Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/10/20/E9-25198/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-proposed-threatened-and-not-warranted-status-for
Timestamp: 2017-02-19 18:52:55
Document Index: 797141610

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 424', '§\u2009223', 'art 223', '§\u2009223', '§\u2009223', '§\u2009223']

:: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened and Not Warranted Status for Distinct Population Segments of the Spotted Seal
A Proposed Rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 10/20/2009
53683-53696
E9-25198
Conservation Efforts International Actions and Agreements
Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms Significant Portion of Their Range
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E9-25198
Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; status review, request for comments
Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources, Alaska Region, NMFS, ATTN: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-XR74” by any one of the following methods: Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal Rulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov. Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK, 99802-1668 Fax: 907-586-7557
The proposed rule, maps, status review, and other materials relating to Start Printed Page 53684this proposal can be found on our Web site at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/​
On May 28, 2008, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the spotted seal as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, primarily due to concern about threats to this species' habitat from climate warming and loss of sea ice. The Petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for spotted seals concurrent with listing under the ESA. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that when a petition to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is found to present substantial scientific and commercial information, we must make a finding on whether the petitioned action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher priority. This finding is to be made within one year of the date the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information available in our files, we found that the petition met the requirements of the regulations under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and determined that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding was published on September 4, 2008 (73 FR 16617). At that time, we commenced a status review of spotted seals and solicited information pertaining to the species. On September 8, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that we failed to make the requisite 12-month finding on its petition to list the spotted seal. Subsequently, the Court entered a settlement agreement under which NMFS agreed to finalize the status review and submit this 12-month finding to the Office of the Federal Register by October 15, 2009.
The status review is a compilation of the best available information concerning the status of spotted seals, including the past, present, and future threats to this species. The Biological Review Team (BRT) which conducted the status review was composed of expert marine mammal biologists and climate scientists from NOAA's Alaska Fisheries Science Center and Pacific Marine Environmental Lab. ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
There were two key tasks associated with conducting the ESA status review. The first was to delineate the taxonomic group under consideration; the second was to conduct an extinction risk assessment to determine whether the petitioned species is threatened or endangered. The ESA defines the term endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” For this status review, we endeavored to assess the threats to the species to the extent such threats can be forecast into the future, keeping in mind that there is greater uncertainty the farther out the analysis extends. The potential consequences of the key threat of climate change have been projected through both 2050 and the end of the 21st century, though under widely-varying assumptions. The status review considered the climate projections through the end of the 21st-century in assessing the threats stemming from climate change, noting that there was less variation in the time period up to 2050 compared to the period between 2050 and 2100. NMFS used a similar approach to assess the extinction risks from other threats. While this review extended the climate modeling farther into the future than the one conducted during the ribbon seal status review, the two reviews' respective approaches are consistent; NMFS has not determined here that 2100 constitutes “the foreseeable future.” There is too much variability beyond 2050 to make that determination. To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms must constitute a “species”, which according to the ESA includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature”. The term “distinct population segment” (DPS) is not commonly used in scientific discourse, so the USFWS and NMFS developed the “Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act” to provide a consistent interpretation of this term for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We describe and use this policy below to guide our determination of whether DPSs exist for this species.
