 
better targeted measures are urgently needed.
    In 2005 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) designated 
the Baltic Sea Area outside of Russian territorial waters as a 
Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), which provides a framework 
under IMOS's International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) for developing internationally agreed upon 
measures to reduce risks posed from maritime shipping activities. To 
date, a maritime traffic separation scheme is the sole protective 
measure associated with the Baltic PSSA. Expansion of Russian oil 
terminals is contributing to a marked increase in oil transport in the 
Baltic Sea; however, the Russian Federation has declined to support the 
Baltic Sea PSSA designation.
    HELCOM's main goal since the Helsinki convention first entered 
force in 1980 has been to address Baltic Sea pollution caused by 
hazardous substances and to restore and safeguard the ecology of the 
Baltic. HELCOM acts as a coordinating body among the nine countries 
with coasts along the Baltic Sea. Activities of HELCOM have led to 
significant reductions in a number of monitored hazardous substances in 
the Baltic Sea. However, pollution caused by hazardous substances 
continues to pose risks.
    The Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation, and 
Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic (North Atlantic 
Marine Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]) was established in 1992 by a 
regional agreement among the governments of Greenland, Iceland, Norway, 
and the Faroe Islands to cooperatively conserve and manage marine 
mammals in the North Atlantic. NAMMCO has provided a forum for the 
exchange of information and coordination among member countries on 
ringed seal research and management.
    There are no known regulatory mechanisms that effectively address 
the factors believed to be contributing to reductions in ringed seal 
sea ice habitat at this time. The primary international regulatory 
mechanisms addressing GHG emissions and global warming are the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. 
However, the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period sets targets for 
action only through 2012. There is no regulatory mechanism governing 
GHG emissions in the years beyond 2012. The United States, although a 
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has not ratified it; therefore, the 
Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States.

Domestic U.S. Regulatory Mechanisms

    Several laws exist that directly or indirectly promote the 
conservation and protection of ringed seals. These include the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as Amended, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 
Act. Although there are some existing domestic regulatory mechanisms 
directed at reducing GHG emissions, these mechanisms are not expected 
to be effective in counteracting the increase in global GHG emissions 
within the foreseeable future.
    At this time, we are not aware of any formalized conservation 
efforts for ringed seals that have yet to be implemented, or which have 
recently been implemented, but have yet to show their effectiveness in 
removing threats to the species. Therefore, we do not need to evaluate 
any conservation efforts under the PECE.
    NMFS has established a co-management agreement with the Ice Seal 
Committee (ISC) to conserve and provide co-management of subsistence 
use of ice seals by Alaska Natives. The ISC is an Alaska Native 
Organization dedicated to conserving seal populations, habitat, and 
hunting in order to help preserve native cultures and traditions. The 
ISC co-manages ice seals with NMFS by monitoring subsistence harvest 
and cooperating on needed research and education programs pertaining to 
ice seals. NMFS's National Marine Mammal Laboratory is engaged in an 
active research program for ringed seals. The new information from 
research will be used to enhance our understanding of the risk factors 
affecting ringed seals, thereby improving our ability to develop 
effective management measures for the species.

[[Page 77492]]

