77998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Becky Weber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by removing the entry 

‘‘10–5.380’’ and adding the entry ‘‘10– 

5.381’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area 

*******

10–5.381 .......... On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.12/30/12 12/29/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–29869 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 130808698–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–XC809 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone 

as Threatened or Endangered Under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and 

availability of a status review report. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on two petitions to list 

the pinto abalone (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana) as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We have completed 

a comprehensive status review of the 

pinto abalone in response to these 

petitions. Based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

we have determined that the species 

does not warrant listing at this time. We 

conclude that the pinto abalone is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and is not likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. The 

species will remain on the NMFS 

Species of Concern list, with one 

revision to apply the Species of Concern 

status throughout the species’ range 

(Alaska to Mexico). We also announce 

the availability of the pinto abalone 

status review report. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

December 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The pinto abalone status 

review report is available electronically 

at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.

noaa.gov/. You may also receive a copy 

by submitting a request to the Protected 

Resources Division, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213, 

Attention: Pinto Abalone 12-month 

Finding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Neuman, NMFS, West Coast 

Region (562) 980–4115; or Lisa 

Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources (301) 427–8466. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The pinto abalone (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana) was added to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

(NMFS’) ‘‘Species of Concern’’ list on 

April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). On July 

1, 2013, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) received a petition from 

the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) requesting that the pinto 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77999 

abalone be listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and that critical 

habitat be designated for the species. On 

August 5, 2013, we received a second 

petition, filed by the Center for 

Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the 

pinto abalone under the ESA and 

designate critical habitat. On November 

18, 2013, NMFS determined that the 

petitions presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

pinto abalone (a ‘‘positive 90-day 

finding’’) and published the finding in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 69033), 

pursuant to 50 CFR 424.14. 

In the fall of 2013, we assembled a 

Status Review Team (SRT) to compile 

and review the best available 

information, assess the extinction risk 

and threats facing the species, and 

produce an ESA status review report for 

pinto abalone. The status review report 

(NMFS 2014) provides a thorough 

account of pinto abalone biology and 

natural history, and an assessment of 

demographic risks, threats and limiting 

factors, and overall extinction risk for 

the species. The status review report 

was subjected to independent peer 

review as required by the Office of 

Management and Budget Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (M–05–03; December 16, 2004). 

The key background information and 

findings of the status review report are 

summarized below. 

Species Description 

The pinto abalone is a marine 

gastropod of the genus Haliotis. It is one 

of seven species of abalone native to the 

west coast of North America and occurs 

in both rocky intertidal and subtidal 

habitats from Baja California to Alaska 

(Geiger 1999). Like all abalone, pinto 

abalone are benthic, occurring on hard 

substrate, relatively sedentary, and 

generally herbivorous, feeding on 

attached or drifting algal material. The 

shell is scallop-edged, multi-colored 

(mottled red and/or green), and 

characterized by irregular lumps, with 

three to seven open respiratory pores 

that are slightly raised above the shell’s 

surface and paralleling a deep groove 

(Stevick 2010). The pinto abalone’s 

muscular foot is tan and is used to 

adhere to hard substrate and for 

locomotion. The epipodium (the 

circular fringe of skin around the foot) 

and tentacles are mottled yellow to dark 

tan with vertical banding patterns. The 

maximum recorded shell length for 

pinto abalone is 190 mm (see status 

review report). The maximum age is not 

known, but estimated longevity of at 

least 15–20 years is reasonable for pinto 

abalone (Shepherd et al. 2000, cited in 

Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2009) 

Distribution 

Of the seven species of abalone found 

along the west coast of North America 

(Geiger 1999), pinto abalone have the 

broadest latitudinal range, extending 

from Salisbury Sound, Sitka Island, 

Alaska to Bahia Tortugas, Baja 

California, Mexico (Campbell 2000), and 

are the predominant abalone found in 

Washington and Alaska, and in British 

Columbia, Canada. Other than a few 

observations on the Oregon coast, we 

are not aware of any records of pinto 

abalone along the outer coast of 

Washington from Neah Bay to Cape 

Mendocino in California, indicating a 

gap in the species distribution (Geiger 

2000 and 2004 (ABMAP: http://www.

vetigastropoda.com/ABMAP/

NEPacific.html)). 

Two subspecies of pinto abalone have 

been recognized by taxonomists, based 

on differences in shell shape and 

pattern (McLean 1966). The northern 

form (Haliotis kamtschatkana 

kamtschatkana) is generally distributed 

from Alaska south to Point Conception, 

California. The southern form, or 

‘‘threaded abalone’’ (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana assimilis) is generally 

distributed from central California to 

Turtle Bay in Baja California, Mexico 

(Geiger 1999). As discussed below 

under ‘‘the Species Question’’ section of 

this notice, recent evidence suggests 

that the two subspecies overlap 

throughout their range, with examples 

of the northern form observed in Baja 

California and examples of the southern 

form in British Columbia and 

Washington. 

Population Structure and Genetics 

We are aware of only one published 

assessment of population structure in H. 

kamtschatkana to date, conducted by 

Withler et al. (2001). The assessment 

estimated variation at 12 microsatellite 

loci for abalone sampled at 18 sites 

located throughout coastal British 

Columbia and at one site in Sitka 

Sound, Alaska. The results indicated a 

lack of differentiation among sites and 

suggest historically high gene flow 

among populations within the region 

from British Columbia to Alaska. This 

study is limited in that it only examines 

populations in one part of the species 

range and uses one set of microsatellite 

loci; however, it represents the best 

available information to date regarding 

population structure. 

Other studies have examined whether 

there is a genetic basis for the 

delineation of two subspecies, which 

has been based entirely on differences 

in shell morphology. Studies thus far 

have examined the portions of the 

mitochondrial genes cytochrome 

oxidase subunit one (COI) and 

cytochrome b (Cyt b), as well as the 

reproductive proteins lysin and VERL 

(vitelline envelope receptor for lysin), 

and have found no genetic 

differentiation between the two 

purported subspecies (Gruenthal and 

Burton 2005, Straus 2010, Supernault et 

al. 2010, Schwenke and Park, 

unpublished data cited in the status 

review report). We discuss this further 

in the section of this notice titled ‘‘the 

Species Question.’’ 

Habitat 

Pinto abalone are generally found in 

rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats 

with ample algal cover. The specific 

depth ranges and habitats occupied vary 

across the species range, as described 

below. The species occurs in areas with 

little freshwater influence (salinity ≥ 30 

parts per thousand), and can tolerate 

wide ranges in temperature, from 2 to 24 

degrees Celsius, based on laboratory 

experiments (Paul and Paul 1998). 

In the northern part of its range (e.g., 

Alaska to Washington), the species 

occurs in shallower habitats ranging 

from the lower intertidal to 20m deep 

relative to mean lower low water 

(MLLW); they are most commonly 

found from the intertidal to 10m deep 

relative to MLLW (Rothaus et al. 2008). 

In Alaska, pinto abalone are primarily 

found in the lower intertidal and 

subtidal surge zones on the outer coast 

of Southeast Alaska, as well as in the 

Inside Passage of southern Southeast 

Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) comments to NMFS, 17 

January 2014). In British Columbia, 

pinto abalone occur on rocky intertidal 

and subtidal habitats within areas 

ranging from sheltered bays to exposed 

coastlines (COSEWIC 2009). In 

Washington, the recorded depth range 

of pinto abalone is 3 to 20 m deep 

relative to MLLW. Occupied habitats 

vary with respect to exposure and 

contain hard substrate (bedrock and 

boulders/cobble) with ample quantities 

of benthic diatoms and micro- and 

macro-algae. 

In the southern part of the range, 

pinto abalone occur in deeper subtidal 

waters from approximately 12 to 40 m 

deep relative to MLLW (Geiger and 

Owen 2012) and are commonly found 

on open rock surfaces. Distribution in 

areas along the Southern California 

mainland is patchy and may be 

correlated with substrate type, relief, 

algal composition, and the presence of 

intermittent sand channels that may 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

accumulate drift kelp (an important 

food source). Pinto abalone appear to 

prefer flat rock over uneven rock, low 

relief with scattered rock and boulders 

over high relief habitats, and areas with 

Pelagophycus porra, Laminaria farlowii, 

Agarum fimbriatum, Pterygophora 

californica, and coralline algae 

(articulated and crustose) (unpublished 

data from Bill Hagey et al. and Melissa 

Neuman et al., cited in the status review 

report). A recent study reported that in 

Mexico, H. k. assimilis and H. sorenseni 

occurred at depths ranging from 11 to 25 

m (relative to MLLW), with the majority 

found between 13 to 15 m and 19 to 21 

m deep, although this may reflect a bias 

toward the depths that were visited 

most frequently (Boch et al. 2014). 

Movement 

Little is known about movement 

patterns of larval or juvenile pinto 

abalone anywhere in their range. The 

planktonic larval stage is short 

(approximately 5–6 days; Olsen 1984, 

cited in Sloan and Breen 1988), and 

thus dispersal is likely to be limited and 

almost certainly determined primarily 

by patterns of water movement in 

nearshore habitats near spawning sites. 

Larval settlement and metamorphosis in 

pinto abalone is likely to be associated 

with chemical cues present in crustose 

red algae, as has been found for red 

abalone (H. rufescens) (Morse and 

Morse 1984). Small juvenile (<10 mm) 

pinto abalone are difficult to find in the 

field, but are occasionally observed 

under boulders and on smooth bedrock 

or boulders that are bare or encrusted 

with coralline algae, mostly at deeper 

depths (e.g., ¥5 to ¥15 m) than adults 

are typically found (Breen 1980a). Other 

grazers (e.g., sea urchins, chitons, 

limpets, and adult abalone) may be 

important in maintaining encrusting 

coralline algae (Sloan and Breen 1988). 

To our knowledge there is no 

published information on direct 

observations of movement behavior of 

small (<20 mm) juvenile pinto abalone 

in the field. However, distribution 

patterns of juveniles and adults indicate 

an ontogenetic shift in habitat use, with 

small juveniles (<10 mm shell length) 

occupying highly cryptic habitats in 

deeper waters and migrating to 

shallower depths and more exposed 

habitats as they increase in size (Sloan 

and Breen 1988). This shift may be 

associated with changes in diet (Sloan 

and Breen 1988) and predation risk 

(Griffiths and Gosselin 2004) with size. 

Movement generally decreases as 

individuals grow in size and age. 

Tagging studies and observational 

surveys conducted in British Columbia 

indicate that although adult pinto 

abalone have the ability to move several 

meters a day and tens of meters in a 

year, they typically exhibit minimal 

movement, likely staying within close 

proximity to their settlement habitat 

(Sloan and Breen 1988). Laboratory and 

field observations indicate that 

individuals tend to be more active at 

night (Sloan and Breen 1988) and 

during the spawning season (spring 

through summer months). Observations 

of spawning behavior in the wild (Breen 

and Adkins 1980a) and in the laboratory 

(Quayle 1971) indicate that pinto 

abalone form aggregations, stack on top 

of each other, and migrate to the highest 

point available during spawning events. 

The reason for this behavior is 

unknown, but may serve to increase 

fertilization rates by aggregating 

spawners and increasing the chances for 

the eggs to encounter sperm (which tend 

to be in the water column) before they 

land on the bottom (Sloan and Breen 

1988). 

Diet 

After a short 5–6 day lecithotrophic 

(non-feeding) larval phase (Olsen 1984, 

cited in Sloan and Breen 1988), 

juveniles settle and immediately begin 

feeding (Morse 1984; Morse and Morse 

1984, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). 

Laboratory observations and gut content 

analyses of hatchery-reared juveniles 

show that post-metamorphic juveniles 

graze on minute benthic diatoms, 

microalgae, and bacteria associated with 

encrusting coralline algae and rock 

surfaces (Olsen 1984, Norman-Boudreau 

et al. 1986, cited in Sloan and Breen 

1988). Juveniles may also feed on the 

crustose coralline algae itself (Garland et 

al. 1985, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). 

These observations are consistent with 

the microhabitats within which small 

juveniles are found in the wild (smooth 

or crustose coralline encrusted bedrock 

and boulders) (Breen 1980a). 

Juveniles shift to feeding on 

macroalgae as they grow in size and age. 

Adults have been observed to feed 

directly on attached macroalgae (Sloan 

and Breen 1988), but drift macroalgae is 

believed to be the primary food resource 

(Breen 1980a). Laboratory studies 

indicate that adults prefer Macrocystis 

and Nereocystis, but will feed on 

diatoms and brown, red, and green 

algae, including Laminaria, 

Pterygophora, and Costaria (Paul et al. 

1977; unpublished data by Breen and 

unpublished student reports by P. Gee 

and J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, 

cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Adults 

avoided Fucus distichus and Agarum 

cribrosum (Paul et al. 1977; 

unpublished student reports by P. Gee 

and J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, 

cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Diet 

composition likely varies by location 

within the species range, depending on 

what is available. 

Reproduction and Spawning Density 

Although size at maturity can vary by 

location (depending on factors such as 

water temperature and food availability 

and quality), pinto abalone become 

emergent and are generally 

reproductively mature at a size of about 

50 mm shell length (SL) (about 2–5 

years in age), with all abalone mature at 

a size of about 70 mm SL (Leighton 

1959, Ault 1985, Campbell et al. 1992). 

Pinto abalone have separate sexes and 

are ‘‘broadcast’’ spawners. Gametes from 

both parents are released into the water, 

and fertilization is entirely external. 

Resulting embryos and larvae are 

minute and defenseless, receive no 

parental care or protection, and are 

subject to a broad array of physical and 

biological sources of mortality. Like 

other species with a broadcast-spawning 

reproductive strategy, abalone produce 

large numbers of gametes (e.g., millions 

of eggs or sperm per individual per year) 

to overcome high mortality in early life 

stages and survive across generations. 

As broadcast spawners, pinto abalone 

are also subject to selection for other 

reproductive traits, such as spatial and 

temporal synchrony in spawning and 

mechanisms to increase the probability 

of fertilization. 

An important factor in successful 

reproduction is the density of spawning 

adults. A reduction in adult density 

could result in increased growth, 

survival, and gamete production due to 

decreased intraspecific competition; 

however, for broadcast spawners, these 

advantages may be countered by 

decreases in the rate of successful 

fertilization if individuals are sparsely 

distributed (Levitan 1995, Levitan and 

Sewell 1998, Gascoigne and Lipcius 

2004). A critical distance of 1 m has 

been identified for abalone species; that 

is, it is estimated that individuals of the 

opposite sex need to be within 1 m of 

one another to increase the chances of 

successful fertilization (Babcock and 

Keesing 1999). Evidence for critical 

adult density thresholds below which 

recruitment failure occurs has been 

found for broadcast-spawning species 

across a broad taxonomic range, and a 

few estimates have been developed for 

abalone species. Babcock and Keesing 

(1999) estimated critical density 

thresholds at 0.15–0.20 per square meter 

(sq m) for Haliotis laevigata Donovan, 

1808. Shepherd et al. (2001) and 

Shepherd and Rodda (2001) noted that 

these density thresholds can vary 

according to coastal topography. For 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78001 

example, coastal topography can create 

larval retention areas where threshold 

density may be lower than in areas 

where larvae are more easily dispersed. 

Neuman et al. (2010) reviewed 

recruitment patterns in three long-term 

data sets for black abalone (H. 

cracherodii) in California. In each case, 

recruitment failed when declining 

population densities fell below 0.34 per 

sq m. 

Critical density thresholds have not 

been estimated for pinto abalone, but 

evidence suggests that the aggregative 

nature of the species may facilitate 

successful reproduction despite low 

overall mean densities. In 2009, 

Seamone and Boulding (2011) studied 

aggregation characteristics during the 

spawning season at three sites in 

Barkley Sound, BC. Mean densities at 

the study sites were 0.12, 0.48, and 0.64 

abalone per sq m. Based on critical 

density thresholds estimated for other 

abalone species, recruitment failure 

would be expected at the site with a 

density of 0.12 per sq m. However, 

Seamone and Boulding (2011) found 

that the mean distance between 

individual pinto abalone at all three 

study sites was significantly less than 

1.0 m, indicating aggregation. These 

aggregations were independent of sex, 

and therefore, the probability of 

encountering an individual of the 

opposite sex increased with increasing 

overall mean density. Nonetheless, 

pinto abalone at all three sites were 

sufficiently aggregated during the 

spawning season to potentially increase 

fertilization rates and compensate for 

low densities. 

Populations at the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago in Washington do appear to 

be experiencing recruitment failure 

(Rothaus et al. 2008). There, the mean 

density of emergent abalone has 

declined from 0.18 per sq m in 1992 to 

0.01 per sq m in 2013 (Rothaus et al. 

2008, Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014), and the 

percentage of emergent juveniles 

(<90mm SL) has also declined from 31.9 

percent in 1979 to 7.1 percent in 2013 

(WDFW 2014). However, there is 

evidence of recent recruitment events in 

all other areas throughout the species’ 

range, despite low densities that are, in 

most areas, below the critical density 

thresholds that have been estimated for 

other abalone species (i.e., 0.15 to 0.34 

adults per sq m). 

In Alaska, density data are not 

available but ADF&G has observed 

mixed age classes in some areas in 

Southeast Alaska, including juveniles, 

indicating recent recruitment (pers. 

comm. with S. Walker, ADF&G, cited in 

status review report). In British 

Columbia, recurring and recent 

recruitment has been observed in 

several areas. Mean adult densities at 

index sites have declined since the 

fishery closed in 1990, from 0.41 to 0.23 

per sq m between 1989 and 2006 along 

the Central Coast and from 0.27 to 0.15 

per sq m between 1990 and 2007 at 

Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). 

However, observations of small, 

immature pinto abalone (<70 mm SL) 

indicate that recruitment has been 

occurring despite low densities. In fact, 

densities of immature pinto abalone 

have increased, from 0.14 to 0.18 per sq 

m between 1989 and 2006 along the 

Central Coast and from 0.20 to 0.27 per 

sq m between 1990 and 2007 at Haida 

Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). The 2011 

surveys along the Central Coast and 

2012 surveys at Haida Gwaii show 

increases in both immature and mature 

pinto abalone densities, with overall 

densities at most of the sites meeting or 

exceeding the short-term recovery goal 

of 0.32 per sq m established by 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada (DFO) (2007) (pers. comm. with 

J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). The 

most recent data for other areas in 

British Columbia indicate that mean 

densities of emergent abalone (all sizes) 

vary greatly from 0.0098 per sq m on the 

south coast of Vancouver Island in 2005 

(DFO 2007) to 0.15 per sq m at the 

Broken Group Islands in Barkley Sound 

in the early 2000s (Tomascik and 

Holmes 2003). Tomascik and Holmes 

(2003) noted evidence of recruitment, 

with juveniles making up 42 percent of 

the sampled population. 

In northern California, mean densities 

exceeded the critical density thresholds 

estimated for other abalone species 

(Babcock and Keesing 1999, Neuman et 

al. 2010) in Sonoma County (data from 

2007–2012) and in Mendocino County 

(data from 2007–2013) at survey sites 

deeper than 10 m (unpublished data, L. 

Rogers-Bennett, California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 24 April 

2014). In addition, smaller size classes 

of pinto abalone (15 to 49mm SL) were 

well represented at the Mendocino 

County sites, indicating recent 

recruitment (unpublished data, L. 

Rogers-Bennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014). 

In southern California, data from 

directed pinto abalone surveys as well 

as opportunistic observations while 

surveying other abalone species show 

low densities, ranging from 0.0002 per 

sq m at San Miguel Island to 0.0286 per 

sq m at Point Loma in 2006–2012 

(unpublished data, I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 

24 April 2014) and from 0 to 0.15 per 

sq m off San Diego in pinto abalone 

surveys conducted in 2014 

(unpublished data, A. Bird, CSUF). 