Spotted seals are widely distributed on the continental shelf of the Beaufort, Chukchi, southeastern East Siberian, Bering and Okhotsk seas, and to the south throughout the Sea of Japan and into the northern Yellow Sea. Their range extends over about 40 degrees of latitude from Point Barrow, Alaska in the north (~71 N.) to the Yangtse River, China in the south (~31 N.). The distribution of spotted seals is seasonally related to specific life history events that can be broadly divided into two periods: late-fall through spring, when whelping, nursing, breeding, and molting all take place in association with the presence of sea ice on which the seals haul out, and summer through fall, when the sea ice has melted and spotted seals remain closer to shore to use land for hauling out. The timing of the formation and persistence of sea ice, and thus the spotted seals use of sea ice habitat, roughly varies with latitude throughout the species' range. Typically, life history Start Printed Page 53685functions such as molting, breeding, and whelping occur later in the year at higher latitudes. From late fall through spring, spotted seal habitat-use is closely associated with the distribution and characteristics of seasonal sea ice. The ice provides a dry platform away from land predators during the whelping, nursing, breeding, and molting periods. When sea ice begins to form in the fall, spotted seals start to occupy it immediately, concentrating in large numbers on the early ice that forms near river mouths and estuaries. In winter, as the ice thickens and becomes shorefast along the coasts, spotted seals move seaward to areas near the ice front with broken ice floes. Spotted seals can only make and maintain holes in fairly thin ice and have been known to travel 10 km or more over solid ice in search of cracks or open patches of water. Spotted seals usually avoid very dense, compacted ice and stay near the ice front. Recent research has also shown that, unlike spotted seals in more northerly latitudes, a portion of spotted seals in the Peter the Great Bay and the northern Yellow Sea use shore lands as haul-out sites for whelping, nursing, breeding, and molting (Wang, 1986; Trukhin, 2005; Nesterenko and Katin; 2008; Nesterenko and Katin, 2009). Spotted seal terrestrial haul-out sites are usually remote and located on isolated mud, sand, or gravel beaches, or on rocks close to shore. Spotted seals appear to be generalist feeders with a varied diet. Most studies have found that fishes are spotted seals' primary prey. Diet and regional and seasonal differences in foods of spotted seals are related to the seasonal distribution and abundance of their principal prey species. Species Delineation
Eight areas of spotted seal breeding concentrations have been identified in the species' range (Figure 1). All are in the southern margins of the seasonally ice covered portions of the range.. The extent to which these areas are actually separated by gaps in the breeding distribution, at least in the Bering Sea, is not clear. Spotted seals are known to undertake foraging trips and seasonal movements of greater than 1000 km, easily sufficient to travel between adjacent breeding areas. Given this capability for long distance movements, only very large geographical barriers would have the potential for maintaining any discreteness that there may be between adjacent breeding concentrations. Distances between the Bering Sea breeding concentrations and the nearest Okhotsk Sea breeding concentrations are large relative to the distances between adjacent breeding concentrations within each of these seas, due to the great southerly extent of the Kamchatka Peninsula. It is not known whether the peninsula may be a physical obstacle to capable travelers like spotted seals. Nonetheless, spotted seals have habits that may cause the Kamchatka Peninsula to be an effective barrier between Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk breeding concentrations. The seals' affinity for ice during winter, combined with the fact that the seasonal ice does not extend south to the tip of the peninsula, may help to confine spotted seals to their respective sea basins. They follow the ice front as it grows and expands to the south in autumn. In the Bering Sea, they make extensive east-west movements during the ice-covered period. But, they are not known to move extensively out of the ice field, or off of the continental shelf, at least in the Bering Sea. Therefore, the typical annual pattern would seem to be one of moving south and offshore as the ice forms, staying in the ice during the ice covered period, then moving back to the north and toward shore with the spring ice retreat. If this scenario is correct, and unless long-distance movements were undertaken during the period of extensive ice cover, the seals would be unlikely to disperse between the two seas. Most of the range of the species occurs in cold, seasonally ice covered, sub-Arctic waters, without conspicuous intrusions of warm water or conditions