Proposed Determinations

    We have reviewed the status of the ringed seal, fully considering 
the best scientific and commercial data available, including the status 
review report. We have reviewed threats to the five subspecies of the 
ringed seal, as well as other relevant factors, and given consideration 
to conservation efforts and special designations for ringed seals by 
states and foreign nations. In consideration of all of the threats and 
potential threats to ringed seals identified above, the assessment of 
the risks posed by those threats, the possible cumulative impacts, and 
the uncertainty associated with all of these, we draw the following 
conclusions:
    Arctic subspecies: (1) There are no specific estimates of 
population size available for the Arctic subspecies, but most experts 
would postulate that the population numbers in the millions. (2) The 
depth and duration of snow cover are forecasted to decrease 
substantially throughout the range of the Arctic ringed seal. Within 
this century, snow cover is forecasted to be inadequate for the 
formation and occupation of birth lairs over most of the subspecies' 
range. (3) Because ringed seals stay with the ice as it annually 
advances and retreats, the southern edge of the ringed seal's range may 
initially shift northward. Whether ringed seals will continue to move 
north with retreating ice over the deeper, less productive Arctic Basin 
waters and whether the species that they prey on will also move north 
is uncertain. (4) The Arctic ringed seal's pupping and nursing seasons 
are adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The projected decreases 
in sea ice, and especially snow cover, will likely lead to decreased 
pup survival and a substantial decline in the abundance of the Arctic 
subspecies. We conclude that the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal 
is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we propose to list the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal 
as threatened under the ESA.
    Okhotsk subspecies: (1) The best available scientific data suggest 
a conservative estimate of 676,000 ringed seals in the Sea of Okhotsk, 
apparently reduced from historical numbers. (2) Before the end of the 
current century, ice suitable for pupping and nursing is forecasted to 
be limited to the northernmost regions of the Sea of Okhotsk, and 
projections suggest that snow cover may already be inadequate for birth 
lairs. The Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the north by land, which will 
limit the ability of Okhotsk ringed seals to respond to deteriorating 
sea ice and snow conditions by shifting their range northward. (3) 
Although some Okhotsk ringed seals have been reported resting on island 
shores during the ice-free season, these sites provide inferior pupping 
and nursing habitat. (4) The Okhotsk ringed seal's pupping and nursing 
seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. Decreases in sea 
ice habitat suitable for pupping, nursing, and molting will likely lead 
to declines in abundance and productivity of the Okhotsk subspecies. We 
conclude that the Okhotsk subspecies of the ringed seal is not in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we propose to list the Okhotsk subspecies of the ringed seal 
as threatened under the ESA.
    Baltic subspecies: (1) Current estimates of 10,000 Baltic ringed 
seals suggest that the population has been significantly reduced from 
historical numbers. (2) Reduced productivity in the Baltic subspecies 
in recent decades resulted from impaired fertility associated with 
pollutants. (3) Dramatic reductions in sea ice extent are projected by 
mid-century and beyond in the Baltic Sea, coupled with declining depth 
and insulating properties of snow cover on Baltic Sea ice. The Baltic 
Sea is bounded to the north by land, which will limit the ability of 
Baltic ringed seals to respond to deteriorating sea ice and snow 
conditions by shifting their range northward. (4) Although Baltic 
ringed seals have been reported resting on island shores or offshore 
reefs during the ice-free season, these sites provide inferior pupping 
and nursing habitat. (5) The Baltic ringed seal's pupping and nursing 
seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The projected 
substantial reductions in sea ice extent and deteriorating snow 
conditions are expected to lead to decreased survival of pups and a 
substantial decline in the abundance of the Baltic subspecies. We 
conclude that the Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal is not in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, but 
is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 
propose to list the Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal as threatened 
under the ESA.
    Ladoga subspecies: (1) The population size of the ringed seal in 
Lake Ladoga is currently estimated at 3,000 to 5,000 seals. (2) Reduced 
ice and snow cover are expected in Lake Ladoga within this century 
based on regional projections. As ice and snow conditions deteriorate, 
the landlocked population of Ladoga ringed seals will be unable to 
respond by shifting its range. (3) Although Ladoga ringed seals have 
been reported resting on rocks and island shores during the ice-free 
season, these sites provide inferior pupping and nursing habitat. (4) 
The Ladoga ringed seal's pupping and nursing seasons are adapted to the 
phenology of ice and snow. Reductions in ice and snow are expected to 
lead to decreased survival of pups and a substantial decline in the 
abundance of this subspecies. We conclude that the Ladoga subspecies of 
the ringed seal is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, but is likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we propose to list the Ladoga subspecies 
of the ringed seal as threatened under the ESA.
    Saimaa subspecies: (1) The Saimaa ringed seal population currently 
numbers less than 300 animals, and has been significantly reduced from 
historical numbers. (2) Although the population has slowly grown under 
active management, it currently exists at levels where it is at risk of 
extinction from demographic stochasticity and small population effects. 
(3) Reduced ice and snow cover are expected in Lake Saimaa within this 
century. As ice and snow conditions deteriorate, the landlocked 
population of Saimaa ringed seal will be unable to respond by shifting 
its range. (4) Although Saimaa ringed seals have been reported resting 
on rocks and island shores during the ice-free season, these sites 
provide inferior pupping and nursing habitat. (5) The Saimaa ringed 
seal's pupping and nursing seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice 
and snow. Reductions in ice and snow cover are expected to lead to 
decreased survival of pups and a substantial decline in the abundance 
of this subspecies. (6) Ongoing mortality incidental to fishing 
activities is also a significant conservation concern. We conclude that 
the Saimaa subspecies of the ringed seal is in danger of extinction 
throughout its range, consistent with its current listing as endangered 
under the ESA.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or 
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all 
individuals, organizations and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
to implement regulations ``to provide for the conservation of 
[threatened] species'' that may include extending any or all of the 
prohibitions