Observations of small pinto abalone at 

Santa Cruz Island, Point Loma, and at 

several other sites off San Diego indicate 

recent recruitment events occurring 

despite low mean densities. In Mexico, 

density data are generally not available 

except for a recent survey conducted in 

2012 on the El Rosario Coast (Boch et 

al. 2014). The estimated density of pinto 

abalone was 0.0139 per sq m (NMFS 

2014), with the majority being small 

abalone 40–80mm SL, indicating that 

recent recruitment has occurred (Boch 

et al. 2014). 

Overall, although the available data 

indicate that mean densities of pinto 

abalone in most areas are presently 

below the critical density thresholds (as 

estimated for other abalone species), 

recurring and/or recent recruitment 

events continue to be observed in areas 

throughout the species’ range. The 

‘‘Abundance’’ section of this notice 

provides more detail regarding pinto 

abalone abundance and trends. We note 

that abalone appear to experience 

natural fluctuations in abundance and 

reproductive success, which may be 

partly driven by environmental 

variables. For example, Breen (1986) 

presents several examples of natural 

declines and recovery in unfished 

stocks of pinto abalone and other 

abalone species. Thus, we might expect 

population abundance and recruitment 

levels to vary from year to year and 

across longer time frames. 

Larval Dispersal 

Effective methods for marking and 

direct tracking of larval movements do 

not exist (e.g., McShane et al. 1988). As 

a result, larval dispersal distances are 

estimated using indirect methods, 

including (a) examination of spatial 

relationships of newly recruited cohorts 

to known aggregations of breeding 

adults (Prince et al. 1988); (b) the use of 

molecular tools to evaluate the 

relatedness of adult populations and 

newly recruited cohorts (Hamm and 

Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 2006); and 

(c) the use of objects such as drift cards 

or drift bottles as surrogates for larvae 

and collecting data on recovery times 

and locations (e.g., Tegner and Butler 

1985, Chambers et al. 2005, Hurn et al. 

2005). Each of these methods includes 

biases and sources of error that must be 

considered when interpreting the 

results. 

Because specific studies for pinto 

abalone are limited, we look to the 

information that is available regarding 

dispersal distances for other abalone 

species. Studies using the three methods 

discussed above give consistent results 

indicating limited larval dispersal 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

distances in abalone species, including 

Haliotis cracherodii, rubra, and 

rufescens (Prince et al. 1987 and 1988, 

McShane et al. 1988, McShane 1992, 

Hamm and Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 

2005 and 2006, Gruenthal 2007, 

Gruenthal et al. 2007). Given that most 

abalone larvae are in the plankton for a 

period of about 3–10 days before 

settlement and metamorphosis (e.g., 

McShane 1992), it seems clear that 

abalone in general have limited capacity 

for dispersal over distances beyond a 

few kilometers and are able to do so 

only rarely. Available information on 

the genetic structure of pinto abalone 

populations suggests that long-distance 

dispersal events occur frequently 

enough to maintain high gene flow 

among populations over distances of at 

least 1000 km (Withler et al. 2001). 

Larval Settlement and Recruitment 

Studies on abalone settlement cues 

suggest that availability of crustose 

coralline algae in appropriate habitats 

may be significant to the success of the 

larval recruitment process in pinto 

abalone (Morse and Morse 1984, Morse 

1990, Morse 1992). Crustose coralline 

algae is ubiquitous in rocky benthic 

habitats along the west coast of North 

America, but an understanding of the 

processes that sustain these algal 

populations has not been established to 

our knowledge. Field observations along 

the British Columbia coast indicate 

differential distribution of juveniles and 

adults, with juveniles observed at 

deeper depths, suggesting that 

settlement of larvae occurs in deeper 

habitats (Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, 

settlement may be influenced by other 

environmental factors in addition to the 

presence of crustose coralline algae. 

Recruitment is defined here as the 

appearance in one or more locations of 

measurable numbers of new postmetamorphic individuals. Prince et al. 

(1987, 1988), McShane et al. (1988), and 

McShane (1992) have presented 

evidence that recruitment of abalone is 

most likely to occur in relatively close 

spatial proximity to aggregations of 

breeding adults, at least in part a 

consequence of the relatively short 

duration of the planktonic larval phase. 

Other data suggest that abalone 

recruitment may be influenced by 

distribution of breeding adults, densities 

of adults on a local scale, availability of 

benthic recruitment substrata that 

provide appropriate chemical cues for 

settlement and metamorphosis of larvae, 

regional and local flow regimes that 

control larval dispersal from natal sites, 

and possibly predation and starvation of 

larvae (Strathmann 1985, McShane et al. 

1988, McShane 1992). 

As discussed above (see 

‘‘Reproduction and Spawning Density’’ 

section of this notice), data from index 

site surveys indicate that populations in 

Washington are experiencing 

recruitment failure, whereas 

populations in areas throughout the rest 

of the species’ range have had 

successful recruitment despite 

continued declines and low overall 

densities in most areas. A study by 

Zhang et al. (2007) estimating stock 

recruitment relationships for 

populations at Haida Gwaii and along 

the Central Coast found that poaching, 

rather than lack of recruitment, is an 

important factor limiting recovery in 

British Columbia. This is corroborated 

by preliminary results from 2011 and 

2012 surveys in these areas, showing an 

increase in population densities that is 

most likely due to reduced poaching 

within these areas (pers. comm. with 

Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). 

There is also evidence of recent 

recruitment events in northern 

California (unpublished data, L. RogersBennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014), 

southern California (unpublished data, 

I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 24 April 2014; 

unpublished data, A. Bird, CSUF, and E. 

Parnell, UCSD/Scripps, cited in status 

review report), and Mexico (Boch et al. 

2014) from surveys targeting pinto 

abalone as well as opportunistic 

observations on surveys for other 

abalone species. ADF&G has observed 

mixed age classes in some areas in 

Southeast Alaska, including juveniles 

(S. Walker, pers. comm., cited in status 

review report). 

We note that the cryptic nature of 

juvenile pinto abalone make the 

detection of recruitment events difficult. 

Small juveniles (< 10 mm SL) have 

occasionally been observed under 

boulders and on smooth bedrock or 

boulders that are bare or encrusted with 

coralline algae (Breen 1980a). Juveniles 

tend to occupy highly cryptic habitats in 

deeper waters compared to adults 

(Sloan and Breen 1988). In surveys 

along the coast of British Columbia, 

only 60 percent of juveniles 10–70 mm 

in size were exposed, compared to 90 

percent of individuals 70–90 mm size 

and almost all individuals greater than 

90 mm in size (Boutillier et al. 1985, 

cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, 

recruitment events may be occurring but 

going undetected in regions that are not 

surveyed on a regular, consistent basis. 

Growth 

Because young post-metamorphic 

abalone are often cryptic in coloration 

and habitat use, direct measurements of 

growth rate in the field are difficult. As 

a result, much of the information 

available on growth in pinto abalone 

come from lab studies and growth 

models. 

Available data on pinto abalone 

growth in captive settings suggest that 

young animals reach sizes of about 22 

mm SL (range 8–32 mm SL) in their first 

year (Olsen 1984), then grow at rates of 

approximately 18 mm per year for the 

next several years (Sloan and Breen 

1988). Growth begins to slow at lengths 

of about 50 mm SL, corresponding to 

the onset of sexual maturity. Growth 

appears to vary based on many factors 

besides age, including location, water 

temperature, season, food availability 

and quality, and exposure to wave 

action. The maximum recorded shell 

lengths for pinto abalone are 165 mm 

(Breen 1980a) and 190 mm (see status 

review report). 

Mortality 

The status review report provides a 

detailed review of mortality in abalone, 

taken largely from Shepherd and 

Breen’s (1992) review. We summarize 

the information here. Early life stages of 

abalone, particularly the larval stages, 

likely experience high mortality rates 

even in pristine settings. For larval 

stages, factors contributing to mortality 

include inappropriate oceanographic 

conditions (e.g., temperature, salinity) 

and habitats as well as predation. Little 

is known regarding mortality for newlymetamorphosed and small (<40–50 mm 

shell length) abalone, but habitat 

disturbances and predation may 

contribute to mortality (see status 

review report). 

Larger, emergent abalone (>40–50 mm 

shell length) face mortality from human 

removal, disease, predation, variation in 

food supply, physical disturbance, and 

pollution. Human removal of pinto 

abalone occurs through commercial, 

recreational, and subsistence harvest; 

purposeful illegal harvest; and 

accidental lethal injury. We discuss 

fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for 

commercial, recreational, and 

subsistence purposes in more detail 

under the ‘‘Abundance’’ section of this 

notice. Predation by sea otters has been 

highlighted as an important factor 

contributing to the continued decline of 

pinto abalone populations in places like 

Alaska where sea otter populations are 

increasing (ADF&G comments to NMFS, 

17 January 2014). Other sources of 

natural mortality include diseases such 

as withering syndrome, ganglioneuritis 

(and the related amyotrophia), vibriosis, 

and shell deformities (sabellidosis). 

These sources of mortality and their 

impact on the species are discussed in 

more detail in the ‘‘Summary of Factors 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78003 

Affecting the Species’’ section later in 

this document. 

Abundance 

There are two types of data that can 

be examined to provide a better 

understanding of variation in pinto 

abalone abundance over time: fisherydependent and fishery-independent 

data. Due to the general lack of formal 

data, we also include observations 

reported by individuals or groups of 

people. We summarize the available 

information by region (Alaska, British 

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, 

California, and Mexico), because both 

species abundance and the level of 

information available vary by 

geographic region. The status review 

report provides a more detailed account 

of the available information for each 

region. 

Alaska 

Several fisheries for pinto abalone 

have existed in Alaska, including a 

commercial fishery and sport fishery 

(both of which are now closed) and 

personal use and subsistence fisheries 

(both of which are still in operation). 

Data are not available on the number of 

pinto abalone taken in the fisheries, but 

trends in commercial fisheries harvest 

levels indicate a decline in pinto 

abalone, with harvest in Southeast 

Alaska falling from a peak of 378,685 lbs 

in 1979/1980 to a low of 14,352 lbs in 

1995/1996 (the fishery closed in 1995; 

Rumble and Hebert 2011). Between the 

1993/1994 season and 1994/1995 

season, harvest per unit effort for the 

fishery was estimated to have declined 

by 64 percent (Rumble and Hebert 

2011). 

Commercial harvest of pinto abalone 

in Southeast Alaska began in the 1960s 

with a significant increase in effort and 

harvest in the late 1970s and early 

1980s, followed by a steep decline in 

catch in the late 1980s and 1990s 

(Rumble and Hebert 2011). The increase 

in effort can be attributed in large part 

to an increase in value from less than 

one dollar per pound in the early 1970s 

to greater than six dollars per pound in 

1993–1994 (Woodby et al. 2000). 

Harvest peaked at 378,685 pounds in 

1979–1980, followed by a decline in 

harvest that was likely due in part to 

declines in pinto abalone abundance as 

well as changes in regulations to limit 

the fishery, including harvest limits and 

area and seasonal closures (Rumble and 

Hebert 2011). The commercial fishery 

for pinto abalone was closed in 1995 

and remains closed (Woodby et al. 

2000). Commercial harvest was 

primarily conducted using scuba or 

hookah dive gear in the subtidal zone, 

though pinto abalone can be picked by 

hand in the intertidal zone during 

extreme low tides (Rumble and Hebert 

2011). 

Data from the subsistence abalone 

fishery are available from 1972 to 1997 

and indicate a significant decline (98 

percent decrease) in the subsistence 

harvest from an average of 350–397 

pinto abalone per household in 1972 to 

an average of 3–9 pinto abalone per 

household in 1997 (Bowers et al. 2011). 

Subsistence harvest of pinto abalone in 

Alaska is believed to remain low 

(ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 

January 2014). In 2012, the Alaska 

Board of Fisheries reduced the daily bag 

limit for subsistence harvest to 5 

abalone, with no closed season and no 

annual limit (Bowers et al. 2011). Prior 

to 2012, the daily bag limit for 

subsistence harvest was 50 abalone. The 

minimum size limit is 3.5 inches and 

legal harvest methods include snorkel 

equipment, abalone irons, or collection 

by hand. Scuba and hookah diving for 

subsistence abalone harvest has been 

prohibited since 1996. 

Abalone harvest has also occurred in 

the sport abalone fishery (for nonresidents) and personal use abalone 

fishery (for state residents), but data on 

trends in harvest are not available. In 

the sport fishery, the daily bag limit was 

5 abalone per day (minimum size: 3.5 

inches), with no closed season. Scuba 

and hookah gear were allowed until 

1996. The Alaska Board of Fisheries 

closed the sport abalone fishery in 2012 

and it remains closed to present. In the 

personal use abalone fishery, the daily 

bag limit was 50 abalone per person 

(except in one area around Sitka where 

the daily bag limit was 20 abalone per 

person), with a minimum size limit of 

3.5 inches and no closed season. In 

2012, the Alaska Board of Fisheries 

reduced the daily bag limit to 5 abalone 

per person. Scuba and hookah diving 

were allowed until 1996. The personal 

use abalone fishery remains open, but 

harvest is believed to be low (ADF&G 

comments to NMFS on 17 January 

2014). 

There are limited fishery-independent 

data on pinto abalone populations in 

Alaska. No long-term monitoring of 

pinto abalone populations in Alaska has 

been conducted. However, observations 

of pinto abalone have been made by 

ADF&G biologists while conducting 

dive surveys to monitor other benthic 

invertebrate species for management 

purposes. From 1996 to 2000, about 125 

to almost 250 pinto abalone were 

observed per year during red sea urchin 

dive surveys; in 2001, the number 

observed dropped to about 50 pinto 

abalone, and in 2002–2011, fewer than 

20 pinto abalone were observed per year 

(ADF&G comments to NMFS, 17 January 

2014). These observations suggest a 

continued decline in pinto abalone 

populations since closure of the 

commercial fishery. ADF&G noted an 

increase in empty abalone shells 

observed on red sea urchin survey 

transects in Southeast Alaska between 

2001 and 2012 (pers. comm. with K. 

Hebert, ADF&G). These observations are 

coincident with increased sea otter 

abundance in Southeast Alaska and 

suggest that sea otters are having an 

impact on pinto abalone abundance 

where the two species overlap (pers. 

comm. with K. Hebert, ADF&G). The 

one exception to this observed pattern is 

in Sitka Sound, where sea otters and a 

small population of pinto abalone 

appear to co-exist (pers. comm. with K. 

Hebert, ADF&G). ADF&G has observed 

mixed age classes in some areas in 

Southeast Alaska, including juveniles 

(S. Walker, pers. comm.). 

British Columbia 

Although also limited, data are 

available from both fishery-dependent 

and fishery-independent sources 

regarding the abundance of pinto 

abalone in British Columbia, making 

this region relatively data rich compared 

to other regions of the coast. The 

available data indicate a decline in 

pinto abalone populations during and 

even after closure of abalone fisheries, 

with signs of increases in abundance in 

the past five years attributed to a 

reduction in poaching. 

Harvest of pinto abalone has a long 

history in British Columbia. Pinto 

abalone were harvested in commercial, 

recreational, and traditional First 

Nations food, social, and ceremonial 

fisheries. Prior to the advent of scuba 

gear around 1960, abalone harvest by 

First Nations and recreational fishers 

occurred primarily at low tide by shore 

picking (Farlinger and Campbell 1992), 

although some First Nations used a twopronged spear to take abalone as deep 

as 2 m below the lowest tide (Jones 

2000). After the advent of scuba gear, 

the recreational fishery became 

widespread along the coast (Farlinger 

and Campbell 1992). No landing 

statistics are available for either the First 

Nations or recreational fisheries (Sloan 

and Breen 1988, Farlinger and Campbell 

1992). However, during the recreational 

fishery in 1983, McElderry and Richards 

(1984) estimated that scuba divers in the 

Strait of Georgia collected 1,172 pinto 

abalone per thousand sport dives and 

that between 76,000 and 172,000 

recreational dives occurred in that year 

in the Canadian portion of the Strait of 

Georgia. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The commercial abalone fishery began 

in British Columbia as early as 1889 as 

a small, local, and sporadic fishery 

(Mowat 1890), but expanded 

significantly in the 1970s when landings 

increased to nearly 60 metric tons (mt) 

in 1972 and then to 273 mt in 1976 

(Federenko and Sprout 1982). 

Commercial landings peaked at over 480 

and 400 mt in 1977 and 1978, but 

dropped to about 200 mt in 1979 when 

a quota was put in place for the first 

time. Landings leveled out to between 

44 and 47 mt under quota management 

and numerous other management 

actions taken following 1977 (Sloan and 

Breen 1988). Reasons for the increase in 

abalone harvest in the 1970’s include 

the advent of scuba and dry-diving 

suits, allowing more diver submergence 

time; the advent of on-board boat 

freezers; emergence of a market in Japan 

for pinto abalone; tripling of the price 

per pound between 1972 and 1976 to 

over three Canadian dollars per pound; 

restricted access to salmon and herring 

fisheries; and unrestricted access to the 

abalone fishery prior to 1977 (Sloan and 

Breen 1988, Farlinger and Campbell 

1992). All pinto abalone fisheries in 

British Columbia were closed in 

December 1990 due to observed 

declines and overall low population 

levels (Egli and Lessard 2011) and 

remain closed to date. 

Breen (1986) estimated that at the 

beginning of 1976 the abalone stock 

stood at 1,800 mt in areas that were 

open to harvest (closed areas 

(Fedorenko and Sprout 1982): Juan 

Perez Sound, Lower Johnstone Strait, 

Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de 

Fuca). By the end of 1980, the stock size 

had been reduced to an estimated 450 

mt (Breen 1986). The SRT attempted to 

estimate the number of individual pinto 

abalone landed each year from 1952– 

1990 in the commercial fishery, based 

on landed biomass and the predicted 

mean weight of legal-sized northern 

abalone (≥ 90 mm from 1952–1976 and 

≥ 100 mm after 1976). An estimated 2.5 

million abalone were harvested in 1977, 

with at least a million abalone harvested 

each year from 1976 to 1979 and over 

240,000 harvested each year during the 

last decade of the fishery (see status 

review report). Most of the commercial 

harvest occurred at Haida Gwaii 

(formerly known as the Queen Charlotte 

Islands) and along the North Coast 

(Sloan and Breen 1988, Egli and Lessard 

2011). 

Fishery-independent data for pinto 

abalone in British Columbia primarily 

consist of data from index site surveys 

conducted by the DFO since 1978, 

although some data exist for the period 

prior to the 1970s (i.e., prior to when the 

fishery expanded significantly). Surveys 

from the early 1900’s indicate pinto 

abalone were present in sufficient 

numbers for harvesting around Haida 

Gwaii and in Queen Charlotte Sound 

(Thompson 1914). Exploratory surveys 

conducted in the same areas in 1955 

found few pinto abalone in southeastern 

Haida Gwaii, and many areas with no 

abalone, indicating a decline in the 

region’s population (Quayle 1962, Sloan 

and Breen 1988). In contrast, surveys 

conducted in 1978 in the same area 

found few sites with no abalone and an 

estimated density of 0.58 legal-sized 

abalone per sq m with an overall mean 

density of 2.5 abalone per sq m (Breen 

and Adkins 1979, Sloan and Breen 

1988). Breen (1986) attributed these 

differences between surveys in 1914, 

1955, and 1978 to natural variation in 

pinto abalone abundance, rather than to 

differences in survey methods or 

observer experience. Pinto abalone were 

previously not thought to occur in the 

Strait of Georgia (formerly known as the 

Gulf of Georgia) (Thompson 1914), but 

have since been found there, though 

relatively scarce compared to other 

areas in British Columbia and only at 

depths of 7m or greater (Quayle 1962, 

Sloan and Breen 1988). 