that would pose potential physiological barriers. There is, however, a considerable climatic difference from the southern to the northern extremes of the species' range. Recognizing that factors causing differentiation of populations—especially behavioral factors—may be inconspicuous, the most reliable Start Printed Page 53686information is likely to come from quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuities. An important behavioral factor in maintaining separation of populations is natal philopatry, the tendency to reproduce in the same area as one's birthplace. Because long-term tracking of individual spotted seals has not been practical or feasible, evidence for natal philopatry must be sought indirectly, for example, by analysis of genotypic frequencies or relatedness of individuals that reflect the history of breeding dispersal. About 1 to 10 migrants per generation between breeding areas is typically sufficient to preclude genetic discreteness. Thus, strong natal philopatry is required to maintain discreteness when no other barriers exist. Studies of differences in cranial morphology and helminth parasite fauna between putative breeding areas have been claimed to indicate population structure, but the statistical analyses were flawed and the sampling schemes and relevance of the population attributes used for these studies have also been criticized. The strength of the discreteness, and the details of which areas were reported to differ from other areas could not be relied upon until more rigorous sampling and analysis can be performed. Genetic information, when obtained from representative samples of animals in their breeding locales is likely to be a more direct reflection of population structure, and for that reason has become a common and important tool for supplementing or replacing morphometrics and other measures in studies of both phylogeny and population structure. Genetic data on population structure do exist from four studies of spotted seals. Mitochondrial DNA were examined from 247 spotted seals, and micro-satellite DNA were examined at 18 loci from 207 spotted seals, all sampled in the Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, northwest Pacific Ocean (i.e., off the southeast coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula), Sea of Okhotsk, Sea of Japan, and Yellow Sea. The preliminary conclusions drawn from analyses of both types of marker supported a phylogeographic break between seals of the Yellow Sea-Sea of Japan region, and seals of the Okhotsk, Bering, and Chukchi seas (O'Corry-Crowe and Bonin, 2009). Although the mtDNA haplotypic diversity was very high, that marker indicated that some structure may also exist between the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering-Chukchi Sea seals. The nuclear markers on the other hand, did not support that structure, and even indicated that some gene flow may occur between the Yellow Sea-Sea of Japan sampling region and the Okhotsk-Bering Chukchi sampling region. The BRT placed somewhat greater weight on the mtDNA results than the micro-satellite results, which militates in favor of a discreteness finding for the southern population and is an approach that would be conservative of genetic diversity. Genetic research found low nuclear genetic variability among 176 spotted seals from Liaodong Bay, the primary breeding area in the Yellow Sea (Han et al., in press). This result was consistent with a previous report of low diversity in mtDNA haplotypes in this area. Moreover, a single base-pair insertion in the threonine tRNA gene was reported that was present in all seals from Liaodong Bay but not in samples tested from the Sea of Japan and Sea of Okhotsk, indicative of little or no immigration of females into the Yellow Sea population. Research also found high haplotypic diversity in mtDNA from 66 spotted seals sampled in three regions along the northern coasts of Hokkaido in autumn and winter. That study found no phylogenetic structure in the samples, and could not dismiss the possibility that spotted seals on the northwest Hokkaido coast during winter, in the far northeastern portion of the Sea of Japan, are part of the southern Sea of Okhotsk breeding concentration (Mizuno et al., 2003). This is currently the only information available on where in the Sea of Japan to place a boundary corresponding to the genetic break suggested by the micro-satellite DNA study described above. Because no samples from the Tatar Strait have been included in genetics studies, and the samples from Hokkaido are not obviously distinct from Sea of Okhotsk samples, the population division with the most support from the genetics evidence is a line along 43° N. latitude that divides the spotted seal range into a southern segment composed of the breeding concentrations of the Yellow Sea and Peter the Great Bay, and the remaining breeding areas (Tatar Strait, southern and northern Sea of Okhotsk, Karaginsky Gulf, Gulf of Anadyr, and eastern Bering Sea) making up a separate population.