[[Page 77493]]

of section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits 
violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented 
under section 4(d). Based on the status of each of the ringed seal 
subspecies and their conservation needs, we conclude that the ESA 
section 9 prohibitions are necessary and advisable to provide for their 
conservation. We are therefore proposing protective regulations 
pursuant to section 4(d) for the Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga 
subspecies of ringed seal to include all of the prohibitions in section 
9(a)(1).
    Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to 
consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or to adversely 
modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a Federal 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. 
Examples of Federal actions that may affect Arctic ringed seals include 
permits and authorizations relating to coastal development and habitat 
alteration, oil and gas development (including seismic exploration), 
toxic waste and other pollutant discharges, and cooperative agreements 
for subsistence harvest.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide us with authority 
to grant exceptions to the ESA's section 9 ``take'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or 
to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. The type of 
activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/
enhancement permit include scientific research that targets ringed 
seals. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits are required for 
non-Federal activities that may incidentally take a listed species in 
the course of otherwise lawful activity.

Our Policies on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, we and FWS published a series of policies 
regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of 
scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum 
extent possible, those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272). We must also follow 
the Office of Management and Budget policy for peer review as described 
below.

Role of Peer Review

    The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a 
final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified 
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. Independent 
specialists will be selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Federal and State agencies, and the private sector.
    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information 
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. The scientific information 
contained in the ringed seal status review report (Kelly et al., 2010) 
that supports this proposal to list the Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and 
Ladoga subspecies of the ringed seal as threatened species under the 
ESA received independent peer review.
    The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a 
final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified 
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. Independent 
specialists will be selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the 
effect of our ESA listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of 
the final rule, specific activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will not 
be considered likely to result in violation. Because the Okhotsk, 
Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seal occur outside the jurisdiction of the 
United States, we are presently unaware of any activities that could 
result in violation of section 9 of the ESA for these subspecies; 
however, because the possibility for violations exists (for example, 
import into the United States), we have proposed maintaining the 
section 9 protection. Activities that we believe could result in 
violation of section 9 prohibitions against ``take'' of the Arctic 
ringed seal include: (1) Unauthorized harvest or lethal takes of Arctic 
ringed seals; (2) in-water activities that produce high levels of 
underwater noise, which may harass or injure Arctic ringed seals; and 
(3) discharging or dumping toxic chemicals or other pollutants into 
areas used by Arctic ringed seals.
    We believe, based on the best available information, the following 
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) Federally 
funded or approved projects for which ESA section 7 consultation has 
been completed and mitigated as necessary, and that are conducted in 
accordance with any terms and conditions we provide in an incidental 
take statement accompanying a biological opinion; and (2) takes of 
Arctic ringed seals that have been authorized by NMFS pursuant to 
section 10 of the ESA. These lists are not exhaustive. They are 
intended to provide some examples of the types of activities that we 
might or might not consider as constituting a take of Arctic ringed 
seals.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) defines critical habitat 
as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species, at the time it is listed * * * on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed * * 
* upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3 of the ESA also 
defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to 
mean ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are 
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the 
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no 
longer necessary.''
    Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on 
the best scientific data available, and must take into consideration 
the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Once critical 
habitat

[[Page 77494]]

is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions that are 
likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This requirement is 
in addition to the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies ensure 
their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    In determining what areas qualify as critical habitat, 50 CFR 
424.12(b) requires that NMFS ``consider those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of a given species 
including space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, 
reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical 
and ecological distribution of a species.'' The regulations further 
direct NMFS to ``focus on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements * * * that are essential to the conservation of 
the species,'' and specify that the ``known primary constituent 
elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description.'' The 
regulations identify primary constituent elements (PCEs) as including, 
but not limited to: ``Roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, 
feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, 
host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation 
type, tide, and specific soil types.''
    The ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to consider the economic 
impact, the national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts 
from designating critical habitat, and under section 4(b)(2), the 
Secretary may exclude any area from such designation if the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species. At this time, the Arctic 
ringed seal's critical habitat is not determinable. We will propose 
critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal in a separate rulemaking. 
To assist us with that rulemaking, we specifically request information 
to help us identify the PCEs or ``essential features'' of the Arctic 
ringed seal's habitat, and to what extent those features may require 
special management considerations or protection, as well as the 
economic attributes within the range of the Arctic ringed seal that 
could be impacted by critical habitat designation. Although the range 
of the Arctic ringed seal is circumpolar, 50 CFR 424.12(h) specifies 
that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries 
or in other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 
information only on potential areas of critical habitat within the 
United States or waters within U.S. jurisdiction.