DFO index site surveys for pinto 

abalone have been conducted every 4– 

5 years since 1978, providing valuable 

time series and size frequency data. 

Surveys at Haida Gwaii and along the 

North and Central Coast began in 1978, 

and on the West Coast of Vancouver 

Island, Queen Charlotte Strait, and the 

Strait of Georgia in 2003 and 2004. The 

status review report summarizes the 

best available data on pinto abalone 

abundance and trends from these 

surveys. The data indicate that although 

recruitment is occurring, the density of 

mature adults (defined as pinto abalone 

≥ 100 mm SL for the purposes of the 

index site surveys) has been declining, 

either due to a high rate of juvenile 

mortality before they reach maturity or 

due to a high rate of adult mortality that 

is offsetting juvenile survival (COSEWIC 

2009). Densities of immature abalone 

have increased by 29 percent at the 

Central Coast sites since 1989 and by 35 

percent at the Haida Gwaii sites since 

1990, whereas densities of mature 

abalone have declined by about 44 

percent since 1990 (the year the abalone 

fisheries closed) (COSEWIC 2009). 

Overall, the survey data from 1978 to 

2009 indicate that mature abalone 

densities declined by 88–89 percent and 

total abalone densities have declined by 

81–83 percent at the Central Coast and 

Haida Gwaii sites (COSEWIC 2009). 

However, preliminary results from more 

recent surveys in 2011 and 2012 

indicate signs of increasing populations, 

potentially due to reductions in illegal 

take. In 2009, abalone were found at 41 

percent of the 34 sites surveyed in 

Queen Charlotte Strait, with an overall 

density of 0.109 per sq m and a mature 

abalone density of 0.072 per sq m 

(Lessard and Egli 2011). These densities 

were four times greater than the 

densities found in 2004 and indicate 

that abalone populations in Queen 

Charlotte Strait are stable (Lessard and 

Egli 2011). Results from the 2011 

surveys along the Central Coast show an 

increase in the mean density of abalone 

(all sizes) and a decrease in the 

estimated mortality rate between 2006 

and 2011 (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, 

DFO, on 24 April 2014). The density of 

mature abalone (≥ 70 mm shell length) 

was at or above the short-term recovery 

objective of 0.32 abalone per sq m (as 

defined in DFO’s 2007 Recovery 

Strategy for pinto abalone) at 6 of the 8 

index survey sites and above the longterm goal of one abalone per sq m at one 

site (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, 

on 24 April 2014). Similarly, results 

from the 2012 surveys at Haida Gwaii 

indicate an increase in the mean density 

of both immature and mature abalone 

and a decrease in the estimated 

mortality rate between 2007 and 2012, 

as well as densities of mature abalone (≥ 

70 mm shell length) at or above the 

recovery objective of 0.32 abalone per sq 

m at 5 of the 9 index survey sites (pers. 

comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 

April 2014). Evidence of successful 

juvenile recruitment throughout the 

years and these recent increases in adult 

abundance and density indicate that 

removing or reducing illegal harvest to 

minimal levels would likely allow 

populations to rebuild. However, with 

the continued spread of sea otters in the 

region, populations are not expected to 

return to levels observed during the 

1970s when sea otters were absent from 

the region (COSEWIC 2009). 

Washington 

Data on abundance and trends in 

pinto abalone populations in 

Washington are limited to fisheryindependent data from timed swim and 

index site surveys. Although estimates 

of recreational harvest are available, 

they do not provide information on 

trends in abundance over time. Overall, 

the survey data indicate that 

populations in Washington have 

declined over time, despite closure of 

the fisheries in 1994, and local 

recruitment failure may be occurring. 

Fishery-dependent data for 

Washington are limited. Washington has 

never had a commercial fishery for 

pinto abalone. Subsistence harvest by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78005 

indigenous peoples and early residents 

reportedly occurred, but the magnitude 

and extent of the fishery are not well 

documented (WDFW 2014). Pinto 

abalone were first recognized as a 

recreationally harvestable shellfish with 

a daily possession limit of 3 abalone by 

Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) orders first published in 1959. 

Between 1959 and when the 

recreational fishery was closed in 1994, 

the possession limit fluctuated between 

3 and 5 abalone per day and several 

other measures, including minimum 

size limits and gear restrictions, were 

imposed to manage the fishery. 

Although recreational harvest records 

were not collected, some estimates of 

annual harvest are available from 

compilations of recreational sport diver 

interviews, returned questionnaires, 

diver logbook records, and information 

from dive clubs (Bargmann 1984, 

Gesselbracht 1991). In the early 1980s, 

approximately 91 percent of pinto 

abalone harvest occurred in the North 

Puget Sound region, including the San 

Juan Islands Archipelago, and the 

remainder occurred in the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca and just north of Admiralty 

Inlet (Bargmann 1984). Bargmann (1984) 

estimated that sport divers harvested 

34,800 and 3,400 pinto abalone 

annually from the North Sound and the 

Strait/Admiralty regions, respectively, 

based on data over the period from 

April 1982 to March 1983. Gesselbracht 

(1991, cited in WDFW 2014) estimated 

that 40,934 pinto abalone were 

harvested annually, based on interviews 

with sport divers from September 1989 

to August 1990. 

Fishery-independent data are 

available from timed swim and index 

site surveys in the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago. Both sets of data indicate 

continuing declines in pinto abalone 

populations since the fisheries closed in 

1994. From 1979–1981, WDFW 

conducted timed swim surveys 

(designed to quantify pinto abalone 

abundance) at 30 sites, with a mean 

encounter rate of about 1.1 pinto 

abalone per minute or 25.5 pinto 

abalone per dive (WDFW 2014). These 

were likely underestimates of pinto 

abalone abundance, because swim times 

were not adjusted for the time taken to 

measure abalone size (WDFW 2014). In 

contrast, WDFW divers encountered an 

average of about 1.1 abalone per dive 

across all 30 sites in 2010–2011, 

indicating a reduction in encounter rate 

of about 96 percent (WDFW 2014). This 

reduction in the encounter rate of pinto 

abalone per dive indicates a decline in 

pinto abalone density among the 30 

survey sites. In 2005, Rogers-Bennett et 

al. (2007 and 2011) surveyed 10 sites in 

the San Juan Islands Archipelago where 

pinto abalone populations were 

abundant in the past, and found only 17 

pinto abalone (range in shell length = 

75–142 mm); 14 of those abalone were 

found at just two sites. This number was 

substantially lower than the number of 

pinto abalone found at the sites in 1979 

by WDFW (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2011). 

Index site surveys show similar declines 

in pinto abalone densities around the 

San Juan Islands Archipelago. From 

1992 to 2013, WDFW has conducted 

periodic surveys at 10 index sites, 

originally selected in areas known to 

have high pinto abalone abundance. The 

mean density at the 10 index sites 

declined from 0.18 abalone per sq m in 

1992 to 0.04 abalone per sq m in 2006 

(Rothaus et al. 2008) and 0.01 abalone 

per sq m in 2013 (WDFW 2014). 

Recent data suggests limited 

recruitment is occurring in the San Juan 

Islands Archipelago. The proportion of 

emergent juvenile pinto abalone (shell 

length < 90mm) seen during index site 

surveys has declined from 31.8 percent 

in 1979 to 17.4 percent in 1992, and 

most recently to 7.1 percent in 2013 

(WDFW 2014). In addition, only four 

emergent and three juvenile abalone 

were observed on 60 abalone 

recruitment modules deployed in 

August and September 2004 (Bouma et 

al. 2012). The mean size of pinto 

abalone has also increased by an average 

of 0.5 mm per year, from about 97.6 mm 

in 1979 (measured during timed swim 

surveys; n=755) to about 118.4 mm in 

2013 (measured during index site 

surveys; n=56) (WDFW 2014). This 

increase indicates a trend in the 

populations from smaller, young 

abalone to a higher proportion of larger 

and presumably older individuals, again 

suggesting that little to no recruitment 

has occurred in recent years. 

Pinto abalone have been observed in 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but no data 

are available regarding trends in 

abundance (WDFW 2014). We are also 

not aware of any documented 

observations of pinto abalone on the 

outer coast of Washington, south of 

Portage Head (located just south of Cape 

Flattery). 

Oregon 

Little information is available on 

pinto abalone presence along the 

Oregon coast. Recreational harvest of 

abalone is allowed in Oregon (limits: 

One abalone per day and five abalone 

per year), but the minimum size limit of 

8 inches (203.2 mm) essentially 

excludes pinto abalone from this fishery 

(Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) recreational shellfish 

regulations at http://www.dfw.state.or.

us/mrp/shellfish/regulations.asp, 

accessed: 27 August 2014). Pinto 

abalone are believed to be naturally rare 

in Oregon, with only occasional shells 

being found (Reimers and Snow 1975). 

The first confirmed live pinto abalone in 

Oregon was observed in 2009 at Orford 

Reef by an urchin diver (pers. comm. 

with Scott Groth, ODFW, cited in NMFS 

2009). The animal was about 100 mm in 

size, found at a depth of 20 m with no 

other abalone observed nearby (pers. 

comm. with Scott Groth, ODFW, on 26 

June 2014). Since 2009, the same urchin 

diver has spotted about four more live 

pinto abalone on Orford Reef and 

another urchin diver found one live 

pinto abalone in Nellies Cove, near Port 

Orford (pers. comm. with Scott Groth, 

ODFW, on 26 June 2014). No directed 

surveys for pinto abalone have been 

conducted in Oregon, and we are not 

aware of any other information on pinto 

abalone presence or abundance in 

Oregon waters. 

California 

In California, estimates of baseline 

(i.e., abundance prior to overfishing) 

and modern pinto abalone abundances 

have been made using both fisherydependent and fishery-independent 

data. Both indicate a decline in 

population abundance from the 1970s to 

2000s. As noted below, however, there 

is some uncertainty associated with 

these estimates. Data from surveys 

focused on pinto abalone are limited, 

but recent efforts are providing 

preliminary data on population 

abundances and densities along the 

California coast. 

Harvest of abalone in California has 

occurred for thousands of years, with 

modern commercial and recreational 

fisheries beginning in the late 1890s and 

early 1900s, respectively. CDFW 

(formerly CDFG) landings records 

indicate that pinto abalone were landed 

at the Farallon Islands, Point Montara, 

Point Buchon, Point Conception, the 

Northern and Southern Channel Islands, 

Santa Barbara, San Diego, and the 

offshore banks from 1950–1997 (CDFG 

2005). Pinto abalone is not considered a 

major component of the commercial or 

recreational abalone catch (CDFW 

2005); however, fishing pressure led to 

decreased landings from a peak of 

approximately 10,000 pounds (4.5 mt) 

in 1974 to less than 500 pounds (0.2 mt) 

by the 1980s. If a dozen pinto abalone 

weighed about 15 pounds (Pinkas 1974, 

cited in Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002), then 

10,000 pounds would equal about 8,000 

pinto abalone and 500 pounds would 

equal about 400 pinto abalone. CDFW 

closed all commercial and recreational 

abalone fisheries south of San Francisco 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in 1997. In 1999, CDFW effectively 

excluded pinto abalone from the red 

abalone recreational fishery north of San 

Francisco by increasing the minimum 

legal size limit to 178 mm for all species 

(Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002). CDFW has 

since revised their regulations to 

specifically prohibit harvest of pinto 

abalone in this fishery. 

Rogers-Bennett et al. (2002) estimated 

baseline abundance for H. k. assimilis 

using landings data from the peak of the 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

(1971–1980). The baseline minimum 

estimate of abundance for H. k. assimilis 

prior to overexploitation was 21,000 

animals. After 1980, only 66 pinto 

abalone were landed, suggesting a 

decline of 99.6 percent over a 10-year 

period. This baseline abundance 

estimate of 21,000 animals provides a 

historical perspective on patterns in 

abundance. However, it is important to 

note that this estimate was based on 

data from a time period when pinto 

abalone abundances may have been 

higher than usual due to the decline of 

sea otters along the California coast. 

Thus, this estimate may overestimate 

the true baseline abundances that 

existed prior to the abalone fishery and 

the exploitation of sea otters. 

Using estimated densities and suitable 

rocky habitat derived from data 

collected in 1971 and 1975, RogersBennett et al. (2002) also estimated 

baseline abundance for H. k. 

kamtschatkana in northern California as 

153,000 animals. This estimate had 

large 95 percent confidence intervals 

(CIs; upper = 341,000; lower = 29,000) 

because of the patchy nature of the 

abundance data and limited sampling. A 

modern estimate of 18,000 abalone (95 

percent CI: 13,000–22,000) was derived 

from data collected in 1999–2000 at five 

sites in Mendocino County and 

indicates an estimated 10-fold decline 

in abundance between the 1970s and 

1999–2000 (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002). 

CDFW conducted dive surveys at 

multiple sites in Mendocino County 

from 2007–2013 and in Sonoma County 

from 2007–2012 (L. Rogers-Bennett, 

CDFW, unpublished data, 24 April 

2014). At sites deeper than 10 m, the 

mean densities exceeded the critical 

density thresholds for successful 

reproduction that have been estimated 

for other abalone species (Babcock and 

Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010). 

Smaller size classes were observed, 

indicating that recent recruitment has 

occurred, despite limited observations 

of juveniles in abalone recruitment 

modules deployed from 2001–2014 in 

northern California. 

In Southern California, there have 

been few reports of pinto abalone from 

1970–2000. In 1974, CDFW conducted 

timed SCUBA surveys at the Northern 

Channel Islands (focusing on all abalone 

species) and found 53 individuals at 

San Miguel Island, 10 at Santa Rosa 

Island, and 18 off Santa Cruz Island (Ian 

Taniguchi, CDFW, unpublished data, 24 

April 2014). The National Park Service, 

which has been conducting surveys at 

the Channel Islands since 1982, 

observed pinto abalone for the first time 

in 2001 (pers. comm. with David 

Kushner, NPS, cited in Rogers-Bennett 

et al. 2002). From 2006–2012, a number 

of entities observed pinto abalone 

during surveys that did not necessarily 

focus on pinto abalone but occurred in 

habitats suitable for them. These 

observations indicate that densities are 

low (ranging from 0.0002 to 0.0286 

pinto abalone per sq m), but that recent 

recruitment has occurred in at least two 

locations (Santa Cruz Island and Point 

Loma) (Ian Taniguchi, CDFW, 

unpublished data, 24 April 2014). 

Recently, reports of pinto abalone off 

San Diego have been more common. In 

most areas that are surveyed, reports 

range from a few individuals to up to 

several dozen abalone, including a wide 

size range (see status review report). 

Preliminary data from surveys 

conducted off San Diego in summer 

2014 indicate densities of 0 to 0.015 

pinto abalone per sq m, including 

animals ranging in size from 13 to 151 

mm SL (Amanda Bird, CSUF, 

unpublished data). Densities are well 

below the estimated threshold values 

needed for successful recruitment 

(Babcock and Keesing 1999, Neuman et 

al. 2010). However, the presence of 

small animals and observations of most 

(> 50 percent) of animals in pairs within 

four meters of one another indicate that 

the species is extremely patchy, and that 

densities recorded on a per sq m basis 

may not be the best metric for 

evaluating population viability. 

Mexico 

Little information is available on 

pinto abalone distribution and 

abundance in Mexico. Because pinto 

abalone and white abalone overlap in 

range and are difficult to distinguish 

morphologically, the two species are 

often grouped and reported on together. 

In Mexico, the abalone fishery has been 

operating since the 1860s (Croker 1931) 

and is still operating, but modern 

commercial harvests did not develop 

until the 1940s. Historically, the fishery 

primarily harvested H. fulgens and H. 

corrugata, but H. kamtschatkana/

sorenseni were also considered 

relatively abundant and harvested. 

A recent collaborative study was 

conducted in August 2012 as a 

preliminary assessment of abalone 

species in the nearshore at El Rosario, 

Baja California, and provided density 

data on pinto and white abalone in five 

survey areas (Boch et al. 2014). Pinto 

and white abalone were grouped and 

referred to as a two species complex in 

the study, due to similarities in shell 

morphology and possibly 

misidentification by observers. 

However, the authors estimated that 75 

percent of the abalone in this group 

were pinto abalone (H. k. assimilis) 

(pers. comm. with C. Boch, Stanford 

University). The survey included 

twenty-four transects, each covering a 

400 sq sq m area within depths of 11– 

25 m. A total of 178 H. k. assimilis/

sorenseni were found, ranging in size 

from 40 to 240 mm SL, with the 

majority ranging in size from 40 to 180 

mm. Assuming that 75 percent of these 

were likely H. k. assimilis, the estimated 

density of H. k. assimilis for the study 

area would be 0.0139 per sq m. Recent 

recruitment was evident in at least one 

area where the population consisted 

primarily of animals ranging from 40 to 

80 mm in size. 

The ‘‘Species’’ Question 

The ESA defines a species as ‘‘any 

species or subspecies of wildlife or 

plants, or any distinct population 

segment of any species of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature.’’ The pinto abalone is a marine 

invertebrate species that has been 

taxonomically subdivided into two 

subspecies: Haliotis kamtschatkana 

kamtschatkana (i.e., the northern form 

that is described as ranging from Sitka 

Island, Alaska to Point Conception, 

California), and Haliotis kamtschatkana 

assimilis (i.e., the southern form that is 

described as ranging from Monterey, 

California to Turtle Bay, Baja California, 

Mexico) (McLean 1966). The two 

subspecies were initially described as 

separate species by Jonas (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana) in 1845 and Dall 

(Haliotis assimilis) in 1878. McLean 

(1966) argued that the two previously 

described species were unique forms, or 

subspecies, representing geographic 

extremes of a single species, with 

differences in shell morphology likely 

related to varying environmental 

conditions along a latitudinal gradient 

within the species’ range. Geiger (1999) 

upheld the subspecies classification 

scheme based on the morphological 

descriptions of shells provided by 

McLean (1966) and also maintained the 

subspecies range descriptions as 

described above. 

More recently, two lines of evidence 

have raised uncertainty regarding the 

taxonomic structure of pinto abalone as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78007 

consisting of two subspecies. First, none 

of the genetic tools and analyses 

conducted to date have been able to 

confirm a discernible difference 

between H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. 

assimilis. Studies conducted thus far 

tend to indicate high intraspecific 

(within species) variability in pinto 

abalone, depending on the gene 

sequenced, but no genetic 

differentiation between subspecies. One 

highly conserved portion of the genome 

that has been investigated and that 

geneticists would have expected to be 

different between subspecies, is the area 

that controls the production of the 

reproductive proteins lysin and VERL 

(vitelline envelope receptor for lysin). 

Supernault et al. (2010) examined this 

portion of the genome for forensic 

analyses of northeastern Pacific abalone 

species. Results indicated that all 

species recognized on the basis of 

morphological differences have been 

confirmed to be distinct on the basis of 

genetic sequences, with only the two 

subspecies, H. k. kamtschatkana and H. 

k. assimilis, indistinguishable through 

molecular analysis. Gruenthal and 

Burton (2005) had similar results, 

concluding H. k. kamtschatkana and H. 

k. assimilis were statistically 

indistinguishable at sequenced portions 

of the mitochondrial genes cytochrome 

oxidase subunit one (COI) and 

cytochrome b (CytB), as well as VERL, 

although the sample sizes were small. 