We assessed the existence and implications of international governmental boundaries between these populations (see below), and determined that considerations of cross-boundary management and regulatory mechanisms do not outweigh or contradict the proposed divisions based on physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral grounds. Several conservation efforts have been undertaken by foreign nations specifically to protect spotted seals. In 1978, Russia established the Far Eastern Marine Reserve in Russia's Peter the Great Bay. The islands of the Reserve provide protection from human disturbance and suitable haul-out sites for spotted seals. The vast majority of the Peter the Great Bay spotted seal population uses the Marine Reserve during the spring, particularly for breeding and molting. Protection of breeding and pupping areas resulting from the establishment of the Marine Reserve may have resulted in some growth of the population. However, this population is still vulnerable to other threats outside of the reserve, such as by-catch or poaching by fishermen. Other than a permit requirement for taking any marine mammal, there is apparently no special protection for spotted seals throughout the remainder of Russia. The South Korean government designated the spotted seal as a natural monument in 1982, an endangered species (criteria II) in 2004, and a protected species in 2007, while the Chinese government designated them as a protected species (criteria I) in 1988. In 1983, China's Liaoning provincial government banned the hunting of spotted seals, and in the early 1990s, two national protected areas were established for the protection of spotted seals in the Liaodong Bay area of China, including the Dalian National Spotted Seal Nature Reserve. However, as of 2004, no conservation action, public awareness or education programs have been carried out for the species in this region, and in 2006, the Dalian Nature Reserve's boundaries were adjusted to accommodate industrial development. So despite these protection efforts, the Liaodong Bay population continues to decline. There is no known information on spotted seals from North Korea, but it is unlikely that they are managed or protected there.
Within the Bering Sea ice front, spotted seals move east and west between U.S. and Russian waters. When the ice retreats, some individuals move Start Printed Page 53687to the Alaskan coast and others move to the Russian coast. Therefore, the seals in any breeding group cannot be considered to be subject solely to the management and regulatory mechanisms of either country, and a division of the population along this international boundary would not be logical. Within the Sea of Okhotsk, the spotted seal breeding concentrations are solely within Russian waters. Finally, the conservation status and management of habitat (e.g., designation of reserves) are sufficiently similar between the Liaodong Bay and Peter the Great Bay breeding concentrations that dividing them on the basis of the China-Russia-Korea boundaries is unwarranted. In summary, considerations of cross-boundary management and regulatory mechanisms do not outweigh or contradict the divisions proposed above based on physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral grounds.
Here evaluate the significance of each of the 3 potential DPSs identified above, considering each of the 4 factors as described above. In the Southern potential DPS, some unknown portion of the Yellow Sea breeding concentration whelps and nurses on shore and all or nearly all seals breeding in Peter the Great Bay apparently now do so as well. Pups born ashore have been observed to enter the water prior to weaning in Peter the Great Bay, a behavior that is not typical among pups born on ice. Although it is not clear how long these behaviors have been occurring within the southern segment of the species range, they may reflect responses or adaptations to changing conditions at the range extremes, and their uniqueness may provide insights about the resilience of the species to the effects of climate warming. The spotted seal is the only phocid inhabiting the waters of the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan (the southern potential DPS), whereas 4 to 5 phocid species overlap with the range of spotted seals in the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea. Loss of the Okhotsk DPS would result in a substantially large, central gap in the range of the species. This DPS contains three breeding areas extending over a vast area. Similarly, the loss of either the Southern or Bering Sea DPS would result in a substantial contraction of the overall extent of the overall extent of the range. The Bering Sea DPS contains three breeding areas, and the southern DPS contains two breeding areas. Both DPSs cover vast areas. None of the three segments under consideration for designation as DPSs could be considered to be the sole surviving naturally occurring unit of the taxon. All three segments are naturally occurring and the species is thought to inhabit its entire historic range.
The southern segment was distinguished from the other 2 potential DPSs primarily on the basis of its genetic composition. The genetic markers used for these studies are typically assumed to be selectively neutral, so the results do not indicate whether there is genetic variation between the populations that could be ecologically or evolutionarily significant. In sum, the Southern, Okhotsk, and Bering Sea population segments are discrete because they are markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors. They are significant because the loss of any of the three DPSs would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon and they differ markedly from each other in genetic characteristics, particularly the Southern population. Further, the southern DPS exists in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We are therefore proposing designation of these units as the Southern, Okhotsk, and Bering DPSs of the spotted seal (Figure 1).