Public Comments Solicited

    Relying on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we exercised our best professional judgment in developing 
this proposal to list the Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed 
seals. To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal 
will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting 
comments and suggestions concerning this proposed rule from the public, 
other concerned governments and agencies, Alaska Natives, the 
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
Comments are encouraged on this proposal as well as on the status 
review report (See DATES and ADDRESSES). Comments are particularly 
sought concerning:
    (1) The current population status of ringed seals;
    (2) Biological or other information regarding the threats to ringed 
seals;
    (3) Information on the effectiveness of ongoing and planned ringed 
seal conservation efforts by states or local entities;
    (4) Activities that could result in a violation of section 9(a)(1) 
of the ESA if such prohibitions applied to the Arctic ringed seal;
    (5) Information related to the designation of critical habitat, 
including identification of those physical or biological features which 
are essential to the conservation of the Arctic ringed seal and which 
may require special management considerations or protection; and
    (6) Economic, national security, and other relevant impacts from 
the designation of critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal 
by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). We will review all 
public comments and any additional information regarding the status of 
these subspecies and will complete a final determination within 1 year 
of publication of this proposed rule, as required under the ESA. Final 
promulgation of the regulation(s) will consider the comments and any 
additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to 
a final regulation that differs from this proposal.

Public Hearings

    50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the Secretary to promptly hold at 
least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of 
publication of a proposed rule to list a species. Such hearings provide 
the opportunity for interested individuals and parties to give 
opinions, exchange information, and engage in a constructive dialogue 
concerning this proposed rule. We encourage the public's involvement in 
this matter. If hearings are requested, details regarding location(s), 
date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming Federal 
Register notice.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 
actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analyses required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, 
this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This rule does not 
contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism 
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific 
directives for consultation in situations where a regulation will 
preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of 
those circumstances is applicable to this rule.

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal 
and tribal governments is defined by

[[Page 77495]]

treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and co-
management agreements, which differentiate tribal governments from the 
other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 
Government. This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust 
responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of 
the United States toward Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary 
standards of due care with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust 
resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. E.O. 13175--Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments--outlines the 
responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting tribal 
interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as 
amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3267), directs 
all Federal agencies to consult with Alaska Native corporations on the 
same basis as Indian tribes under E.O. 13175.
    We intend to coordinate with tribal governments and native 
corporations which may be affected by the proposed action. We will 
provide them with a copy of this proposed rule for review and comment 
and offer the opportunity to consult on the proposed action.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be 
found on our Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ and is 
available upon request from the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see 
ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).
    2. In Sec.  223.102, in the table, amend paragraph (a) by adding 
paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Species \1\                                          Citation(s) for       Citation(s) for
--------------------------------------------------    Where listed          listing          critical habitat
          Common name            Scientific name                       determination(s)       designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
(4) Ringed seal, Arctic         Phoca hispida      The Arctic         [INSERT FR          NA.
 subspecies.                     hispida.           subspecies of      CITATION & DATE
                                                    ringed seal        WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    includes all       A FINAL RULE].
                                                    breeding
                                                    populations of
                                                    ringed seals
                                                    east of 157
                                                    degrees east
                                                    longitude, and
                                                    east of the
                                                    Kamchatka
                                                    Peninsula, in
                                                    the Pacific
                                                    Ocean.
(5) Ringed seal, Baltic         Phoca hispida      The Baltic         [INSERT FR          NA.
 subspecies.                     botnica.           subspecies of      CITATION & DATE
                                                    ringed seal        WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    includes all       A FINAL RULE].
                                                    breeding
                                                    populations of
                                                    ringed seals
                                                    within the
                                                    Baltic Sea.
(6) Ringed seal, Ladoga         Phoca hispida      The Ladoga         [INSERT FR          NA.
 subspecies.                     ladogensis.        subspecies of      CITATION & DATE
                                                    ringed seal        WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    includes all       A FINAL RULE].
                                                    breeding
                                                    populations of
                                                    ringed seals
                                                    within Lake
                                                    Ladoga.
(7) Ringed seal, Okhotsk        Phoca hispida      The Okhotsk        [INSERT FR          NA.
 subspecies.                     ochotensis.        subspecies of      CITATION & DATE
                                                    ringed seal        WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    includes all       A FINAL RULE].
                                                    breeding
                                                    populations of
                                                    ringed seals
                                                    west of 157
                                                    degrees east
                                                    longitude, or
                                                    west of the
                                                    Kamchatka
                                                    Peninsula, in
                                                    the Pacific
                                                    Ocean.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
    3. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.212 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.212  Arctic subspecies of ringed seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Arctic subspecies of ringed seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(4).
    4. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.213 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.213  Baltic subspecies of ringed seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Baltic subspecies of ringed seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(5).
    5. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.214 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.214  Ladoga subspecies of ringed seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Ladoga subspecies of ringed seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(6).
    6. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.215 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.215  Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(7).

[FR Doc. 2010-30934 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P