Straus (2010) also found no statistically 

significant differences in either COI or 

lysin, stating that the two subspecies 

share identical sequences at both 

mitochondrial and nuclear loci and 

cannot be differentiated. Most recently, 

Schwenke and Park (unpublished data, 

cited in the status review report) 

constructed bootstrapped neighborjoining trees of new and archived 

mitochondrial COI and VERL 

sequences, finding that VERL is 

currently the best marker available to 

resolve the most closely related abalone 

species group found along the 

Northeastern Pacific coast (white, pinto, 

flat, and red), whereas COI separates 

this group from the remaining species 

(i.e. black, pink, and green; pers. comm. 

with P. Schwenke, NMFS Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, cited in status 

review report). Again, however, neither 

marker provided subspecies level 

resolution. Thus, to date, the subspecies 

remain indistinguishable at the 

molecular level, although future 

analyses using newer methods that 

search the entire genome (such as single 

nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) 

may be able to find genetic support for 

the delineation of the two putative 

subspecies. 

Second, collections from several shell 

collectors contain multiple examples of 

the southern form (H. k. assimilis) in 

British Columbia and Washington and 

of the northern form (H. k. 

kamtschatkana) in Baja California, 

Mexico, as well as multiple specimens 

collected from both the northern and 

southern portion of the species’ range 

that exhibit morphologies representative 

of both subspecies (pers. comm. with B. 

Owen and A. Rafferty, cited in status 

review report). We recognize that shell 

collections may not represent a random 

sample of shells from the population 

and that these shells may constitute a 

relatively small population of outliers in 

the wild. Despite this, these examples 

suggest that the range overlap between 

the two putative subspecies is much 

more extensive than was previously 

thought (Canada to Mexico, rather than 

just along the central California coast) 

and that this degree of overlap 

(approximately 80 percent of the 

species’ range) does not meet the 

definition of subspecies as allopatric 

populations (Futuyma 1986). 

The SRT concluded, and NMFS 

agrees, that the pinto abalone should be 

considered as one species throughout its 

range for the purposes of the status 

review. This conclusion was based on 

the lack of evidence for species 

divergence at the molecular level, the 

degree of overlap between the 

subspecies, and the fact that there are 

other examples of marine invertebrate 

species with broad geographic ranges 

(e.g., ochre and bat stars) and/or 

pronounced morphological plasticity 

(e.g., periwinkle snails) extending on 

the order of 1,000s of kilometers. We do 

not reject the possible existence of pinto 

abalone subspecies. However, the lack 

of genetic, geographic, or ecological 

justification for treating the two 

subspecies as separate species led the 

SRT to consider the status of the species 

and its extinction risk throughout its 

range from Alaska to Mexico. 

Assessment of Risk of Extinction 

Approach to Extinction Risk Assessment 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as ‘‘any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ A 

threatened species is ‘‘any species 

which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, 

we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to 

be one that is presently in danger of 

extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on 

the other hand, is not presently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future (that 

is, at a later time). In other words, the 

primary statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species may be in 

danger of extinction, either presently 

(endangered) or in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

To evaluate whether the pinto abalone 

meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered, we considered the best 

available information and applied 

professional judgment in evaluating the 

level of risk faced by the species. We 

evaluated both demographic risks, such 

as low abundance and productivity, and 

threats to the species including those 

related to the factors specified by the 

ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E). In a separate 

evaluation (see the ‘‘Efforts Being Made 

to Protect the Species’’ section below), 

we also considered conservation efforts 

being made to protect the species. 

As described above, we convened an 

SRT, comprised of nine fishery 

biologists and abalone experts from the 

NMFS West Coast and Alaska Regions, 

the NMFS Northwest and Southwest 

Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS Office 

of Science and Technology, the National 

Park Service, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey/University of Washington. The 

SRT was asked to review the best 

available information on the species and 

to evaluate the overall risk of extinction 

facing pinto abalone now and in the 

foreseeable future. The ability to 

measure or document risk factors for 

pinto abalone is limited and the 

available information is often not 

quantitative, or less than ideal. 

Therefore, in assessing risk, we 

included both qualitative and 

quantitative information and modeled 

the assessment on the approaches used 

in previous NMFS status reviews to 

organize and summarize the 

professional judgment of the SRT 

members. 

The SRT first performed a threats 

assessment for pinto abalone by scoring 

the severity and scope of threats to the 

species, as well as the time frame over 

which the threats are affecting the 

species and the level of data that is 

available regarding the threats and their 

effects. The SRT considered past factors 

for decline, as well as present and future 

threats faced by the species. Detailed 

definitions of these risk scores can be 

found in the status review report. The 

results of this threats assessment are 

summarized below under ‘‘Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species.’’ 

The SRT then assessed the 

demographic risks for pinto abalone. 

The SRT considered demographic 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information reflecting the past and 

present condition of pinto abalone 

populations. This information is 

detailed in the status review report and 

summarized above under the 

‘‘Background’’ section of this notice, 

and included the best available 

information on population abundance 

or density, population trends and 

growth rates, the number and 

distribution of populations, exchange 

rates of individuals among populations, 

and the ecological, life history, or 

genetic diversity among populations. In 

some cases, information was not 

available or severely limited. 

As in previous NMFS status reviews, 

the SRT analyzed the collective 

condition of individual populations at 

the species level according to four 

demographic risk criteria: Abundance, 

growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity. 

These four general viability criteria, 

reviewed in McElhany et al. (2000), 

reflect concepts that are well-founded in 

conservation biology, are generally 

applicable to a wide variety of species, 

and describe demographic risks that 

individually and collectively provide 

strong indicators of extinction risk. The 

SRT’s methods and conclusions for the 

demographic risk assessment are 

described in more detail below in the 

‘‘Analysis of Demographic Risk’’ section 

of this notice. 

The SRT members were then asked to 

make an overall extinction risk 

determination for pinto abalone now 

and in the foreseeable future. For this 

analysis, the SRT considered the best 

available information regarding the 

status of the species along with the 

results of the threats assessment and 

demographic risk analysis. The SRT 

defined five levels of overall extinction 

risk: No/Very Low risk, Low risk, 

Moderate risk, High risk, and Very High 

risk. To allow individuals to express 

uncertainty in determining the overall 

level of extinction risk facing the 

species, the SRT adopted the 

‘‘likelihood point’’ (Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team, or 

FEMAT, 1993) method, in which each 

SRT member distributed 10 ‘likelihood 

points’ among the five levels of risks. 

The scores were then tallied and 

summarized. This approach has been 

used in previous NMFS status reviews 

(e.g., for Pacific salmon, rockfish in 

Puget Sound, Pacific herring, black 

abalone, scalloped hammerhead) to 

structure the team’s analysis and 

express levels of uncertainty when 

assigning risk categories. 

The SRT did not make 

recommendations as to whether the 

species should be listed as threatened or 

endangered, or if it did not warrant 

listing. Rather, the SRT drew scientific 

conclusions about the overall risk of 

extinction faced by pinto abalone under 

present conditions and in the 

foreseeable future (defined as 30 years 

and 100 years) based on an evaluation 

of the species’ demographic risks and 

assessment of threats. NMFS considered 

the SRT’s assessment of overall 

extinction risk, along with the best 

available information regarding the 

species status and ongoing and future 

conservation efforts, in making a final 

determination regarding whether the 

species meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

According to section 4 of the ESA, the 

Secretary of Commerce determines 

whether a species is threatened or 

endangered because of any (or a 

combination) of the following factors: 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific or 

educational purposes; disease or 

predation; inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or other natural 

or man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. We examined 

these factors for their historic, current, 

and/or potential impact on pinto 

abalone and considered them, along 

with current species distribution and 

abundance, to help determine the 

species’ present vulnerability to 

extinction. When considering the effects 

of the threat into the foreseeable future, 

the time frame considered by the SRT 

varied based on the threat, but generally 

ranged from 30 to 100 years. A time 

frame of 30 years represents 

approximately 3 generation times for 

pinto abalone (McDougall et al. 2006, 

COSEWIC 2009) and was considered a 

reasonable period over which 

predictions regarding the threats and 

their effects on the species could be 

made. A time frame of 100 years was 

considered a reasonable period over 

which predictions regarding longer-term 

threats (e.g., ocean acidification, effects 

of climate change) have been or could 

be made. The time frames for 

foreseeable future are discussed in more 

detail under the ‘‘SRT Assessment of 

Overall Extinction Risk’’ section of this 

notice. 

For each of these factors, the SRT 

identified and evaluated several 

stressors that either have or may 

contribute to declines in pinto abalone. 

Overall, the SRT rated most of these 

stressors as low threats and several as 

moderate threats to pinto abalone, but 

did not identify any high or very high 

threats. Among the moderate threats, the 

SRT was most concerned about low 

densities that have resulted from past 

fisheries harvest of pinto abalone, the 

potential threat posed by ocean 

acidification, and illegal take due to 

poaching and inadequate law 

enforcement. The potential for reduced 

genetic diversity as a consequence of 

low population densities and the 

potential for predation (particularly by 

sea otters) to further reduce local 

densities were also identified as threats 

of greater concern. Finally, oil spills and 

disease outbreaks (through the spread of 

pathogens) were highlighted as highly 

uncertain risks that need to be 

addressed through careful planning, 

monitoring, and management. Below, 

we discuss the threats associated with 

each factor and our assessment of each 

factor’s contribution to extinction risk to 

the species. Where relevant, we discuss 

the risks posed by a factor in 

combination with other factors (e.g., 

risks posed by disease and inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms). 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

Most of the threats that result in 

substrate destruction or modification, 

such as coastal development, 

recreational access, cable repairs, 

nearshore military operations, and 

benthic community shifts, occur 

infrequently, have a narrow geographic 

scope, or have uncertain or indirect 

effects on pinto abalone. Some 

exceptions may exist in the cases of 

water temperature increases and 

reduced food quantity and quality 

associated with the ENSOs, PDOs, IPOs, 

and long-term climate change, as well as 

sea level rise due to long-term climate 

change, in that these threats have the 

potential to produce more widespread 

impacts, but the certainty in how these 

factors will affect pinto abalone is low. 

For example, increased water 

temperatures associated with climate 

change may be widespread throughout 

the U.S. West Coast, though the latest 

climate report suggests that impacts will 

be least felt in the Pacific Northwest 

(Mote et al. 2014). Increased water 

temperatures could affect the health and 

range of pinto abalone, particularly at 

the northern and southern extreme of 

the species range. However, pinto 

abalone have a wide temperature 

tolerance and may be able to adapt to 

changing temperatures over time, such 

as by seeking depth refuges. It is also 

not clear how El Nin ̃ o/Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO) events, Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO) events, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78009 

Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) 

events, and climate change may affect 

food quantity and quality for pinto 

abalone. Sea level rise may result in loss 

of suitable habitat in a preferred depth 

range because of increased erosion, 

turbidity and siltation; however, the 

effects on pinto abalone are uncertain 

because pinto abalone typically occupy 

subtidal habitats throughout much of 

their range. We are not aware of any 

studies that have examined the potential 

effects of sea level rise on abalone, and 

therefore, we currently lack information 

to determine whether these habitat 

changes will be important factors for 

species decline. 

Climate change impacts, such as 

ocean acidification, could affect 

settlement habitat by affecting the 

growth of crustose coralline algae, but 

the effects to pinto abalone are unclear. 

For example, McCoy (2013) and McCoy 

and Ragazzola (2014) found 

morphological changes (e.g., reduced 

thickness or density) in crustose 

coralline algal species in response to 

ocean acidification, with responses 

varying by species. However, Johnson et 

al. (2014) found that crustose coralline 

algal species exposed to varying carbon 

dioxide levels may be acclimatized to 

ocean acidification, with speciesspecific variation in the responses. 

North Pacific waters, including the 

California Current Ecosystem, have 

relatively low seawater pH values due to 

a variety of natural oceanographic 

processes (Feely et al. 2004, Feely et al. 

2008, Feely et al. 2009, Hauri et al. 

2009), and this may make crustose 

coralline algal species within the pinto 

abalone’s range better able to adapt to 

the effects of ocean acidification. In 

addition, it is unclear how ocean 

acidification may affect the chemical 

cues that are believed to attract pinto 

abalone to settle on crustose coralline 

algae. Overall, climate change impacts 

such as ocean acidification could affect 

settlement habitat, but the effects are 

highly uncertain at this time. 

Oil spill and response activities were 

also identified as a concern for pinto 

abalone, for both the potential effects on 

habitat (substrate destruction or 

modification) and on the abalone 

themselves (environmental pollutant/

toxins, under ‘‘Other Natural or Manmade Factors’’). These effects would be 

of particular concern where the species 

occurs in intertidal and shallower 

waters (e.g., Alaska and British 

Columbia). The threat of an oil spill is 

greater in areas with higher ship traffic 

and human development. If a spill were 

to occur, acute effects could be very 

damaging in the localized area of the 

spill. However, there is little 

information available on the effects of 

oil spills on subtidal habitats where 

pinto abalone tend to occur throughout 

most of their range, as well as little 

information available on the effects of 

oil on abalone. 

Overall, the best available information 

does not indicate that the threats 

discussed above have resulted in the 

destruction of or substantial adverse 

effects on pinto abalone habitat, or in 

curtailment of the species’ range. 

Evaluations in British Columbia 

(COSEWIC 2009) and Washington 

(Vadopalas and Watson 2013) indicate 

that habitat does not appear to be a 

limiting factor for the species at this 

time. Future effects on the species’ 

habitat and/or range may result from 

ENSOs/PDOs/IPOs or the impacts of 

long-term climate change; however, the 

magnitude, scope, and nature of these 

effects are highly uncertain at this time. 

We conclude that the habitat threats 

discussed above are not contributing 

substantially to the species’ risk of 

extinction now. The future impacts of 

climate- and/or oil spill-related habitat 

changes are highly uncertain, but based 

on past impacts our best judgment leads 

us to conclude that impacts will not 

contribute substantially to the species’ 

risk of extinction in the foreseeable 

future. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

Fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for 

commercial and recreational purposes 

(i.e., prior to the fishery closures) has 

contributed to population declines and 

low densities throughout the species’ 

range (see the ‘‘Abundance’’ section 

above). Harvest of pinto abalone is 

currently prohibited throughout the 

coast except in Alaska (i.e., for personal 

use and subsistence harvest) and 

Mexico. Data on harvest levels and the 

impacts on pinto abalone are not 

available for Alaska and Mexico. In 

Mexico, green and pink abalone are the 

focus of the abalone fishery, with other 

abalone species (including pinto 

abalone) making up only one percent of 

the abalone fishery (Boch et al. 2014). In 

Alaska, the daily limits for personal use 

and subsistence harvest were reduced in 

2012 from 50 to 5 abalone per day. We 

do not have data to assess how this 

harvest level would affect pinto abalone 

populations in Alaska. ADF&G believes 

that personal use and subsistence 

harvest of pinto abalone is currently low 

(ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 

January 2014). Bowers et al. (2011) 

found that the average subsistence 

harvest of pinto abalone ranged from 

350–382 abalone per household in 1972 

but decreased to 3–9 abalone per 

household in 1997. In recent interviews, 

local residents have indicated to ADF&G 

that they are not participating in the 

personal use fishery due to the lack of 

abalone (Bowers et al. 2011). Based on 

this information, it is likely that 

personal use and subsistence harvest of 

pinto abalone in Alaska is low. The SRT 

expressed concern regarding the 

continued harvest of pinto abalone in 

Alaska and Mexico, but rated fisheries 

harvest as a Moderate threat overall, due 

to prohibitions on harvest throughout 

most of the species’ range and what 

appears to be low levels of harvest in 

Alaska and Mexico presently. However, 

monitoring of harvest levels and pinto 

abalone populations is needed to obtain 

a better understanding of the impacts of 

these fisheries in Alaska and Mexico. 

The effects of past fisheries harvest on 

local densities still persist today 

throughout the species’ range. Past 

harvest levels, particularly in 

commercial fisheries in Alaska and 

British Columbia, were not sustainable 

and reduced densities to very low or 

non-existent levels. Some populations 

(e.g., at the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago in Washington) appear to 

be experiencing recruitment failure. 

There are also a few areas where pinto 

abalone have not been observed in 

recent surveys in Washington and 

British Columbia. However, pinto 

abalone populations continue to persist 

throughout most survey sites. In 

addition, evidence of recent recruitment 

events have been observed at several 

areas throughout the species’ range. 

Since the closure of abalone fisheries in 

British Columbia in 1990, small size 

classes of pinto abalone have been 

observed regularly during index site 

surveys at Haida Gwaii and along the 

Central Coast (two areas that once 

supported a large proportion of fisheries 

harvest) (COSEWIC 2009). Small pinto 

abalone have also been observed in 

surveys conducted within the last 10 

years off Alaska (pers. comm. with S. 

Walker, ADF&G, cited in status review 

report), California (pers. comm. and 

unpublished data from A. Bird, CSUF, 

and Ed Parnell, UCSD, cited in status 

review report), and Mexico (Boch et al. 

2014), indicating recent recruitment 

events (see the ‘‘Reproduction and 

Spawning Density’’ section of this 

notice for more details). These 

observations show that densities at 

those locations remain high enough to 

support reproduction and recruitment, 

and also that we have much more to 

learn about the species’ population 

dynamics and the factors influencing 

successful reproduction and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

recruitment. For example, mean adult 

densities may not be an appropriate 

metric for predicting reproductive and 

recruitment success because it does not 

adequately represent the patchy 

distribution of abalone within an area. 

Fine-scale spatial distribution patterns 

(e.g., aggregations) may be more 

important for reproductive and 

recruitment success than the overall 

density of adults in an area. 

Reduced genetic diversity is a 

potential risk associated with low 

densities. Withler et al. (2001) provide 

the only published assessment of 

population structure in pinto abalone 

and found high levels of genetic 

variation in pinto abalone populations 

sampled at 18 sites throughout coastal 

British Columbia and at one site in Sitka 

Sound, Alaska. Unfortunately, research 

on populations throughout the 

remainder of the species’ range has not 

been conducted, and thus the Wither et 

al. (2001) study represents the best 

available information. Based on this, the 

SRT expressed a moderate degree of 

concern, but most members felt that the 

species’ genetic diversity likely remains 

high. 

Overall we conclude that past 

fisheries harvest has reduced the 

abundance of pinto abalone populations 

throughout its range, but not to a point 

that contributes substantially to the 

species risk of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. The presence of 

small, newly-recruited animals in 

multiple areas spanning the species’ 

range (except for the San Juan Islands) 

suggests that abundance levels are not 

low enough to lead to repeated 

recruitment failure. The threat of 

overutilization from fisheries harvest 

has largely been removed, because 

fisheries harvest of pinto abalone has 

been prohibited throughout most of the 

species range. Presently, harvest of 

pinto abalone is only allowed in 

Alaska’s personal use and subsistence 

fisheries and in Mexico. The best 

available information indicates that 

these fisheries are not contributing 

substantially to the species’ risk of 

extinction; however, data on harvest 

levels are needed to better assess how 

these fisheries may be affecting the 

status of the species in Alaska and 

Mexico. 

Disease or Predation 

Disease has been identified as a major 

threat to abalone species worldwide, 

with four significant abalone diseases 

emerging over the past several decades 

(withering syndrome, ganglioneuritis, 

vibriosis, and shell deformities). Pinto 

abalone are likely susceptible to all of 

these diseases, and have been confirmed 

to be highly susceptible to withering 

syndrome, a disease that has resulted in 

significant declines in black abalone 

populations throughout southern 

California. No infectious diseases 

affecting wild pinto abalone have been 

reported in Alaska, Washington, or 

California, but two abalone pathogens 

have been reported in British Columbia. 

To date, no outbreaks have been 

observed in wild populations and there 

is no evidence indicating that disease 

has been a major source of mortality in 

the recent past or currently. However, 

multiple sources and pathways exist for 

pathogens or invasive species to be 

introduced into wild pinto abalone 

populations, including aquaculture 

facilities and the movement of abalone 

(e.g., import, transfer) for aquaculture, 

research, and food/hobby markets 

(identified under the ‘‘Inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms’’ factor 

below). Great care is needed to closely 

monitor and manage these sources and 

pathways, to protect wild populations 

from potentially devastating pathogens 

and invasives. 