Start Printed Page 53688
Start Printed Page 53689
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. These factors are discussed below with each DPS discussed sequentially under each factor. As mentioned above, because there is little or no information to support a quantitative assessment of the primary threats to spotted seals, our risk assessment was primarily qualitative and based upon expert opinion of the BRT members. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range
Regional sea ice thickness is difficult to quantify with current sensing methods, though there is evidence for thinning ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean declined during the past several decades, from both thinning of undeformed ice and loss of thick ridged ice. In contrast to the Arctic Ocean, where sea ice is present year-round, the ice in the sub-Arctic seas of the spotted seal breeding range is seasonal in nature. There are no reliable time series of ice thickness for the spotted seal range in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. The part of the thinning process in the Arctic that has been due to loss of multi-year ice is not a concern for these sub-Arctic seas that form only annual ice. Shorter ice-forming seasons in the future may produce thinner ice in situ than in the past, but a broad range of floe thicknesses would still be expected due to rafting and ridging processes. Despite the recent dramatic reductions in Arctic Ocean multi-year Start Printed Page 53690ice extent during summer, the seasonal ice in the Bering Sea is expected to continue forming annually during the winter for the foreseeable future. Although this projection is based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we recognize that it is fraught with uncertainty. We expect that the sea ice regime there will continue to be subject to large interannual variations in extent and seasonal duration, as it has throughout recorded history. There will likely be more frequent years in which ice coverage is reduced, resulting in a decline in the long-term average ice extent, but Bering Sea spotted seals will likely continue to encounter sufficient ice to support stable population growth rates for the foreseeable future. Much of the sea ice in the eastern and northern Bering Sea and the Chukchi Sea during spring is very densely compacted and heavily ridged, such that spotted seals are not found there in significant numbers during the breeding season. A decline in ice extent and thickness could conceivably result in new breeding habitat in such areas in the future, perhaps mitigating losses of previously-used habitat. Even if sea ice were to vanish completely from the Bering Sea, this population of spotted seals may adjust by relocating their breeding grounds to follow the northward shift of the annual ice front into the Chukchi Sea.
For the Sea of Okhotsk (Okhotsk DPS), and the Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea (Southern DPS), current global climate models for sea ice do not perform satisfactorily due to model deficiencies and the small size of the region compared to the spatial resolution of the climate models (Boveng et al., 2009). As a result, inferences about future ice conditions in these areas were drawn indirectly from projections of air or sea surface temperatures, and thus contain greater uncertainty than the projections for the Bering Sea. In the Southern DPS, ice thickness in the BoHai Sea and Peter the Great Bay is likely to depend more on the thickness of in situ formation because smaller wind fetches and shorter durations of ice cover would be expected to cause less ridging and rafting than in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. Thus, a decline in ice thickness may be of consequence to spotted seals in the Southern DPS, but is not likely to be a significant concern for the Okhotsk or Bering DPSs. We believe the loss of sea ice habitat is a significant factor with respect to the southern DPS of the spotted seal, even considering they have shown the ability to adapt to terrestrial sites. We do not find this factor to be significant in terms of the Okhotsk or Bering DPSs. Ocean acidification, a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, may impact spotted seal survival and recruitment through disruption of trophic regimes that are dependent on calcifying organisms. The nature and timing of such impacts are extremely uncertain. Because of spotted seals' apparent dietary flexibility, and acknowledging our present inability to predict the extent and consequences of acidification, we do not believe that this threat will cause any of the DPSs to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Changes in spotted seal prey, anticipated in response to ocean warming and loss of sea ice and, potentially, ocean acidification, have the potential for negative impacts, but the possibilities are complex. Some changes already documented in the Bering Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean are of a nature that could be beneficial to spotted seals. For example, several fish species, including walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), a common spotted seal prey, have shown northward distribution shifts and increased recruitment in response to warming, at least initially. These ecosystem responses may have very long lags as they propagate through trophic webs. Apparent flexibility in spotted seal foraging locations and habits may make these threats a lower risk than the more direct impacts from changes in sea ice.
Recreational, scientific, and educational utilization of spotted seals is currently at low levels and is not projected to increase to significant threat levels in the foreseeable future for any of the DPSs. Commercial harvests by Soviet sealers were at moderate levels from the mid-1950s to the early 1990s, typically not exceeding 10,000 or 15,000 at the most, annually. Russia has established harvest quotas up to 14,800 for spotted seals in recent years, though the 2008 quota was 6,200 and no quota was listed for 2009. However, the actual harvest has likely been less than a couple thousand individuals per year because it is not currently, and not likely to become, economically viable due to lack of a significant market for skins or other parts. Subsistence harvest levels have been moderate historically in both the Bering and Okhotsk DPS, and are not anticipated to increase significantly. Therefore this factor was rated low for all three DPSs. Diseases, parasites, and predation
Inadequacy or lack of stringency of mechanisms to regulate oil and gas activities in the Yellow Sea and Sea of Start Printed Page 53691Okhotsk could contribute to the cumulative risk faced by the Southern and Okhotsk DPSs. However, large oil spill events are infrequent, and the ability to respond to them depends on a variety of factors, including timing, location and weather. In light of the infrequency of those events and the absence of a declining population trend despite existing oil and gas activities, we believe such activities will not place or contribute to placing the spotted seal in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future in any of the three DPSs. Therefore this factor was rated low for all three DPSs.
Spotted Seals may be adversely affected by exposure to certain pollutants. Pollutants such as organochlorine compounds and heavy metals have been found in high concentrations in some Arctic. Butyltin (BT) compounds are used as antifouling agents in ship bottom paints. They are retained in all tissues, though largely in the liver rather than the blubber where PCBs and DDT accumulate. BTs have been found in spotted seals and some studies suggest marine mammals may have difficulty metabolizing these compounds. Research has also found persistent organochlorine pollutants (POPs), including flame retardant compounds like PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers); as well as DDTs (dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethanes), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and PFCs in spotted seals. We do not believe organochlorine levels are affecting ice seal populations at this time. We have no data or model predictions of levels expected in the foreseeable future. However, current levels should be used as a baseline for future research as concentrations in surrounding Arctic regions continue to rise. Climate change has the potential to increase the transport of pollutants from lower latitudes to the Arctic through changes in ocean current patterns, highlighting the importance of continuing to monitor spotted seal contaminant levels. As previously discussed, oil and gas activity has the potential for adverse impacts to spotted seals. Currently, there are no active offshore oil and gas developments in the U.S. Bering or Chukchi Seas. Therefore, the current risk for spotted seals to be impacted by an oil spill in U.S. waters is very low. As far as is known, spotted seals have not been affected by oil spilled as a result of industrial activities even though such spills have occurred in spotted seal habitat. Oil and gas development in the Sea of Okhotsk resulted in an oil spill in 1999, which released about 3.5 tons of oil. Also, in December 2007 approximately 2.8 million gallons (10,500 tons) of crude oil spilled into the Yellow Sea offshore of South Korea's Taean Peninsula from a tanker. The size of the oil spill was about one-fourth that of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, and was the largest in Korean history. It is unknown how many seals may have been affected by this spill. Incidences of oil spills are expected to increase with the on-going increase in oil and natural gas exploration/development activities in the Bohai and Yellow Seas. Accompanying growth in tanker and shipping traffic could further add to the oil spill potential. According to experts in China, the threat of future oil spills remains high.
Conservation Efforts When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation, or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes and organizations, local governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation measures. In addition to identifying these efforts, under the act and our policy implementing this provision (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) we must evaluate the certainty of an effort's effectiveness 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; is likely to be implemented, and is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing determination.
Several conservation efforts have been undertaken by foreign nations specifically to protect spotted seals. These include: (1) Russia has established the Far Eastern Marine Reserve in Russia's Peter the Great Bay. The islands of the Reserve provide protection from human disturbance and suitable haul-out sites for spotted seals; (2) China's Liaoning provincial government has banned the hunting of spotted seals, and established two national protected areas for the protection of spotted seals in the Liaodong Bay area, including the Dalian National Spotted Seal Nature Reserve. However, in 2006, the Dalian Nature Reserve's boundaries were adjusted to accommodate industrial development; (3) Spotted seals are listed in the Second Start Printed Page 53692Category (II) of the “State Key Protected Wildlife List” in China and listed as Vulnerable (V) in the “China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals”; (4) Spotted seals are categorized as Critically Endangered in the Yellow Sea, but this may be a misinterpretation; (5) The spotted seal is designated a vulnerable species under the Wildlife Conservation Act of China. However, as of 2004, no conservation action, public awareness or education programs have been carried out for the species in this region; and (6) In 2000, spotted seals were afforded protected status under the Wildlife Conservation Act of South Korea. Despite this protection, the Liaodong Gulf population, shared between China and Korea, continues to decline.
There are no known regulatory mechanisms that effectively address reductions in sea ice habitat at this time. The primary international regulatory mechanisms addressing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period only sets targets for action through 2012. There is no regulatory mechanism governing greenhouse gas emissions in the years beyond 2012. The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has not ratified it; therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States. Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms Several laws exist that directly or indirectly promote the conservation and protection of spotted seals. These include the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Based on our analysis of both international and domestic conservation efforts there is no certainty that these efforts will be effective in altering the status of any of the DPSs of spotted seals. Therefore, this analysis does not affect our determination of the extinction risk or ESA listing status of these DPSs. Based on the Extinction Risk Assessment and consideration of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations, we find that the Southern DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and should be listed as a threatened species ,and the Bering and Okhotsk DPSs are not in danger of extinction nor of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future, and do not qualify for listing.
As discussed above, there are few data to comprehensively identify the actual range of the spotted seal. The species is known to travel over 1,000 km in foraging trips, indicating there may be considerable overlap in the range of the three DPSs. For purposes of this analysis, we considered a more functional range as suggested by the status review and based on breeding populations. We considered subdivisions within the range of each DPS based on any known biological or physical basis using information presented in the status review. This Start Printed Page 53693indicated that, while certain geographical features could be identified as having significance in defining range, these features were pertinent to the identification of the three DPSs and were not of sufficient resolution to define any subdivision within any of the DPSs. The status review does, however, identify eight recognized breeding areas for the spotted seals. Each of these areas has some geographical distinction and many had significant biological distinction in terms of genetic information or behavior. Generally, spotted seals display a high degree of fidelity to breeding sites, making these areas a reasonable subdivision of the range of each DPS for this analysis. We next considered whether the population of spotted seals within each of these breeding areas might be threatened or endangered. The Bering DPS contains the Bering Sea, Gulf of Anadyr, and Karaginsky Bay breeding areas. The best scientific and commercial information available suggests the Bering DPS exceeds 100,000. No trend data are available. The total Bering Sea breeding area is reported to have a spotted seal population of approximately 100,000. We have no abundance information for the Gulf of Anadyr or Karaginsky Bay breeding areas. While we lack specific information on each of these subdivisions, the status review concluded that the Bering DPS has persisted at a large abundance level over the past decades with no extreme fluctuations. The consequences of the potential threats to the Bering Sea population, including from climate change, have been addressed in previous sections of this proposed rule, and we have no information that would lead to a different conclusion for any of the specific subdivisions of the Bering DPS. Therefore, the spotted seal is not considered to be threatened or endangered within any of the Bering DPS subdivisions. Accordingly, even if we were to assume that each subdivision constituted a significant portion of the range, the Bering DPS of the spotted seal would not be in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
We have identified the southern DPS to include breeding areas in Liaodong Bay and Peter the Great Bay. Both of these subdivisions are subject to high levels of shipping and have actual or potential value for oil production presenting the potential for oil spills. However there have been no significant adverse effects observed due to oil and gas development to date, and it is difficult to predict future consequences because of a lack of specific information on where and how these activities would occur. We would rate these factors as low for both subdivisions. Historic abundance in Peter the Great Bay is estimated at several thousand spotted seals, while the most current abundance figures are about 2,500, producing about 300 pups annually. The majority of these seals are now reproducing on shore rather than on ice. Because spotted seals in Peter the Great Bay do not appear to be significantly reduced and are breeding successfully on land (albeit at some increased risk due to the use of these terrestrial sites), we do not find this subdivision would warrant listing as threatened or endangered. Consideration of the other factors described in the Extinction Risk Analysis did not indicate the spotted seal population of the Peter the Great subdivision is not in danger of extinction nor of becoming endangered within the foreseeable future, and would not qualify for listing.
In summary, an analysis of the significant portions of the range of the identified DPSs of spotted seals does not lead to any changes from our listing recommendations. Listing Determinations
We have reviewed the status of the spotted seal, considering the best scientific and commercial data available. We have reviewed threats and other factors to the three DPSs, and given consideration to conservation efforts and special designations for spotted seals by states and foreign nations. In consideration of all of the threats and potential threats identified above, the assessment of the risks posed by those threats, the possible cumulative impacts, and the uncertainty associated with all of these, we draw the following conclusions: Okhotsk DPS: (1) Although accurate abundance and trend data are not available for this DPS, the best scientific and commercial data available indicates it contains more than 100,000 individuals with no strong evidence of a declining trend; (2) It is likely that reductions will occur in both the timing and extent of sea ice for this DPS; however, these changes cannot be accurately modeled and the consequences of diminished sea ice to Start Printed Page 53694the seals in these areas is speculative. For example, spotted seals have demonstrated an ability to adapt to terrestrial sites, and sea ice in the Sea of Okhotsk often extends past productive shelf waters. Therefore, it is possible that any diminished extent of ice here will place the ice edge over more productive feeding habitat for the seals. Consequently, despite the expectation of a gradual decline, the Okhotsk DPS is not presently in danger of extinction nor likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We conclude that listing them as threatened or endangered under the ESA is not warranted.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and applies to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we are obtaining independent peer review of the draft status report, which supports this proposal to list three DPSs of rockfish in Puget Sound and Georgia Basin as threatened or endangered; all peer reviewer comments will be addressed prior to dissemination of the final report and publication of the final rule. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the ESA
The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of our ESA listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities that will be considered likely to result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will not be considered likely to result in violation. Because the southern DPS occurs outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, we are presently unaware of any activities that could result in violation of section 9 of the ESA. Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is not to be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of United States jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Because the known distribution of the Southern DPS occurs in areas outside the Start Printed Page 53695jurisdiction of the United States, no critical habitat will be designated as part of the proposed listing actions.
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific directives for consultation in situations where a regulation will preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of those circumstances is applicable to this rule. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be found on our website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/​ and is available upon request from the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see ADDRESSES).
2. In § 223.102, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:
Species1Where ListedCitation(s) for listing determination(s)Citation(s) for critical habitat designation(s)Common nameScientific name* * * * * * *(3) Southern DPS - Spotted SealPhoca larghaThe southern DPS includes all breeding populations of spotted seals south of 43 degrees north latitude in the Pacific Ocean.[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE]NA* * * * * * *
3. In Subpart B of part 223, Add § 223.211 to read as follows:
§ 223.211
Southern DPS of Spotted Seal.
Prohibitions. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the Southern Distinct Population Segment of the Spotted Seal listed in § 223.102(a)(3).