Abalone face non-anthropogenic 

predatory pressure from a number of 

consumer species such as gastropods, 

octopuses, lobsters, sea stars, fishes and 

sea otters (Ault 1985; Estes and 

VanBlaricom, 1985; Shepherd and 

Breen 1992). Pinto abalone have been 

exposed to varying predation pressure 

through time and this pressure is likely 

to continue. However, in the past, pinto 

abalone populations may have been 

better able to absorb losses due to 

predation without compromising 

viability. Specifically, predation by sea 

otters has been raised as a potentially 

significant factor in the continued 

decline and/or lack of recovery of pinto 

abalone populations in areas where the 

two species overlap. 

Sea otters were hunted to near 

extinction in the mid-1700s to 1800s, 

but have begun to recover in recent 

decades with protection from the North 

Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911, the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the 

help of reintroductions in Southeast 

Alaska, British Columbia, and 

Washington in the late 1960s. Within 

the geographic range of pinto abalone, 

contemporary sea otter populations are 

present in Southeast Alaska, in two 

discrete population segments off British 

Columbia, from Cape Flattery to 

Destruction Island off Washington, from 

Half Moon Bay to near Gaviota on the 

mainland California coast, and at San 

Nicolas Island off southern California. 

Sea otter populations in these areas 

have been expanding in both abundance 

and distribution in recent years and are 

likely to continue to expand as the 

populations grow. Sea otters remain 

regionally extinct in the marine waters 

of Oregon and Baja California, Mexico. 

Available data on red abalone in 

California suggests that sea otter 

predation typically reduces red abalone 

density by about 90 percent (Ebert 1968, 

Lowry and Pearse 1973, Cooper et al. 

1977, Hines and Pearse 1982, Ostfeld 

1982, Wendell 1994, Fanshawe et al. 

2003) and eliminates viable commercial 

and recreational harvests of red abalone 

(Wild and Ames 1974, Estes and 

VanBlaricom 1985). Relationships of sea 

otters with pinto, white, and black 

abalone are uncertain because of lesser 

overlap in habitat characteristics, 

especially water depth. Sea otters are 

known to feed on pinto abalone, but the 

level of predation pressure and effects 

on pinto abalone populations have not 

been directly investigated and remain 

poorly known. To our knowledge there 

are no published data documenting 

effects of predation by sea otters on 

pinto abalone at the population level. 

Continued growth of the sea otter 

population will encompass an 

increasing proportion of pinto abalone 

habitat and will increase the risk of 

predation by sea otters on pinto abalone 

populations. However, the effects are 

not clear. Observations by divers for the 

ADF&G on the outer coast of Southeast 

Alaska suggest that sea otters 

preferentially select red sea urchins and 

pinto abalone as prey when foraging in 

rocky subtidal habitats (Rumble and 

Hebert 2011). The dramatic increase in 

sea otter numbers and range has thus 

caused significant concern about 

benthic invertebrate fisheries in 

Southeast Alaska. However, in British 

Columbia, in at least two index sites 

where sea otters have been present for 

several years, densities of pinto abalone 

are higher than in areas with no sea 

otters (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, 

DFO, 24 April 2014). At one of these 

sites, the density of mature abalone in 

2011 exceeded DFO’s long-term 

recovery target of one abalone per sq m 

(pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, 

on 24 April 2014). As in other areas 

along the coast, however, data are not 

available to determine the natural 

population levels of pinto abalone prior 

to the local extirpation of sea otters in 

British Columbia in the early 1920s. 

Thus, we lack historical data with 

which to compare current density 

estimates. 

Sea otter predation will likely affect 

pinto abalone populations, but in no 

case has local extinction of any abalone 

population or species in the 

northeastern Pacific been documented 

as a result of predation by sea otters. Sea 

otters have been present in significant 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78011 

numbers in the coastal North Pacific 

Rim since the Pleistocene, and in 

northern hemisphere oceans of the earth 

for approximately seven million years. It 

seems certain that undisturbed 

populations of sea otters and abalones 

can sustainably co-exist as a 

consequence of co-evolved interactions. 

Overall, the best available information 

indicates that threats associated with 

disease are not contributing 

substantially to the pinto abalone’s risk 

of extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. Disease could pose a risk to 

pinto abalone in the future if an 

outbreak of sufficient magnitude and 

scope occurs among wild populations, 

but the likelihood of such an outbreak 

is difficult to predict. The SRT 

emphasized the importance of closely 

monitoring and managing potential 

sources and pathways by which 

pathogens or invasive species could be 

introduced to wild populations (e.g., 

import or transfer of abalone for 

aquaculture, research, and food/hobby 

markets). Such precautions are 

important for the protection of all 

abalone species throughout the coast. 

In addition, the best available 

information indicates that predation is 

not contributing substantially to the 

pinto abalone’s risk of extinction 

presently or in the foreseeable future. 

Sea otter predation has likely 

contributed to continued declines and/ 

or lack of recovery of pinto abalone 

populations where the two species 

overlap. However, we agree with the 

SRT’s conclusion that sea otters and 

abalone can sustainably co-exist and 

that our criteria for healthy, sustainable 

abalone populations must account for 

the presence of sea otters in the 

ecosystem. 

Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms 

Poaching has been a source of 

mortality for pinto abalone throughout 

their range since the establishment of 

harvesting regulations by the States and 

Canada. The problem of poaching 

clearly persists in some regions along 

the coast, particularly in British 

Columbia. The continued declines in 

mature pinto abalone densities at Haida 

Gwaii and along the Central Coast, 

despite the fisheries closures and 

observed recruitment events, were 

mainly attributed to illegal harvest 

(COSEWIC 2009). However, recent 

index site surveys in 2011 and 2012 

indicate a decline in annual mortality at 

both the Haida Gwaii and Central Coast 

sites and an increase in both immature 

and mature abalone densities (pers. 

comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 

2014). This decrease in annual mortality 

and increase in densities is most likely 

due to a decrease in poaching pressure 

as a result of existing regulatory 

mechanisms and outreach and 

education programs; however, it may 

also be due to other factors such as 

improved oceanographic conditions to 

support juvenile survival or the benefits 

of the fisheries closures finally being 

manifested in population recovery (pers. 

comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 

April 2014). We are not aware of any 

evidence indicating illegal harvest is 

currently occurring in Washington, 

although several cases of illegal harvest 

and laundering of pinto abalone product 

were investigated in the late 1980s and 

periodic cases of illegal sport harvest 

were reported after the 1994 fishery 

closure (WDFW 2014). It is generally 

believed that current populations in 

Washington no longer exist at 

commercially-viable quantities, and the 

effort vs. reward deters poaching. 

WDFW enforcement covers the entire 

coast and includes at-sea monitoring of 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and periodic patrols of commercial 

buyers and markets. However, 

Vadopalas and Watson (2013) identify 

poaching as a major threat to abalone in 

Washington. In other regions along the 

coast, poaching is recognized as a 

historical and future risk, but specific 

information on current levels of 

poaching is lacking. We are not aware 

of any enforcement cases or evidence for 

poaching, but continued efforts to 

enforce the regulations and monitor 

their effectiveness are needed to protect 

the species from this threat. 

As discussed above (under ‘‘Disease 

and Predation’’), the introduction of 

pathogens or invasive species was also 

a concern identified by the SRT, given 

the potentially high risks posed by 

disease to pinto abalone. Regulatory 

mechanisms are advisable to ensure 

adequate monitoring whenever animals 

are moved (e.g., imports, transporting 

between facilities) for aquaculture, 

research, and/or food/hobby markets, to 

protect wild populations from 

pathogens and invasive species. In 

California, state regulations require 

abalone health monitoring at 

aquaculture facilities and control the 

importation/exportation of abalone 

between facilities. The State also 

monitors aquaculture facilities for 

introduced organisms and disease on a 

regular basis and restricts out-planting 

abalone from facilities that have not met 

certification standards. These measures 

will likely reduce the transmission of 

pathogens or invasive species from 

aquaculture facilities. In Washington 

and British Columbia, where abalone 

hatcheries are operated in support of 

restoration efforts, disease monitoring is 

also conducted and precautions are 

taken to avoid and minimize the 

transmission of pathogens and invasive 

species. Some improvements to existing 

regulations are needed to further protect 

the species. Although a permit is 

required to import non-native abalone 

species into California, a permit is not 

needed to import native abalone 

species, even if the source of those 

abalone is outside of the U.S. This 

presents a potential risk because live 

abalone imported into the State could 

carry pathogens. Information is not 

available regarding the amount of native 

abalone species that are imported into 

the U.S. from other countries each year. 

Overall, based on the best available 

information, we conclude that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate 

and that existing deficiencies in 

regulatory mechanisms are not 

contributing substantially to the pinto 

abalone’s risk of extinction now or in 

the foreseeable future. Prohibitions on 

the harvest of pinto abalone throughout 

most of the coast provide a high level of 

protection for the species. Poaching 

continues to occur in British Columbia; 

however, recent increases in abalone 

densities at index sites were most likely 

due to reduced poaching pressure as a 

result of enforcement and outreach 

efforts, although favorable 

oceanographic conditions and reduced 

harvest pressure could have also 

contributed to these increases. In other 

areas, information on poaching is 

limited. Enforcement measures are in 

place throughout the coast, but 

monitoring is needed to ensure illegal 

take is not occurring. In addition, 

regulations and measures have been 

implemented to minimize the risk of 

transmitting pathogens or invasive 

species to wild populations. However, 

some improvements are advisable (e.g., 

to regulations on live abalone imports) 

to further protect pinto abalone and 

other abalone species. 

Other Natural or Man-Made Factors 

Among the other natural or human 

factors affecting pinto abalone, the SRT 

identified ocean acidification as a threat 

of greater concern. Ocean acidification 

is a concern particularly for early life 

stages because of the potential for 

reduced larval survival and shell 

growth, as well as increased shell 

abnormalities. The impacts of ocean 

acidification can be patchy in space and 

time and may develop slowly. Effects of 

ocean acidification on early life stages of 

pinto abalone are beginning to be 

understood. Laboratory studies indicate 

that reduced larval survival and shell 

abnormalities or decreased shell size 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

occur at elevated levels of CO2 (800 and 

1800 ppm CO2), compared to lower 

levels (400 ppm CO2) (Crim et al. 2011). 

Friedman et al. (unpublished data) have 

also found reduced larval survival 

occurs at elevated pCO2 and are 

studying the synergistic effects of 

increased pCO2, varying temperature, 

and exposure to Vibrio tubiashii on 

early life stages of pinto abalone (results 

pending). 

Other climate-change related effects 

that may impact pinto abalone include 

increased water temperatures and 

decreased salinity (due to freshwater 

intrusions). Bouma’s (2007) studies with 

cultured pinto abalone indicated that 

laboratory rearing temperatures of 11, 

16, and 21 °C did not affect post-larval 

survival. Larvae tolerated temperatures 

of 12–21 °C, with mortality at 24 °C. 

Captive adult pinto abalone in Alaska 

showed no behavioral abnormalities at 

2–24 °C, but high mortality at 0.5 °C and 

26.5 °C. Low salinity intrusions from 

freshwater inputs to Puget Sound and 

the San Juan Islands Archipelago may 

also have negative effects on pinto 

abalone recruitment. In laboratory 

experiments, early life stages of pinto 

abalone appear to be intolerant to low 

salinities below 26 psu (Bouma 2007). 

Bouma (2007) found that when 

introduced into a halocline microcosm 

(where salinity levels change with depth 

along the water column), larvae actively 

avoided areas of lower salinity. Later 

larval stages appear to be more tolerant 

of sub-optimal salinity levels (Bouma 

2007). 

In evaluating the threat of ocean 

acidification and other climate change 

impacts, the SRT recognized that some 

information is available regarding the 

potential effects of ocean acification, 

elevated water temperatures, and low 

salinity intrusions on pinto abalone. 

However, the SRT also recognized that 

our understanding of these effects 

includes a high degree of uncertainty, 

due to limited studies involving pinto 

abalone and the uncertainty and spatial 

variability in predictions regarding 

ocean acidification and climate change 

impacts into the future. The overall 

level of data available is low, especially 

regarding how ocean acidification may 

affect the species throughout its range, 

given variability in local conditions 

throughout the coast, natural variation 

in ocean pH, species adaptability, and 

projections of future carbon dioxide 

emissions. 

Environmental pollutants and toxins 

are likely present in areas where pinto 

abalone have occurred and still do 

occur, but evidence suggesting causal 

and/or indirect negative effects on pinto 

abalone due to exposure to pollutants or 

toxins is lacking. In addition, very little 

is known regarding entrainment and/or 

impingement risks posed by coastal 

facilities. Direct effects would be 

focused on larval stages and be very 

localized in area. Despite uncertainties 

due to lack of data, the SRT felt that the 

risk posed by environmental pollutant/ 

toxins and entrainment or impingement 

is likely low given their limited 

geographic scope. 

Overall, the best available information 

regarding other natural or manmade 

factors affecting pinto abalone do not 

indicate that these factors are 

contributing substantially to the species’ 

risk of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. Ocean acidification 

and climate change impacts could affect 

pinto abalone in the future; however, 

the magnitude, scope, and nature of 

these effects are highly uncertain at this 

time. 

Analysis of Demographic Risk 

The SRT first identified a series of 

questions related to the four 

demographic risk criteria (abundance, 

growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity), in 

order to structure their evaluation of 

these four criteria. For example, one of 

the questions related to the abundance 

criterion was: Is the species’ abundance 

so low, or variability in abundance so 

high, that it is at risk of extinction due 

to depensatory processes? The SRT then 

assessed these questions using a voting 

process that was first used in an ESA 

status review by Brainard et al. (2011) 

to assess extinction risk for 82 coral 

species. 

For each question, each SRT member 

scored the likelihood that the answer to 

each question was true, by anonymously 

assigning 10 points across the following 

eight likelihood bins, developed by the 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2007): exceptionally 

unlikely (<1 percent), very unlikely (1– 

10 percent), unlikely (10–33 percent), 

less likely than not (33–50 percent), 

more likely than not (50–66 percent), 

likely (66–90 percent), very likely (90– 

99 percent), and virtually certain (>99 

percent). The IPCC (2007) developed 

this approach as one method for 

assessing the uncertainty of specific 

outcomes using expert judgment and, 

where available, quantitative 

information. The IPCC (2007) used this 

approach to evaluate the probability of 

occurrence of different climate change 

model outcomes, whereas Brainard et 

al. (2011) used this approach to 

qualitatively evaluate the likelihood that 

different coral species would fall below 

a defined critical risk threshold. In this 

status review, the SRT applied this 

approach to qualitatively evaluate the 

likelihood that pinto abalone are at risk 

of extinction due to different 

demographic risks. For each question, 

the scores were tallied (mean and range 

for each SRT member and across all SRT 

members) and reviewed, and the range 

of perspectives was discussed by the 

SRT. Each SRT member then had the 

opportunity to change their scores 

before submitting their final scores. 

Below, we summarize the SRT’s 

conclusions regarding demographic 

risks. Additional details are provided in 

the status review report. 

The SRT concluded that the risks to 

the species associated with abundance 

and population growth are moderate. 

Team members agreed that depensatory 

processes due to low and/or highly 

variable abundance or low population 

growth were a concern for pinto abalone 

in a number of locations (e.g., San Juan 

Island Archipelago, Alaska). Pinto 

abalone abundance and population 

growth have declined throughout the 

species’ range, and, while there is some 

indication that recent recruitment has 

occurred in localized areas (e.g., 

Mexico, Point Loma, Palos Verdes, 

Mendocino County, British Columbia, 

Alaska), the rate of population growth is 

unknown. The SRT expressed some 

concern that population growth may not 

be occurring at a pace or extent 

sufficient to buffer against possible 

further declines due to processes 

happening over longer (e.g., PDO, IPO, 

climate change, and ocean acidification 

over decades; ENSO events over years) 

and/or uncertain time scales (e.g., 

cumulative oil spill impacts, poaching 

events, or harvest impacts). However, 

the SRT also expressed a high degree of 

uncertainty regarding the species’ 

abundance and productivity. 

The majority of SRT members agreed 

that spatial structure and diversity pose 

a low risk to pinto abalone. The SRT 

expressed a low level of concern 

regarding loss of variation in life history 

traits, population demography, 

morphology, behavior, or genetic 

characteristics. Most SRT members 

agreed that it is very unlikely that the 

species is at risk due to the loss of or 

changes in diversity, or due to 

alterations in the natural processes of 

dispersal, migration, and/or gene flow, 

or those that cause ecological variation. 

The SRT acknowledged that the species 

has experienced population declines 

and currently has a patchy distribution, 

but noted that the species has 

historically existed with a highly patchy 

distribution. The SRT was concerned 

about the potential loss of source 

populations or subpopulations in some 

areas due to past fishing pressure; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78013 

however, they also expressed a high 

level of uncertainty regarding this risk, 

given the limited information on sourcesink dynamics for pinto abalone. Recent 

evidence of localized recruitment in a 

few areas, spread over a wide 

geographic range (Alaska to Mexico) 

suggests that local populations are 

dense enough to support reproduction. 

The SRT’s prevailing justification for 

concluding that spatial structure and 

diversity pose low risk to pinto abalone 

was that other related species of abalone 

that were overfished (e.g., red, pink, and 

green abalone) and that may exhibit 

lower spatial connectivity and/or 

genetic diversity than is suspected for 

pinto abalone, made remarkable 

recoveries in many locations range-wide 

over a period of roughly two decades 

(see status review report). 

Overall, despite their high degree of 

uncertainty, the SRT members 

expressed low to moderate levels of 

concern for the majority of the questions 

and demographic categories. The SRT 

expressed a higher degree of uncertainty 

regarding the species’ abundance and 

productivity and the risks posed by 

these demographic factors. However, 

none of the SRT members placed any of 

their likelihood points in the highest 

risk category (>99 percent) and they 

placed very few points (<5 percent) in 

the next highest risk category (90–99 

percent) across all questions and 

demographic categories, indicating that 

no SRT member thought the risk of 

extinction of pinto abalone was virtually 

certain, or even very likely, due to any 

of the demographic risks identified. 

SRT Assessment of Overall Extinction 

Risk 

In the overall risk assessment, the 

SRT considered the demographic risks 

together with the threats to evaluate the 

level of extinction risk faced by the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future. Because data are not available to 

quantitatively assess the species’ 

extinction risk (e.g., through 

development of a population viability 

model), the SRT adopted an approach 

similar to what has been done in 

previous NMFS status reviews, using a 

voting process to organize and 

summarize the professional judgment of 

the SRT members regarding the overall 

level of extinction risk to the species. 

We summarize the SRT’s assessment 

and conclusions regarding extinction 

risk below. In the ‘‘Final 

Determinations’’ section of this notice, 

we considered the SRT’s conclusions, 

along with the best available 

information regarding the status of the 

species and ongoing/future conservation 

efforts (see section titled ‘‘Efforts Being 

Made to Protect the Species’’) to 

develop a final determination regarding 

overall extinction risk to the species. 

For the purpose of this extinction risk 

analysis, the term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ 

was defined as the time frame over 

which threats can be predicted reliably 

and over which their impacts to the 

biological status of the species may be 

observed. The SRT considered the life 

history of pinto abalone and the 

availability of data regarding threats to 

the species, and recommended two time 

frames for the foreseeable future. 

First, the SRT recommended a 

foreseeable future of 30 years, 

representing approximately three 

generation times for pinto abalone as 

defined in the IUCN (International 

Union for Conservation of Nature) Red 

List assessment (McDougall et al. 2006) 

and the COSEWIC (2009) assessment for 

pinto abalone. This time frame is 

consistent with what was used to define 

the foreseeable future in the black 

abalone status review (VanBlaricom et 

al. 2009) and represents a reasonable 

time frame over which threats can be 

predicted reliably and impacts to the 

species’ status would be observable. 

The SRT also recommended a 

foreseeable future of 100 years, because 

they felt that a time frame greater than 

30 years may be needed to adequately 

consider the effects of longer-term 

threats, such as climate change, ocean 

acidification, ENSOs, and PDOs/IPOs. 

This time frame was used by Brainard 

et al. (2011) in their status review of 

multiple coral species that are affected 

by climate change and ocean 

acidification. A foreseeable future of 100 

years represents a reasonable time frame 

over which we have some information 

on and predictions regarding longerterm threats and oceanographic regime 

shifts. However, the SRT also 

recognized that this longer time frame 

introduces more uncertainty into the 

assessment. 

NMFS agreed that the 30 year and 100 

year time frames for foreseeable future 

were appropriate and asked the SRT to 

assess the overall level of extinction risk 

over both time frames. As stated above, 

the SRT assessed the overall level of 

extinction risk to the species now and 

in the foreseeable future (30 years and 

100 years) using the likelihood point 

method (e.g., FEMAT method), in which 

each member distributed 10 likelihood 

points among the following five levels 

of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, 

Moderate, High, and Very High risk. We 

summarize the SRT’s assessment below; 

further details can be found in the status 

review report. 

Over both time frames, SRT members 

distributed likelihood points across all 

five extinction risk categories, with the 

majority of likelihood points placed in 

the Low risk and Moderate risk 

categories and very few (1–2) points 

placed in the Very High risk category. 

When considering a foreseeable future 

of 100 years, most of the SRT members 

shifted some likelihood points from the 

No/Very Low and Low risk categories to 

the Moderate and High risk categories, 

expressing greater concern, but also 

greater uncertainty, regarding 

demographic risks and threats over the 

100 year time frame compared to the 30 

year time frame. 

For the overall risk now and in a 

foreseeable future of 30 years, the SRT 

distributed their likelihood points 

across the five extinction risk categories 

as follows (the first number represents 

the total points attributed by SRT 

members and the second number 

represents the total possible points, 

which was 80): No or Very Low Risk 

(11/80, or 14 percent), Low Risk (33/80, 

or 40 percent), Moderate Risk (32/80, or 

41 percent), High Risk (3/80, or 4 

percent), Very High Risk (1/80, or 1 

percent). Only one SRT member placed 

a likelihood point in the Very High risk 

category. Based on the likelihood point 

distributions, the SRT was fairly certain 

that the species has a Low to Moderate 

risk of extinction currently and in a 

foreseeable future of 30 years. Of the 80 

points distributed across categories, the 

SRT placed 76 points across the Very 

Low, Low, and Moderate risk categories. 

The categories with the greatest number 

of points were the Low risk (33 points) 

and Moderate risk (32 points) categories. 

For the overall risk now and in a 

foreseeable future of 100 years, the SRT 

distributed their likelihood points 

across the five extinction risk categories 

as follows: No or Very Low Risk (6/80, 

or 8 percent), Low Risk (24/80, or 30 

percent), Moderate Risk (36/80, or 45 

percent), High Risk (12/80, or 15 

percent), Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 

percent). Only two SRT members placed 

likelihood points in the Very High risk 

category. All but one SRT member (who 

made no changes to their point 

distribution when considering 100 years 

vs. 30 years) shifted some of their 

likelihood points from the No/Very Low 

and Low risk categories to the Moderate 

and High risk categories when 

considering a foreseeable future of 100 

years rather than 30 years. This shift 

indicated that the SRT was more certain 

that the species has a Moderate risk of 

extinction currently and in the 

foreseeable future when considering a 

foreseeable future of 100 years vs. 30 

years. Again, the SRT distributed most 

of their points (66 out of 80 points) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

across the Very Low, Low, and 

Moderate risk categories. 

Overall, the SRT concluded that pinto 

abalone have a Low to Moderate level of 

extinction risk now and in the 

foreseeable future (over both the 30 year 

and 100 year time horizons). The SRT 

recognized that there is a high level of 

uncertainty regarding demographic 

factors, in particular regarding 

abundance and productivity levels. The 

main concerns highlighted by the SRT 

include declines in abundance and 

uncertainty regarding whether current 

abundance and productivity levels are 

sufficient to support the persistence and 

recovery of the species in the face of 

continuing and potential future threats. 

Long-term declines have been observed 

in surveyed areas throughout the 

species range. There is concern that 

these declines may be putting the 

populations at the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago at risk, because the 

populations appear to be experiencing 

recruitment failure. Throughout the rest 

of the species’ range, densities remain 

low but recurring and/or recent 

recruitment events have been observed 

and have even resulted in increased 

densities (of mature and all sizes of 

pinto abalone) at several index sites in 

British Columbia. Observed recruitment 

events indicate that demographic 

characteristics are sufficient to support 

reproduction in locations throughout 

the species range, but productivity is 

variable and occurring at undetermined 

rates. Observations suggest that abalone 

recruitment and populations, in general, 

are both temporally and spatially 

episodic. One of the main data gaps is 

the lack of historical data on the status 

of the species prior to fisheries harvest 

and prior to the removal of sea otters 

throughout most of the coast. Lacking 

this baseline for comparison further 

increases the uncertainty regarding how 

to interpret the limited demographic 

data available for the species, and points 

to the need for improved monitoring of 

pinto abalone populations throughout 

its range in order to adequately assess 

the species’ status. 

The main reason for the increase in 

likelihood points for the Moderate risk 

category versus the Low risk category 

when considering a foreseeable future of 

100 years was the general perception by 

most SRT members that the species is 

likely to face more challenging 

conditions over the longer time frame, 

given the currently available predictions 

regarding climate change impacts, ocean 

acidification, and increasing sea otter 

populations. However, the SRT also 

recognized that there is more 

uncertainty associated with our 

understanding of and predictions 

regarding these threats and their effects 

on the species over the longer time 

frame. Additional sources of uncertainty 

include: the lack of information 

regarding how naturally occurring 

events may affect the species into the 

future (e.g., IPOs, predation); the 

unpredictability of some threats (e.g., oil 

spills, climate change impacts); and the 

potential for pinto abalone to adapt to 

changing climate and conditions, as 

well as to recover from low abundances, 

which has been observed for other 

abalone species. We considered all of 

these factors when considering the 

SRT’s assessment in our final 

determination of overall extinction risk 

for the species. 

Consideration of ‘‘Significant Portion of 

Its Range’’ 

The ESA defines an ‘‘endangered’’ 

species as ‘‘any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and a 

‘‘threatened’’ species as ‘‘any species 

which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ On July 

1, 2014, the USFWS and NMFS issued 

a final policy on the interpretation and 

application of the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ under the ESA (79 

FR 37578; ‘‘Final Policy’’). Under this 

policy, the phrase ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ provides an independent 

basis for listing a species under the ESA. 

In other words, a species would qualify 

for listing if it is determined to be 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

of its range or if it is determined to be 

endangered or threatened throughout a 

significant portion of its range. This 

policy defines the term ‘‘significant’’ as 

follows: ‘‘a portion of the range of a 

species is ‘significant’ if the species is 

not currently endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, but the portion’s 

contribution to the viability of the 

species is so important that, without the 

members in that portion, the species 

would be in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, throughout all of its range.’’ The 

range of the species is defined as ‘‘the 

general geographical area within which 

that species can be found at the time 

FWS or NMFS makes any particular 

status determination.’’ 

The Final Policy explains that it is 

necessary to fully evaluate a portion for 

potential listing under the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ authority only if 

information indicates that the members 

of the species in a particular area are 

likely both to meet the test for biological 

significance and to be currently 

endangered or threatened in that area. 

Making this preliminary determination 

triggers a need for further review, but 

does not prejudge whether or not the 

portion actually meets these standards 

such that the species should be listed: 

To identify only those portions that 

warrant further consideration, we will 

determine whether there is substantial 

information indicating that (1) the portions 

may be significant and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction in those portions or 

likely to become so within the foreseeable 

future. We emphasize that answering these 

questions in the affirmative is not a 

determination that the species is endangered 

or threatened throughout a significant 

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

determining whether a more detailed 

analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 

37586; July 1, 2014). 

Thus, the preliminary determination 

that a portion may be both significant 

and endangered or threatened merely 

requires NMFS to engage in a more 

detailed analysis to determine whether 

the standards are actually met. Id. at 

37587. Unless both are met, listing is 

not warranted. The Final Policy 

explains that, depending on the 

particular facts of each situation, NMFS 

may find it is more efficient to address 

the significance issue first, but in other 

cases it will make more sense to 

examine the status of the species in the 

potentially significant portions first. 

Whichever question is asked first, an 

affirmative answer is required to 

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

we determine that a portion of the range 

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

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened there; if we 

determine that the species is not 

endangered or threatened in a portion of 

its range, we will not need to determine 

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

if the answer to the first question is 

negative—whether that regards the 

significance question or the status 

question—then the analysis concludes 

and listing is not warranted. 

In keeping with the process described 

in the Final Policy, to inform NMFS’ 

assessment of whether pinto abalone are 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, we 

asked the SRT to conduct a 3-step 

process. First, to help identify any 

potentially significant portions of the 

species’ range, the SRT was asked to 

evaluate whether any portions of the 

range may be significant and whether 

the members of the species in those 

portions may be endangered or 

threatened. Second, if any potentially 

significant portions of the range were 

identified, we then asked the SRT to 

evaluate the level of extinction risk 

faced by the species within those 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78015 

portions. Third, if the SRT’s assessment 

of extinction risk indicated that the 

species is at risk of extinction now or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future within any of the portions, we 

asked the SRT to evaluate whether 

under a hypothetical scenario, the 

portion’s contribution to the viability of 

the species is so important that, without 

the members in that portion, the 

remainder of the species would be at 

risk of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. If the SRT’s 

assessment does not indicate that the 

species is at risk of extinction now or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future within any of the portions, then 

the SRT would not need to conduct this 

last step of examining the actual 

biological significance of the portion. 

Thus, under the process contemplated 

in the Final Policy and followed by the 

SRT, the status question was evaluated 

first, and the significance question 

would only be reached if the evaluation 

of status yielded a conclusion that the 

species is endangered or threatened in 

a particular portion. In fact, as is 

explained below, no portions of the 

range were evaluated for ‘‘significance’’ 

because the analysis indicated that no 

portions contained members of the 

species that were actually at risk of 

extinction presently or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future. We 

summarize the SRT’s analysis below; 

the status review report provides further 

details. Final determinations were made 

by NMFS upon consideration of the 

SRT’s evaluation (see ‘‘Final 

Determinations’’ section of this notice). 

To identify potentially significant 

portions of the species’ range (SPR), the 

SRT was presented the following 

portions and each member was asked to 

indicate (Yes/No) whether they thought 

the portion may be significant (based on 

the final SPR policy’s definition of 

‘‘significant’’) and whether members of 

the species within that portion may be 

considered threatened or endangered: 

Alaska (AK), British Columbia (BC), San 

Juan Islands Archipelago (SJA), 

Northern California (NorCal), Southern 

California (SoCal), and Mexico (MX). 

Only two of the eight voting members 

indicated that British Columbia may be 

significant and only one member 

indicated that Alaska may be 

significant. None of the SRT members 

indicated that the remaining portions 

(SJA, NorCal, SoCal, and MX) may be 

significant. Overall, the SRT agreed that 

none of these portions contribute 

substantially to the viability of the 

species such that the loss of that portion 

would put the species in danger of 

extinction presently or in the 

foreseeable future. Thus, none of these 

portions were considered as potential 

SPRs on their own. However, at least 

half of the SRT members indicated that 

the species may be threatened or 

endangered in AK, BC, SJA, SoCal, and 

MX. These portions were considered 

together as a potential SPR, according to 

the approach by Waples et al. (2007) for 

identifying SPRs. 

The SRT also evaluated the following 

larger portions: (a) The Northern portion 

of the species range (AK/BC/SJA); and 

(b) the Southern portion of the species 

range (NorCal/SoCal/MX). The Northern 

and Southern portions were delineated 

based on the geographic proximity of 

the areas and what appears to be a 

natural gap in the species’ range 

between Washington and California 

(based on the absence of pinto abalone 

observations along the outer coasts of 

Washington and Oregon, except for a 

handful of pinto abalone found off 

Oregon). More than half of the SRT 

members indicated that the Northern 

portion may be significant, because this 

portion encompasses a large part of the 

species’ range, including areas that 

historically supported the greatest 

numbers of pinto abalone (British 

Columbia). More than half of the SRT 

members also indicated that the 

Northern portion may be threatened or 

endangered, based on the declines in 

pinto abalone abundance from historical 

levels, increasing sea otter populations 

in several areas, and what appears to be 

recruitment failure in the San Juan 

Islands Archipelago. More than half of 

the SRT members indicated that the 

Southern portion may be significant, 

based on the large area encompassed by 

this portion and evidence of recent 

recruitment throughout California and 

Mexico, which could benefit the species 

throughout its range. Half of the SRT 

members indicated that the Southern 

portion may be threatened or 

endangered based on the declines in 

pinto abalone abundance from historical 

levels, but expressed a high degree of 

uncertainty regarding this question. To 

be conservative, the SRT included both 

the Northern and Southern portions as 

potential SPRs for further consideration. 

The SRT was then asked to evaluate 

the level of extinction risk to the species 

within these three potential SPRs, using 

the same methods that were used to 

evaluate the overall extinction risk to 

the species throughout its range. For 

each of the three potential SPRs, each 

SRT member distributed 10 likelihood 

points among the following five levels 

of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, 

Moderate, High, and Very High risk. The 

SRT assessed extinction risk to the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future, considering both a 30-year and a 

100-year time frame for foreseeable 

future. 

For the Northern portion (AK/BC/

SJA), the SRT concluded that pinto 

abalone have a low to moderate level of 

extinction risk now and in the 

foreseeable future over both the 30-year 

and 100-year time frame. Likelihood 

points attributed to the categories for the 

level of extinction risk now and in a 

foreseeable future of 30 years were as 

follows: No or Very Low Risk (14/80, or 

18 percent), Low Risk (29/80, or 36 

percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 

percent), High Risk (7/80, or 9 percent), 

Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). 

None of the SRT members placed 

likelihood points in the Very High risk 

category and few points were placed in 

the High risk category. The majority (54 

percent) of likelihood points were 

placed in the No/Very Low and Low 

risk categories. The categories with the 

greatest number of points were the Low 

(29 points) and Moderate (30 points) 

risk categories. Likelihood points 

attributed to the categories for the level 

of extinction risk now and in a 

foreseeable future of 100 years were as 

follows: No or Very Low Risk (11/80, or 

14 percent), Low Risk (19/80, or 24 

percent), Moderate Risk (31/80, or 39 

percent), High Risk (17/80, or 21 

percent, Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 

percent). When considering a 

foreseeable future of 100 years rather 

than 30 years, most of the SRT members 

shifted some of their points from the 

No/Very Low and Low risk categories to 

the Moderate and High risk categories. 

In general, more points were placed in 

the No/Very Low and Low risk 

categories (total: 30 points) than in the 

High and Very High risk categories 

(total: 19 points). The category with the 

greatest number of points was the 

Moderate risk category (31 points). 

For the Southern portion, the SRT 

concluded that the species has a Low 

risk of extinction now and in a 

foreseeable future of 30 years and a Low 

to Moderate risk of extinction now and 

in a foreseeable future of 100 years. 

Likelihood points attributed to the 

categories for the level of extinction risk 

now and in a foreseeable future of 30 

years were as follows: No or Very Low 

Risk (25/80, or 31 percent), Low Risk 

(37/80, or 46 percent), Moderate Risk 

(18/80, or 23 percent), High Risk (0/80, 

or 0 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 

0 percent). None of the SRT members 

placed likelihood points in the High or 

Very High risk categories. The majority 

(77 percent) of likelihood points was 

placed in the No/Very Low and Low 

risk categories; these were also the 

categories with the greatest number of 

points (25 and 37 points, respectively). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Likelihood points attributed to the 

categories for the level of extinction risk 

now and in a foreseeable future of 100 

years were as follows: No or Very Low 

Risk (17/80, or 21 percent), Low Risk 

(28/80, or 35 percent), Moderate Risk 

(30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (5/80, 

or 6 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 

0 percent). When considering a 

foreseeable future of 100 years rather 

than 30 years, most of the SRT members 

shifted some of their points from the 

No/Very Low and Low risk categories to 

the Moderate and/or High risk 

categories. However, the majority of 

points remained in the No/Very Low 

and Low risk categories (total: 45 points 

or 56 percent). The categories with the 

greatest number of points were the Low 

(28 points) and Moderate (30 points) 

risk categories. 

For the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX 

portion, the SRT concluded that the 

species has a Low risk of extinction now 

and in a foreseeable future of 30 years 

and a Low to Moderate risk of extinction 

now and in a foreseeable future of 100 

years. Likelihood points attributed to 

the categories for the level of extinction 

risk now and in a foreseeable future of 

30 years were as follows: No or Very 

Low Risk (22/80, or 28 percent), Low 

Risk (34/80, or 43 percent), Moderate 

Risk (23/80, or 29 percent), High Risk 

(1/80, or 1 percent), Very High Risk (0/ 

80, or 0 percent). None of the SRT 

members placed likelihood points in the 

Very High risk category and only one 

member placed a likelihood point in the 

High risk category. The majority (71 

percent) of likelihood points were 

placed in the No/Very Low and Low 

risk categories. The category with the 

greatest number of points was the Low 

risk category (34 points). Likelihood 

points attributed to the categories for the 

level of extinction risk now and in a 

foreseeable future of 100 years were as 

follows: No or Very Low Risk (15/80, or 

19 percent), Low Risk (29/80, or 36 

percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 

percent), High Risk (6/80, or 8 percent), 

Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). 

When considering a foreseeable future 

of 100 years rather than 30 years, most 

of the SRT members shifted some of 

their points from the No/Very Low and 

Low risk categories to the Moderate 

and/or High risk categories. None of the 

SRT members placed any likelihood 

points in the Very High risk category 

and few points were placed in the High 

risk category. The majority (55 percent) 

of points were placed in the No/Very 

Low and Low risk categories. The 

categories with the greatest number of 

points were the Low (29 points) and 

Moderate (30 points) risk categories. 

Overall, the SRT expressed greater 

concern regarding extinction risk to the 

species within the Northern portion of 

its range (AK/BC/SJA) than in the 

Southern portion (NorCal/SoCal/MX) or 

the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion 

(encompassing all areas excluding 

Northern California). The SRT focused 

on long-term declining trends 

throughout much of the Northern 

portion, and threats posed by 

continuing personal use and subsistence 

harvest in Alaska, the recovery of sea 

otter populations in several locations, 

and potential climate change and ocean 

acidification impacts. Evidence of 

recent and recurring recruitment in a 

number of areas throughout the 

Southern portion was a major factor in 

the SRT’s assessment of lower risk for 

this portion and for the AK/BC/SJA/

SoCal/MX portion. For the AK/BC/SJA/ 

SoCal/MX portion, the majority of the 

SRT considered the inclusion of 

Southern California and Mexico as 

providing a buffer from threats that may 

be more pronounced in the Northern 

portion than in the Southern portion. 

The SRT also expressed greater concern, 

as well as greater uncertainty, regarding 

extinction risk to the species when 

considering a foreseeable future of 100 

years compared to 30 years for all three 

portions. 

The SRT concluded that Low to 

Moderate risks to the species within any 

of these portions and over either time 

frame were the most plausible. The SRT 

did not believe that the species is likely 

to be at High or Very High risk of 

extinction in any of the portions over 

either time frame. In the ‘‘Final 

Determinations’’ section of this notice, 

we discuss our consideration of the 

SRT’s conclusions in determining 

whether the species is at risk of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future within any of 

these three potential SPRs. 

Efforts Being Made To Protect the 

Species 

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

the Secretary of Commerce to consider 

‘‘efforts, if any, being made by any State 

or foreign nation, or any political 

subdivision of a State or foreign nation, 

to protect such species, whether by 

predator control, protection of habitat 

and food supply, or other conservation 

practices, within any area under its 

jurisdiction or on the high seas.’’ 

Therefore, in making a listing 

determination, we first assess a species’ 

level of extinction risk and identify 

factors that have led to its decline. We 

then assess existing efforts being made 

to protect the species to determine if 

those measures ameliorate the risks. 

In judging the efficacy of certain 

protective efforts, we rely on the joint 

NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) ‘‘Policy for Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE’’, 68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides 

direction for the consideration of 

formalized conservation efforts, such as 

those identified in conservation 

agreements, conservation plans, 

management plans, or similar 

documents (developed by Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, 

Tribal governments, businesses, 

organizations, and individuals), that 

have not yet been implemented, or have 

been implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. 

In determining whether a formalized 

conservation effort contributes to a basis 

for not listing a species, or for listing a 

species as threatened rather than 

endangered, we must evaluate whether 

the conservation effort improves the 

status of the species under the ESA. 

Two factors are key in that evaluation: 

(1) For those efforts yet to be 

implemented, the certainty that the 

conservation effort will be implemented 

and (2) for those efforts that have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness, the 

certainty that the conservation effort 

will be effective. Evaluations of the 

certainty an effort will be implemented 

include whether: The necessary 

resources (e.g., funding and staffing) are 

available; the requisite agreements have 

been formalized such that the necessary 

authority and regulatory mechanisms 

are in place; there is a schedule for 

completion and evaluation of the stated 

objectives; and (for voluntary efforts) the 

necessary incentives are in place to 

ensure adequate participation. The 

evaluation of the certainty of an effort’s 

effectiveness is made 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. 

PECE also notes several important 

caveats. Satisfaction of the above 

mentioned criteria for implementation 

and effectiveness establishes a given 

protective effort as a candidate for 

consideration, but does not mean that 

an effort will ultimately change the risk 

assessment. The policy stresses that just 

as listing determinations must be based 

on the viability of the species at the time 

of review, so they must be based on the 

state of protective efforts at the time of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78017 

the listing determination. PECE does not 

provide explicit guidance on how 

protective efforts affecting only a 

portion of a species’ range may affect a 

listing determination, other than to say 

that such efforts will be evaluated in the 

context of other efforts being made and 

the species’ overall viability. 

Conservation measures that may 

apply to listed species include 

conservation measures implemented by 

tribes, states, foreign nations, local 

governments, and private organizations. 

Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign 

nations’ recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 

1533(f)), Federal consultation 

requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and 

prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538) 

constitute conservation measures. In 

addition, recognition through federal or 

state listing promotes public awareness 

and conservation actions by Federal, 

state, tribal governments, foreign 

nations, private organizations, and 

individuals. 

The following is a review of the major 

conservation efforts and an evaluation 

of whether these efforts are reducing or 

eliminating threats by having a positive 

conservation benefit and thus improving 

the status of the pinto abalone. 

Alaska: Pinto Abalone Monitoring Plan 

In the past, ADF&G has not conducted 

fishery-independent monitoring of pinto 

abalone populations. Instead, 

opportunistic observations of pinto 

abalone were recorded while surveying 

other species. The SRT identified this as 

an important data gap contributing to 

the high degree of uncertainty regarding 

the status of the species in Alaska. 

Fishery-independent surveys focused on 

pinto abalone will be particularly 

informative for assessing population 

abundance and trends in response to 

harvest pressure (e.g., from continuing 

personal use and subsistence harvest) 

and sea otter predation and, as needed, 

making sound management decisions. 

ADF&G recently conducted 

monitoring surveys for pinto abalone in 

Alaska. At the American Academy of 

Underwater Sciences (AAUS) 

conference in September 2014, a pinto 

abalone dive workshop was held in 

which participants surveyed eight sites 

within Sitka Sound (pers. comm. with 

K. Hebert, ADF&G, on 25 September 

2014). Workshop participants counted 

and measured pinto abalone along 

transects and recorded habitat 

observations. The surveys are a first step 

toward developing a pinto abalone 

monitoring program in Alaska. In a 

letter to NMFS on October 6, 2014 (Ingle 

2014), ADF&G stated their commitment 

to developing a directed monitoring 

program for pinto abalone in Alaska. In 

partnership with the Sitka Sound 

Science Center, ADF&G was awarded a 

2-year grant from Alaska Sea Grant to 

begin a monitoring program for pinto 

abalone and kelp forests in Sitka Sound. 

ADF&G plans to establish long-term 

monitoring at several index sites 

throughout southeast Alaska to estimate 

abalone density, population size 

structure, and abundance and to 

document habitat characteristics. The 

goal of such a monitoring program 

would be to monitor population trends 

over time. In addition, ADF&G plans to 

evaluate the impacts of sea otter 

predation on abalone through 

monitoring of index sites both within 

and outside of the current range of sea 

otters. ADF&G has already initiated 

efforts to seek funding for development 

and implementation of the monitoring 

program beyond the 2-year Alaska Sea 

Grant. 

Based on our judgment, development 

and implementation of a long-term 

pinto abalone and kelp forest 

monitoring program will benefit the 

species in Alaska and inform our 

evaluation of the species status and 

ADF&G’s future management decisions 

to address threats to the species. ADF&G 

has already conducted pilot surveys and 

begun establishing partnerships and 

seeking the funding needed to develop 

and implement the planned monitoring 

program. Thus, we believe that the level 

of certainty that this monitoring 

program will be implemented is fairly 

high, but the extent to which it is 

actually implemented will be dependent 

on funding. Implementation of this 

monitoring program would not reduce 

risks to the species, but it would 

provide data to inform our 

understanding of the species’ status and 

provide the basis for future actions to 

reduce the species’ extinction risk. 

British Columbia: SARA Listing and 

Recovery Plan 

Pinto abalone are currently listed as 

endangered (i.e., facing imminent 

extirpation or extinction) in British 

Columbia under Canada’s Species at 

Risk Act (SARA). This listing was based 

on continued low population numbers 

and declines despite the closure of 

abalone fisheries throughout British 

Columbia since 1990. The species was 

first assessed in 1999 by the Committee 

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) and designated as 

threatened by COSEWIC in 2000 and 

later under SARA in 2003. COSEWIC reexamined and up-listed pinto abalone to 

endangered in 2009, due to continued 

population declines primarily attributed 

to poaching (COSEWIC 2009). Up-listing 

to endangered status under SARA 

followed in 2011. Pinto abalone are also 

included on British Columbia’s Red-list, 

with a global status of G3G4 (indicating 

uncertainty regarding the species’ status 

as vulnerable or apparently secure) and 

a provincial status of S2 (i.e., imperiled 

in the nation or state/province because 

of rarity due to very restricted range, 

very few populations, steep declines, or 

other factors making it very vulnerable 

to extirpation from the nation or state/ 

province) (BC Conservation Data Centre 

2014). 

SARA prohibits killing, harming, 

harassing, possessing, and buying or 

selling an individual or its parts 

(including the shell); these prohibitions 

apply to both farm-raised and wild 

pinto abalone (COSEWIC 2009). 

Although fisheries harvest has been 

prohibited since 1990, poaching has 

continued to pose a major threat to 

pinto abalone in British Columbia 

(Lessard et al. 2007). To address this 

threat, protocols have been established 

to track abalone sold on the market, to 

deter the sale of wild abalone as 

cultured abalone (COSEWIC 2009). In 

addition, enforcement patrols, 

prosecution of poaching cases, and 

stewardship programs, such as the 

CoastWatch program, aim to reduce 

illegal harvest (DFO 2012). Preliminary 

data from the most recent index site 

surveys in 2012 and 2013 indicate a 

decrease in mortality associated with 

illegal harvest, likely due to these 

enforcement and stewardship efforts 

(pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, 

on 24 April 2014). 

In 2007, DFO finalized a Recovery 

Strategy (DFO 2007) for pinto abalone in 

Canada that sets goals and objectives for 

halting and reversing the decline of the 

species and identifies the main areas of 

activities to be undertaken. In 2012, the 

DFO finalized the Action Plan (DFO 

2012) to guide implementation of the 

Recovery Strategy. The Recovery 

Strategy and Action Plan set specific 

population and distribution objectives 

as well as short-term (10-year) and longterm (30-year) recovery targets for pinto 

abalone. The Action Plan identifies 

recovery activities to address threats, 

monitor status, and support rebuilding 

of pinto abalone populations, and also 

identifies critical habitat for pinto 

abalone within four areas in British 

Columbia. Few activities were identified 

as likely to destroy critical habitat, and 

the overall estimated impact of works or 

developments in critical habitat areas 

was rated as low. An assessment 

protocol has been established that 

specifies criteria to avoid harmful 

alteration, disruption, or destruction of 

critical habitat (Lessard et al. 2007). 

This protocol applies to works or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

development proposed to occur in, on, 

or under water within pinto abalone 

critical habitat. In addition to DFO’s 

Recovery Strategy and Action Plan, 

several First Nations and coastal 

communities have developed area-based 

Community Action Plans with similar 

goals and objectives to support the longterm recovery of pinto abalone. 

Many of the protections and 

conservation efforts identified in the 

Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have 

been ongoing for several years. DFO 

continues to conduct index site surveys 

every 4–5 years, providing valuable time 

series and size frequency data to 

monitor population status. Adult 

translocations have been conducted at 

various locations, and preliminary 

results from one site (Broken Group 

Islands) indicate success in increasing 

juvenile densities (Lessard et al. 2007, 

pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, 

cited in COSEWIC 2009). Outplanting 

studies have also been conducted at 

various locations between 2000 and 

2010, through partnerships between 

DFO, First Nations, and other coastal 

communities (DFO 2012). Results from 

Barkley Sound show that outplanted 

abalone experience high mortality and/ 

or emigration rates, but that outplanted 

individuals made up to 26 percent of 

the observed abalone at the sites (Read 

et al. 2012). Education and outreach 

efforts continue to raise awareness 

regarding the status of pinto abalone 

and reduce poaching pressure. Under 

DFO’s Recovery Strategy and Action 

Plan, these protections and conservation 

efforts will continue to be implemented, 

evaluated, improved, and added to as 

new information becomes available. 

Based on the criteria in the PECE 

policy, in our judgment the DFO 

Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have 

a high certainty of implementation 

because many of the actions are ongoing 

and DFO has the management authority, 

resources, and partnerships to continue 

carrying out these actions. We also 

anticipate that implementation of the 

Recovery Strategy and Action Plan is 

highly likely to be effective at 

substantially reducing the 

overutilization of pinto abalone as well 

as the demographic risks facing the 

species. For example, preliminary 

results from the 2012 and 2013 index 

site surveys at Haida Gwaii and along 

the Central Coast indicate that the 

reduction in poaching has allowed 

populations to rebound, with densities 

at some sites exceeding the short-term 

recovery targets. We anticipate that 

ongoing and further protections and 

conservation efforts will benefit the 

status of the species in the foreseeable 

future, decreasing the species’ 

extinction risk. 

Washington: Ongoing Conservation 

Efforts and Draft Recovery Plan 

Since the early 2000s, the WDFW, 

Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PSRF), 

University of Washington, Jamestown 

S’Klallam Tribe, NOAA, and other 

partners have worked together to 

advance the recovery of pinto abalone in 

Washington State, focusing on the area 

around the San Juan Island Archipelago 

(see Vadopalas and Watson 2013). With 

the establishment of a hatchery for pinto 

abalone rearing and restoration studies 

at NOAA’s Mukilteo facility in 2003, 

much progress has been made in the 

development of successful captive 

propagation and grow-out methods, as 

well as in understanding the effects of 

rearing conditions, salinity, 

temperature, and ocean acidification on 

abalone survival and behavior. Field 

studies have been conducted to inform 

the prioritization and development of 

enhancement activities, including 

abalone recruitment studies, 

experimental out-plantings with larvae 

and juveniles, adult aggregations, and 

tagging trials. In addition, a public 

outreach campaign was initiated to 

inform the public about the status of 

pinto abalone in Washington. 

A final recovery plan for pinto 

abalone in Washington (Vadopalas and 

Watson 2013) was developed in 

collaboration between WDFW, 

University of Washington (Friedman 

Lab), PSRF, NOAA NMFS Mukilteo 

Research Station, Baywater, Inc., 

Western Washington University’s 

Shannon Point Marine Center, and the 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. The plan 

summarizes the biology, life history, 

and status of pinto abalone in the San 

Juan Islands Archipelago, provides an 

overview of recovery efforts to date, and 

establishes a plan for recovering the 

species, including goals and objectives, 

recommended approaches, and an 

evaluation of potential recovery 

strategies. To achieve the long-term goal 

of halting the decline of pinto abalone 

and recovering populations to a selfsustainable level, the plan focuses on 

aggregation and supplementation 

activities, drawing upon what has been 

learned from collaborative restoration 

efforts thus far to guide future efforts. 

The plan includes clear objectives, 

identification of threats to the species, 

and a diversity of specific strategies to 

address those threats, including 

monitoring and evaluation criteria and 

an adaptive management approach. 

Implementation of the plan would 

ensure continuation of current 

protections, raise awareness of pinto 

abalone, and contribute to recovery 

through active enhancement efforts, 

using a multi-faceted approach 

involving investigation of several 

strategies (e.g., aggregation, outplanting) that have been shown to have 

the potential to enhance wild 

populations. We recognize that the plan 

is not a State Environmental Policy Act 

(SEPA) document that has been vetted 

through a public review process. In 

addition, the plan does not identify 

funding sources to support the captive 

propagation and enhancement activities. 

WDFW has the legal authority and 

responsibility to carry out management 

(e.g., maintain harvest closures) and 

recovery of pinto abalone, and has 

already established partnerships that are 

needed to effectively carry out the plan. 

Based on the success of past and 

ongoing collaborative efforts, we are 

fairly certain that the protections and 

conservation efforts described in the 

plan will be implemented. However, 

funding will determine to what extent 

enhancement efforts are implemented, 

and we cannot be certain what amount 

of funding will be available at this time. 

Overall, we anticipate that 

implementation of the recovery actions 

under the recovery plan would be 

highly likely to be effective at 

substantially reducing the demographic 

risks currently facing pinto abalone 

populations at the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago and decrease the species’ 

extinction risk. 

California: Abalone Recovery and 

Management Plan 

In 1997, passage of the Thompson bill 

(AB 663) in California created a 

moratorium on the taking, possessing, or 

landing of abalone for commercial or 

recreational purposes in ocean waters 

south of San Francisco (including at all 

offshore islands), and also mandated the 

creation of an Abalone Recovery and 

Management Plan (ARMP), with a 

requirement that the California Fish and 

Game Commission undertake abalone 

management in a manner consistent 

with this plan. The ARMP was finalized 

by the CDFW and adopted by the 

California Fish and Game Commission 

in December 2005. It includes all of 

California’s abalone species, providing a 

cohesive framework for the recovery of 

depleted abalone populations in 

southern California and for the 

management of the northern California 

fishery and future abalone fisheries. The 

recovery portion of the plan addresses 

all abalone species that are subject to 

the fishing moratorium (including pinto 

abalone), with the ultimate goal of 

recovering species from a perilous 

condition to a sustainable one, with a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78019 

margin of abalone available for fishing. 

The management portion of the plan 

applies to populations considered 

sustainable and fishable (e.g., the 

current red abalone fishery north of San 

Francisco), with the goal of maintaining 

sustainable fisheries under a long-term 

management plan that can be adapted 

quickly to respond to environmental or 

population changes. The ARMP 

identifies timelines, estimated costs, 

and funding sources for implementing 

the recovery and management actions. 

The recovery portion of the ARMP 

specifies several actions to assess the 

status of the species and enhance 

populations. These include: Exploratory 

surveys to evaluate current population 

levels and the location of aggregations; 

detailed surveys of known abalone 

habitat; assessment surveys to evaluate 

achievement of recovery criteria and 

goals; disease and genetics research; the 

development or support of existing 

culture programs; and out-planting and 

aggregation/translocation feasibility 

studies and, if successful, large-scale 

efforts. Given limited resources, the 

plan primarily focuses on red, pink, 

green, white, and black abalone, because 

these species made up the majority of 

the commercial and recreational fishery 

and are more commonly encountered. 

The ARMP includes focused assessment 

surveys for pinto abalone, but other 

actions will be conducted in 

conjunction with those for the other 

species. For example, exploratory 

surveys for pinto abalone will be 

conducted as part of exploratory surveys 

for the five major species. Pinto abalone 

have been documented during surveys 

for other abalone species over the past 

15 years, and will continue to be 

recorded during surveys for emergent 

abalone and monitoring of recruitment 

modules that have been deployed 

throughout southern California (4 sites) 

and in northern California (one site). 

Because the specific habitat and depth 

requirements of pinto abalone may 

differ from the other species, these 

surveys may or may not provide an 

accurate assessment of pinto abalone 

population levels in California. 

Enhancement activities (e.g., culture 

programs, out-planting and aggregation/ 

translocation studies) will focus on the 

other abalone species. Although the 

information gained from these studies 

will likely benefit future enhancement 

efforts for pinto abalone, the direct 

benefits to the species are limited at this 

time. 

The ARMP also calls for the 

establishment of new marine protected 

areas or MPAs (in addition to those 

already established) to protect and 

preserve abalone populations. The State 

recently established new MPAs as part 

of the Marine Life Protection Act 

(MLPA; FGC § 2852) process in areas 

throughout the California coast. 

Depending on their location and 

specific regulations, some MPAs may 

provide increased protection for pinto 

abalone and their habitat. In addition, 

the ARMP discusses enhanced 

enforcement efforts that include routine 

patrols of tidal areas, boat patrols, 

undercover operations, spot-checks of 

fishing licenses and abalone permit 

report cards, abalone checkpoints, and 

community outreach and education 

regarding overfishing and ocean 

stewardship. These efforts are likely to 

reduce the risk of poaching to pinto 

abalone. 

In our judgment, the recovery actions 

and increased enforcement efforts under 

the ARMP are not necessarily certain to 

occur due to funding limitations but 

would be beneficial to the persistence of 

pinto abalone. We anticipate 

enforcement efforts will help reduce 

extinction risk to the species by 

reducing the risk of overutilization and 

poaching, both of which were 

considered by the SRT to pose moderate 

risk to the species. In addition, 

assessment surveys for pinto abalone 

and opportunistic observations during 

surveys for other abalone will provide 

additional data to inform assessments of 

the species’ status and trends. However, 

the lack of long-term monitoring and 

enhancement efforts focused on pinto 

abalone limits the effectiveness of the 

ARMP in addressing current 

demographic risks to the species. An 

important question is whether and how 

the habitat and depth distribution of 

pinto abalone may differ from other 

abalone species, to evaluate the degree 

of overlap between the species. 

National Marine Sanctuary Regulations 

Three coastal national marine 

sanctuaries in California contain habitat 

suitable for pinto abalone: Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

(CINMS), Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), and Gulf 

of the Farallones National Marine 

Sanctuary (GFNMS). At all three 

sanctuaries, the inshore boundary 

extends to the mean high water line, 

thus encompassing intertidal habitat. 

Federal regulations (which are similar 

at all three sites) for these National 

Marine Sanctuaries provide protection 

against some of the threats to pinto 

abalone. For example, direct 

disturbance to or development of pinto 

abalone habitat is regulated at all three 

sanctuaries by way of a prohibition on 

the alteration of, construction upon, 

drilling into, or dredging of the seabed 

(including the intertidal zone), with 

exceptions for anchoring, installing 

navigation aids, special dredge disposal 

sites (MBNMS only), harbor-related 

maintenance, and bottom tending 

fishing gear in areas not otherwise 

restricted. Water quality impacts to 

pinto abalone habitat are regulated by 

strict discharge regulations prohibiting 

the discharge or deposit of pollutants, 

except for effluents required for normal 

boating operations (e.g., vessel cooling 

waters, effluents from marine sanitation 

devices, fish wastes and bait). In 

addition, CDFW has established 

networks of marine reserves and marine 

conservation areas within the CINMS 

and along portions of the MBNMS, 

where multi-agency patrols provide 

elevated levels of enforcement presence 

and increased protection against 

poaching of pinto abalone. 

We anticipate that enforcement of 

these management plans and regulations 

will be effective at reducing the risk of 

poaching and habitat destruction or 

alteration for pinto abalone populations 

within the sanctuaries. The level of 

benefits to the species’ status is 

uncertain, however, because we lack 

data to understand what proportion of 

the populations reside within the 

sanctuaries. Each of the sanctuaries is 

currently undergoing management plan 

review processes, which may result in 

changes to the regulations. However, the 

level of protection provided to pinto 

abalone is not expected to decrease, and 

possibly may increase should stricter 

regulations regarding large vessel 

discharges and proposed prohibitions 

on the release of introduced species be 

adopted. 

IUCN and NMFS Species of Concern 

Listings 

The pinto abalone was added to the 

IUCN Red List in 2006 (McDougall et al. 

2006). The IUCN listing raises public 

awareness of the species but does not 

provide any regulatory protections to 

address threats to the species. The pinto 

abalone was also added to the NMFS 

Species of Concern List in 2004 (69 FR 

19975; 15 April 2004). Species of 

Concern are those species about which 

we have some concerns regarding status 

and threats, but for which insufficient 

information is available to indicate a 

need to list the species under the ESA. 

Although inclusion on the Species of 

Concern List does not carry any 

procedural or substantive protections 

under the ESA, it does draw proactive 

attention and conservation action to the 

species. In addition, funding under the 

Species of Concern grant program has 

been provided to support research and 

conservation efforts for pinto abalone in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the past, including components of 

Washington’s pinto abalone recovery 

efforts, as described above, and studies 

on the effects of ocean acidification on 

pinto abalone. Funding for new grants, 

however, has not been available since 

2011. In general, the listings under the 

IUCN Red List and NMFS Species of 

Concern List benefit the persistence of 

pinto abalone by promoting public 

awareness of the species. However, it is 

difficult to evaluate how effective this 

will be in reducing threats to pinto 

abalone. 

Final Determination 

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

that the listing determination be based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

those efforts, if any, being made by any 

state or foreign nation, or political 

subdivisions thereof, to protect and 

conserve the species. We have reviewed 

the petition, public comments 

submitted on the 90-day finding, the 

status review report, and other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and have consulted with 

species experts and other individuals 

familiar with pinto abalone. We 

considered each of the five ESA 

statutory factors to determine whether 

any presented an extinction risk to the 

species on its own or in combination 

with other factors. As required by the 

ESA section 4(b)(1)(a), we also took into 

account efforts to protect pinto abalone 

by the states, Tribes, foreign nations, or 

other entities and evaluated whether 

those efforts provide a conservation 

benefit to the species. On the basis of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we conclude 

that the pinto abalone is not presently 

in danger of extinction, nor is it likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future, 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Below, we summarize the 

factors supporting this conclusion. 

In our assessment of the five ESA 

statutory factors, we agree with the 

SRT’s conclusion that the identified 

stressors represent low to moderate 

threats to the species. Among the 

moderate threats, the SRT identified the 

following as threats of greater concern: 

Low densities resulting from historical 

fisheries harvest; illegal take due to 

poaching and inadequate enforcement; 

sea otter predation; and ocean 

acidification impacts. Prohibitions on 

pinto abalone harvest throughout most 

of the species’ range have largely 

removed the threat of over-utilization. 

Although populations continue to 

remain at low densities, recent/

recurring recruitment events indicate 

that the densities are high enough to 

support successful reproduction and 

recruitment in Alaska, British Columbia, 

Northern and Southern California, and 

Mexico. Poaching was a major threat 

hindering the recovery of populations in 

British Columbia, but recent evidence 

indicates that enforcement and outreach 

efforts have been effective at reducing 

illegal take and allowing population 

numbers to increase. Regulations are in 

place, but continued enforcement and 

monitoring are needed throughout the 

range to evaluate their effectiveness. Sea 

otter predation has contributed to 

population declines and/or lack of 

recovery in pinto abalone populations 

where the two species overlap, but in no 

case has local extinction of any abalone 

population or species in the 

northeastern Pacific been documented 

as a result of predation by sea otters. 

Researchers in British Columbia have 

reported higher pinto abalone densities 

at survey sites where sea otters are 

present compared to sites where sea 

otters are absent (pers. comm. with J. 

Lessard, DFO, 24 April 2014), showing 

that the population level impacts of 

increasing sea otter presence may vary. 

Overall, the SRT concluded, and we 

agree, that the two species can 

sustainably co-exist. Finally, ocean 

acidification could affect pinto abalone 

populations and their habitat in the 

future, but there is a high level of 

uncertainty regarding the magnitude, 

scope, and nature of these effects. 

Overall, we did not identify any factors 

or combinations of factors that are 

contributing significantly to the species’ 

extinction risk now or in the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, we conclude that 

pinto abalone are not endangered or 

threatened due to any of the five ESA 

statutory factors. 

In evaluating the overall risk to the 

species throughout its range, we relied 

on the SRT’s assessment of overall 

extinction risk and the best available 

information regarding the species’ status 

and ongoing and future conservation 

efforts. We asked the SRT to assess the 

overall level of extinction risk to the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future, considering two time frames: 30 

years and 100 years. Thirty years 

represents about three generation times 

for pinto abalone and is a reasonable 

time frame over which threats can be 

predicted reliably and their impacts to 

the biological status of the species may 

be observed. This time frame for 

foreseeable future is also consistent with 

what was used in the status review for 

black abalone (VanBlaricom et al. 2009) 

and by the IUCN (McDougall et al. 2006) 

and COSEWIC (2009) in their 

assessments of the status of pinto 

abalone. The 100-year time frame was 

also used to consider the impacts of 

longer-term threats, such as climate 

change and changes in oceanographic 

conditions, but introduces additional 

uncertainty into the analysis. We 

decided to consider the SRT’s 

assessment over both time frames; 

however, we put more weight on the 

SRT’s assessment over a foreseeable 

future of 30 years, because there is 

greater certainty in this assessment (i.e., 

we can more reliably predict the threats 

and their impacts over the 30-year time 

frame than the 100-year time frame). We 

note, however, that the SRT’s 

assessment over both time frames led to 

the same conclusion regarding the 

species’ extinction risk, as discussed 

below. 

Over the 30 year time frame, the SRT 

was fairly certain that the species faces 

a Low to Moderate risk of extinction, 

but expressed some uncertainty as to the 

severity of threats and demographic 

risks. This uncertainty is expected, 

given the wide distribution of the 

species and varying levels of data 

available for different regions. The SRT 

placed the majority (55 percent) of their 

likelihood points in the No/Very Low 

and Low risk categories, indicating that 

Low risk may be more plausible over the 

30 year time frame. 

We also considered the SRT’s 

assessment over a foreseeable future of 

100 years. The SRT again concluded 

that the species has a Low to Moderate 

risk of extinction, but perceived slightly 

greater risk (i.e., increased points in the 

Moderate risk category) to the species 

over a foreseeable future of 100 years 

compared to a foreseeable future of 30 

years, citing increased concern 

regarding long-term threats such as 

ocean acidification, climate change 

impacts, and increasing sea otter 

predation. Again, the SRT noted 

increased uncertainty regarding these 

threats and their effects on the status of 

pinto abalone over the 100 year time 

frame. Although the perceived risk is 

slightly greater over the 100 year timeframe, the analysis ultimately indicated 

a Low to Moderate risk of extinction, 

consistent with the analysis over the 30 

year time-frame. 

In our evaluation of ongoing and 

future conservation efforts for pinto 

abalone, we found that conservation 

efforts throughout California, the San 

Juan Islands Archipelago, and British 

Columbia are highly likely to reduce 

threats to the species and its habitat. At 

the San Juan Islands Archipelago and 

British Columbia, enhancement 

activities directly focused on pinto 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78021 

abalone are highly likely to benefit pinto 

abalone populations and reduce the 

demographic risks currently affecting 

the species. Thus, these ongoing and 

future conservation efforts will further 

reduce the species’ extinction risk now 

and in the foreseeable future, 

particularly in British Columbia and at 

the San Juan Islands Archipelago where 

the SRT expressed the most concern. 

Based on our evaluation of the best 

available information regarding the 

species’ status and threats, the SRT’s 

assessment of extinction risk, and our 

assessment of conservation efforts, we 

conclude that the pinto abalone has a 

Low to Low/Moderate risk of extinction 

now and in the foreseeable future. Based 

on our judgment, a Low to Low/

Moderate risk of extinction indicates 

that pinto abalone are not presently in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

its range. 

In evaluating the overall risk to the 

species within a significant portion of 

its range, we relied on the SRT’s 

identification and assessment of 

potential SPRs. The SRT identified three 

potential SPRs: A Northern portion (AK/ 

BC/SJA), a Southern portion (NorCal/

SoCal/MX), and a portion encompassing 

the whole range excluding Northern 

California (AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX). The 

SRT concluded that the Southern 

portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX 

portion of the species range have a Low 

risk of extinction now and in a 

foreseeable future of 30 years and Low 

to Moderate risk of extinction now and 

in a foreseeable future of 100 years. For 

the same reasons as stated above, we 

considered the SRT’s assessment for 

both time frames, but put more weight 

on the SRT’s assessment over a 

foreseeable future of 30 years. Over both 

time frames, the SRT indicated that 

extinction risk of No/Very Low to Low 

was most plausible for the Southern 

portion (76 percent of points over a 

foreseeable future of 30 years; 56 

percent of points over a foreseeable 

future of 100 years) and for the AK/BC/ 

SJA/SoCal/MX portion (71 percent of 

points over a foreseeable future of 30 

years; 55 percent of points over a 

foreseeable future of 100 years). The 

SRT was more certain of a No/Very Low 

to Low risk to the species over a 

foreseeable future of 30 years, whereas 

there was some uncertainty regarding 

whether the species may have a Low to 

Moderate risk over a foreseeable future 

of 100 years. As stated above, there are 

ongoing and future conservation efforts 

throughout California, San Juan Islands 

Archipelago, and British Columbia that 

have a high likelihood of reducing 

threats and demographic risks to the 

species. Based on the best available 

information regarding the species’ 

status, the SRT’s assessment of 

extinction risk, and our analysis of 

conservation efforts, we conclude that 

pinto abalone has a Low risk of 

extinction throughout the Southern 

portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX 

portion now and in the foreseeable 

future. Based on our judgment, a Low 

risk of extinction indicates that pinto 

abalone are not presently in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout the 

Southern portion or AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/ 

MX portion of its range. Therefore, we 

determined that the species is not 

endangered or threatened throughout 

the Southern portion or the AK/BC/SJA/ 

SoCal/MX portion of its range and did 

not need to address the question of 

whether these two potential SPRs are 

indeed significant. 

For the potential SPR in the Northern 

portion of the species’ range (AK/BC/

SJA), the SRT concluded that there is a 

Low to Moderate risk of extinction now 

and in the foreseeable future (30 years 

and 100 years). For the same reasons as 

stated above, we considered the SRT’s 

assessment for both time frames, but put 

more weight on the SRT’s assessment 

over a foreseeable future of 30 years. 

When considering a foreseeable future 

of 30 years, the SRT placed the majority 

(54 percent) of their likelihood points in 

the No/Very Low and Low risk 

categories, indicating that No/Very Low 

to Low risk was the most plausible. 

When considering a foreseeable future 

of 100 years, the SRT indicated that Low 

to Moderate risk is more plausible, but 

expressed greater uncertainty regarding 

their assessment of risk because of 

greater uncertainty regarding threats 

(e.g., climate change, ocean 

acidification, sea otter predation) and 

how they might affect pinto abalone into 

the future. We note that even over the 

100 year time frame, the number of 

points in the No/Very Low and Low risk 

categories (total: 30 points) were almost 

equal to the number of points in the 

Moderate risk categories (31 points). 

Most of the SRT members expressed 

concern regarding the lack of population 

data in Alaska and the declines in pinto 

abalone abundance in British Columbia 

and at the San Juan Islands Archipelago. 

However, SRT members also noted 

evidence for recent/recurring 

recruitment in both Alaska and British 

Columbia and recent signs of recovery 

in British Columbia under the SARA 

protections and decreased poaching 

pressure. We found that in both British 

Columbia and at the San Juan Islands 

Archipelago, protective regulations and 

conservation efforts have been 

implemented that have a high 

likelihood of substantially reducing the 

demographic risks and threats facing the 

species. In both regions, Federal, state, 

and local governmental entities, Tribes, 

and non-governmental organizations 

have established strong partnerships 

and are working together on ongoing 

conservation and enhancement 

activities for the recovery of pinto 

abalone. In addition, ADF&G has 

indicated that they will conduct 

monitoring surveys for pinto abalone to 

better assess the species’ status in 

Alaska. Based on the best available 

information regarding the species’ 

status, the SRT’s assessment of 

extinction risk, and our assessment of 

conservation efforts, we concluded that 

pinto abalone have a Low to Low/

Moderate risk of extinction now and in 

the foreseeable future throughout the 

Northern portion. Based on our 

judgment, a Low to Low/Moderate risk 

indicates that pinto abalone are not 

presently in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout the Northern portion 

of its range. Therefore, we determined 

that the species is not endangered or 

threatened throughout the Northern 

portion of its range and did not need to 

address the question of whether this 

potential SPR is indeed significant. 

Based on these findings, we conclude 

that the pinto abalone is not presently 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range, nor is 

it likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, the 

pinto abalone does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species and therefore the pinto abalone 

does not warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered at this time. However, the 

species will remain on our NMFS 

Species of Concern list, with one 

revision to apply the Species of Concern 

status to the species throughout its 

range (currently, the Species of Concern 

status applies only to the species range 

from Alaska to Point Conception). We 

will continue to encourage research, 

monitoring, and conservation efforts for 

the species throughout its range. 

We recognize that the status of pinto 

abalone has been assessed by various 

groups at the State and international 

level. Pinto abalone are considered a 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

(i.e., not State ESA listed, but needing 

conservation action or additional 

information) and a Candidate Species 

for State ESA listing in Washington; as 

Endangered in Canada under SARA (as 

of 2011; originally listed as Threatened 

in 2003); and as Endangered on the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78022 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

IUCN Red List as of 2006. However, 

these assessments and their conclusions 

do not directly inform our analysis of 

extinction risk for the pinto abalone. 

First, the criteria used for assessing 

whether a species warrants listing under 

the State ESA, Canada’s SARA, or the 

IUCN Red List are different than the 

standards for making a determination 

that a species warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Federal ESA. Second, the geographic 

scope considered in these assessments 

differed from the scope of our analysis. 

Washington State’s review focuses on 

the status of the species within state 

waters. Canada’s SARA listing focused 

on the status of the species within 

British Columbia, and also did not 

incorporate more recent data that has 

become available since 2011, showing 

decreased poaching pressure and 

increasing abundances at index survey 

sites. The IUCN Red List assessment 

focused on the status of the northern 

form of pinto abalone (Point Conception 

to Alaska), and was largely based on 

population trends in Alaska and British 

Columbia (McDougall et al. 2006). 

McDougall et al. (2006) cited the lack of 

overlap in abundance and low presence 

of the southern form relative to other 

California abalone species as reasons for 

focusing on the northern form. 

However, as we have discussed above 

(see ‘‘The Species Question’’ section), 

more recent evidence indicates that the 

degree of overlap between the northern 

and southern form is greater than 

previously thought. We considered the 

pinto abalone as one species throughout 

its range due to the lack of genetic, 

geographic, or ecological justification 

for treating the northern and southern 

forms as separate species. In addition, 

the ESA does not allow the 

consideration of distinct population 

segments for invertebrate species. Thus, 

our analysis of the species’ status under 

the Federal ESA considered different 

standards and a broader geographic 

scope than these previous assessments. 

In this status review, we identified 

several important data gaps that need to 

be addressed to inform our 

understanding of the status of the 

species. These data gaps include: pinto 

abalone abundance and trends in 

Alaska, California, and Mexico; past and 

present fisheries harvest levels in 

Alaska and Mexico; and the presence, 

distribution, and abundance of pinto 

abalone along the outer coast of 

Washington and Oregon. We encourage 

the following research and monitoring 

efforts to address these data gaps. 

• In Alaska: (a) Establishment of 

regular, long-term monitoring of pinto 

abalone population abundance, trends, 

and distribution; and (b) monitoring and 

management of personal use and 

subsistence harvest to minimize impacts 

to pinto abalone. As discussed under 

the ‘‘Summary of factors affecting the 

species’’ (see the section on 

‘‘Overutilization’’), ADF&G believes that 

personal use and subsistence harvest is 

currently low, but regulations still allow 

harvest of up to five pinto abalone per 

person per day. Monitoring would 

provide the data needed to estimate 

current harvest levels and to evaluate 

the impacts of these harvest levels 

(allowed and actual) on the pinto 

abalone population in Alaska. 

• In Washington: Surveys to evaluate 

the presence, abundance, and 

distribution of pinto abalone along the 

outer coast of Washington. 

• In Oregon: Surveys to evaluate the 

presence, abundance, and distribution 

of pinto abalone along the outer coast of 

Oregon. Revision of the fisheries 

regulations may also be needed to 

clarify that harvest of pinto abalone is 

prohibited. 

• In California: Establishment of 

regular, long-term monitoring of pinto 

abalone population abundance, trends, 

and distribution. 

• In Mexico: (a) Establishment of 

regular, long-term monitoring of pinto 

abalone population abundance, trends, 

and distribution; and (b) monitoring of 

pinto abalone harvest and, as needed, 

management measures to minimize 

impacts of fisheries harvest on pinto 

abalone. As discussed under the 

‘‘Summary of factors affecting the 

species’’ (see the section on 

‘‘Overutilization’’), current harvest 

levels of pinto abalone in Mexico are 

thought to be low. Monitoring would 

provide the data needed to estimate 

current harvest levels and their impacts 

on the pinto abalone population in 

Mexico. 

Given the data gaps and uncertainties 

associated with our current 

understanding of the status of the 

species, we plan to retain pinto abalone 

on the NMFS Species of Concern list 

with one revision to apply the Species 

of Concern status throughout the 

species’ range (Alaska to Mexico). 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available on the NMFS West 

Coast Region Web site (http://www.

westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/) and upon 

request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: December 22, 2014. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30345 Filed 12–22–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 141103917–4917–01 ] 

RIN 0648–BE60 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Black Sea 

Bass Fishery; Framework Adjustment 

8 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Framework Adjustment 8 to 

the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black 

Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. 

This action would allow the black sea 

bass recreational fishery to begin on 

May 15 of each year, instead of May 19, 

to provide additional fishing 

opportunities earlier in the year. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. local time, on January 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–BE60, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0155, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail and Hand Delivery: John K. 

Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside 

of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on Black 

Sea Bass Framework 8.’’ 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS