[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77496-77515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30931]
[[Page 77496]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 101126591-0588-01]
RIN 0648-XZ58
Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened and Not
Warranted Status for Subspecies and Distinct Population Segments of the
Bearded Seal
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; status review;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of the
bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the bearded
seal as a threatened or endangered species. The bearded seal exists as
two subspecies: Erignathus barbatus nauticus and Erignathus barbatus
barbatus. Based on the findings from the status review report and
consideration of the factors affecting these subspecies, we conclude
that E. b. nauticus consists of two distinct population segments
(DPSs), the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS. Moreover, based on
consideration of information presented in the status review report, an
assessment of the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and efforts
being made to protect the species, we have determined the Beringia DPS
and the Okhotsk DPS are likely to become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of their ranges in the foreseeable future. We have
also determined that E. b. barbatus is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of
its range in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we are now issuing a
proposed rule to list the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the
bearded seal as threatened species. No listing action is proposed for
E. b. barbatus. We solicit comments on this proposed action. At this
time, we do not propose to designate critical habitat for the Beringia
DPS because it is not currently determinable. In order to complete the
critical habitat designation process, we solicit information on the
essential physical and biological features of bearded seal habitat for
the Beringia DPS.
DATES: Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be
received by close of business on February 8, 2011. Requests for public
hearings must be made in writing and received by January 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XZ58,
by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Fax: (907) 586-7557.
Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of the public record. No comments
will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov for public viewing until
after the comment period has closed. Comments will generally be posted
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
The proposed rule, maps, status review report and other materials
relating to this proposal can be found on the Alaska Region Web site
at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region,
(907) 271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7235; or Marta
Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD, (301) 713-
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2008, we initiated status
reviews of bearded, ringed (Phoca hispida), and spotted seals (Phoca
largha) under the ESA (73 FR 16617). On May 28, 2008, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list these three
species of seals as threatened or endangered under the ESA, primarily
due to concerns about threats to their habitat from climate warming and
loss of sea ice. The Petitioner also requested that critical habitat be
designated for these species concurrent with listing under the ESA.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) requires that when a petition to revise the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is found to present substantial
scientific and commercial information, we make a finding on whether the
petitioned action is (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted
but precluded from immediate proposal by other pending proposals of
higher priority. This finding is to be made within 1 year of the date
the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly
in the Federal Register.
After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition,
and other literature and information available in our files, we found
(73 FR 51615; September 4, 2008) that the petition met the requirements
of the regulations under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), and we determined that
the petition presented substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, we proceeded with the
status reviews of bearded, ringed, and spotted seals and solicited
information pertaining to them.
On September 8, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
alleging that we failed to make the requisite 12-month finding on its
petition to list the three seal species. Subsequently, the Court
entered a consent decree under which we agreed to finalize the status
review of the bearded seal (and the ringed seal) and submit this 12-
month finding to the Office of the Federal Register by December 3,
2010. Our 12-month petition finding for ringed seals is published as a
separate notice concurrently with this finding. Spotted seals were also
addressed in a separate Federal Register notice (75 FR 65239; October
22, 2010; see also, 74 FR 53683, October 20, 2009).
The status review report of the bearded seal is a compilation of
the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status
of the species, including the past, present, and future threats to this
species. The Biological Review Team (BRT) that prepared this report was
composed of eight marine mammal biologists, a fishery biologist, a
marine chemist, and a climate scientist from NMFS' Alaska and Northeast
Fisheries Science Centers, NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The status review report
underwent independent peer review by five scientists with expertise in
bearded
[[Page 77497]]
seal biology, Arctic sea ice, climate change, and ocean acidification.
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
There are two key tasks associated with conducting an ESA status
review. The first is to delineate the taxonomic group under
consideration; and the second is to conduct an extinction risk
assessment to determine whether the petitioned species is threatened or
endangered.
To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms
must constitute a ``species,'' which section 3(16) of the ESA defines
as ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment''
(DPS) is not commonly used in scientific discourse, so the USFWS and
NMFS developed the ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' to
provide a consistent interpretation of this term for the purposes of
listing, delisting, and reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). We describe and use this policy below to guide
our determination of whether any population segments of this species
meet the DPS criteria of the DPS policy.
The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as
``any species which is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The foreseeability of a species' future status is case
specific and depends upon both the foreseeability of threats to the
species and foreseeability of the species' response to those threats.
When a species is exposed to a variety of threats, each threat may be
foreseeable in a different timeframe. For example, threats stemming
from well-established, observed trends in a global physical process may
be foreseeable on a much longer time horizon than a threat stemming
from a potential, though unpredictable, episodic process such as an
outbreak of disease that may never have been observed to occur in the
species.
In the 2008 status review of the ribbon seal (Boveng et al., 2008;
see also 73 FR 79822, December 30, 2008), NMFS scientists used the same
climate projections used in our risk assessment here, but terminated
the analysis of threats to ribbon seals at 2050. One reason for that
approach was the difficulty of incorporating the increased divergence
and uncertainty in climate scenarios beyond that time. Other reasons
included the lack of data for threats other than those related to
climate change beyond 2050, and the fact that the uncertainty embedded
in the assessment of the ribbon seal's response to threats increased as
the analysis extended farther into the future.
Since that time, NMFS scientists have revised their analytical
approach to the foreseeability of threats and responses to those
threats, adopting a more threat-specific approach based on the best
scientific and commercial data available for each respective threat.
For example, because the climate projections in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Fourth Assessment Report extend
through the end of the century (and we note the IPCC's Fifth Assessment
Report, due in 2014, will extend even farther into the future), we used
those models to assess impacts from climate change through the end of
the century. We continue to recognize that the farther into the future
the analysis extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we
incorporated that limitation into our assessment of the threats and the
species' response. For other threats, where the best scientific and
commercial data does not extend as far into the future, such as for
occurrences and projections of disease or parasitic outbreaks, we
limited our analysis to the extent of such data. We believe this
approach creates a more robust analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.
Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
bearded seal is presented in the status review report (Cameron et al.,
2010; available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). The bearded seal
is the largest of the northern ice-associated seals, with typical adult
body sizes of 2.1-2.4 m in length and weight up to 360 kg. Bearded
seals have several distinctive physical features including a wide
girth; a small head in proportion to body size; long whiskers; and
square-shaped fore flippers. The life span of bearded seals is about
20-25 years.
Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution south of 85[deg] N.
latitude, extending south into the southern Bering Sea in the Pacific
and into Hudson Bay and southern Labrador in the Atlantic. Bearded
seals also occur in the Sea of Okhotsk south to the northern Sea of
Japan (Figure 1). Two subspecies of bearded seals are widely
recognized: Erignathus barbatus nauticus inhabiting the Pacific sector,
and Erignathus barbatus barbatus often described as inhabiting the
Atlantic sector (Rice, 1998). The geographic distributions of these
subspecies are not separated by conspicuous gaps. There are regions of
intergrading generally described as somewhere along the northern
Russian and central Canadian coasts (Burns, 1981; Rice, 1998).
Although the validity of the division into subspecies has been
questioned (Kosygin and Potelov, 1971), the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that the evidence discussed in the status review report for
retaining the two subspecies is stronger than any evidence for
combining them. The BRT defined geographic boundaries for the divisions
between the two subspecies, subject to the strong caveat that distinct
boundaries do not appear to exist in the actual populations; and
therefore, there is considerable uncertainty about the best locations
for the boundaries. The BRT defined 112[deg] W. longitude (i.e., the
midpoint between the Beaufort Sea and Pelly Bay) as the North American
delineation between the two subspecies (Figure 1). Following Heptner et
al. (1976), who suggested an east-west dividing line at Novosibirskiye,
the BRT defined 145[deg] E. longitude as the Eurasian delineation
between the two subspecies in the Arctic (Figure 1).
Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements
Bearded seals primarily feed on benthic organisms that are more
numerous in shallow water where light can reach the sea floor. As such,
the bearded seal's effective range is generally restricted to areas
where seasonal sea ice occurs over relatively shallow waters, typically
less than 200 m in depth (see additional discussion below).
Bearded seals are closely associated with sea ice, particularly
during the critical life history periods related to reproduction and
molting, and they can be found in a broad range of different ice types.
Sea ice provides the bearded seal and its young some protection from
predators during the critical life history periods of whelping and
nursing. It also allows molting bearded seals a dry platform to raise
skin temperature and facilitate epidermal growth, and is important
throughout the year as a platform for resting and perhaps
thermoregulation. Of the ice-associated seals in the Arctic, bearded
seals seem to be the least particular about the type and quality of ice
on which they are observed. Bearded seals generally prefer
[[Page 77498]]
ice habitat that is in constant motion and produces natural openings
and areas of open water, such as leads, fractures, and polynyas for
breathing, hauling out on the ice, and access to water for foraging.
They usually avoid areas of continuous, thick, shorefast ice and are
rarely seen in the vicinity of unbroken, heavy, drifting ice or large
areas of multi-year ice. Although bearded seals prefer sea ice with
natural access to the water, observations indicate that bearded seals
are able to make breathing holes in thinner ice.
Being so closely associated with sea ice, particularly pack ice,
the seasonal movements and distribution of bearded seals are linked to
seasonal changes in ice conditions. To remain associated with their
preferred ice habitat, bearded seals generally move north in late-
spring and summer as the ice melts and retreats, and then move south in
the fall as sea ice forms.
The region that includes the Bering and Chukchi Seas is the largest
area of continuous habitat for bearded seals. The Bering-Chukchi
Platform is a shallow intercontinental shelf that encompasses about
half of the Bering Sea, spans the Bering Strait, and covers nearly all
of the Chukchi Sea. Bearded seals can reach the bottom everywhere along
the shallow shelf, and so it provides them favorable foraging habitat.
The Bering and Chukchi Seas are generally covered by sea ice in late
winter and spring, and are mostly ice free in late summer and fall. As
the ice retreats in the spring most adult bearded seals in the Bering
Sea are thought to move north through the Bering Strait, where they
spend the summer and early fall at the southern edge of the Chukchi and
Beaufort Sea pack ice and at the wide, fragmented margin of multi-year
ice. A smaller number of bearded seals, mostly juveniles, remain near
the coasts of the Bering and Chukchi Seas for the summer and early
fall. As the ice forms again in the fall and winter, most seals move
south with the advancing ice edge through Bering Strait and into the
Bering Sea where they spend the winter.
There are fewer accounts of the seasonal movements of bearded seals
in other areas. Compared to the dramatic long range seasonal movements
of bearded seals in the Chukchi and Bering Seas, bearded seals are
considered to be relatively sedentary over much of the rest of their
range, undertaking more local movements in response to ice conditions.
These differences may simply be the result of the general persistence
of ice over shallow waters in the High Arctic. In the Sea of Okhotsk,
bearded seals remain in broken ice as the sea ice expands and retreats,
inhabiting the southern pack ice edge beyond the fast ice in winter and
moving north toward shore in spring and summer. In the White, Barents,
and Kara Seas, bearded seals also conduct seasonal migrations following
the ice edge, as may bearded seals in Baffin Bay. Excluded by shorefast
ice from much of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago during winter, bearded
seals are scattered throughout many of the inlets and fjords of this
region from July to October, though at least in some years, a portion
of the population is known to overwinter in a few isolated open water
areas north of Baffin Bay.
Throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are seldom
found on land. However, some adults in the Sea of Okhotsk, and more
rarely in a few other regions, use haul-out sites ashore in late summer
and early autumn until ice floes begin to appear at the coast. This is
most common in the western Sea of Okhotsk and along the coasts of
western Kamchatka where bearded seals form numerous shore rookeries
that can have tens to hundreds of individuals each.
Reproduction
In general, female and male bearded seals attain sexual maturity
around ages 5-6 and 6-7, respectively. Adult female bearded seals
ovulate after lactation, and are presumably then receptive to males.
Mating is believed to usually take place at the surface of the water,
but it is unknown if it also occurs underwater or on land or ice, as
observed in some other phocids. The social dynamics of mating in
bearded seals are not well known; however, theories regarding their
mating system have centered around serial monogamy and promiscuity, and
on the nature of competition among breeding males to attract and gain
access to females. Bearded seals vocalize during the breeding season,
with a peak in calling during and after pup rearing. Male vocalizations
are believed to advertise mate quality to females, signal competing
males of a claim on a female, or proclaim a territory.
During the winter and spring, as sea ice begins to break up,
perinatal females find broken pack ice over shallow areas on which to
whelp, nurse young, and molt. A suitable ice platform is likely a
prerequisite to whelping, nursing, and rearing young (Heptner et al.,
1976; Burns, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992; Lydersen and Kovacs, 1999;
Kovacs, 2002). Because bearded seals whelp on ice, populations have
likely adapted their phenology to the ice regimes of the regions that
they inhabit. Wide-ranging observations of pups generally indicate
whelping occurs from March to May with a peak in April, but there are
considerable geographical differences in reported timing, which may
reflect real variation, but that may also result from inconsistent
sighting efforts across years and locations. Details on the spatial
distribution of whelping can be found in section 2.5.1 of the status
review report.
Females bear a single pup that averages 33.6 kg in mass and 131.3
cm in length. Pups begin shedding their natal (lanugo) coats in utero,
and they are born with a layer of subcutaneous fat. These
characteristics are thought to be adaptations to entering the water
soon after birth as a means of avoiding predation.
Females with pups are generally solitary, tending not to aggregate.
Pups enter the water immediately after or within hours of birth. Pups
nurse on the ice, and by the time they are a few days old they spend
half their time in the water. Recent studies using recorders and
telemetry on pups have reported a lactation period of about 24 days, a
transition to diving and more efficient swimming, mother-guided
movements of greater than 10 km, and foraging while still under
maternal care.
Detailed studies on bearded seal mothers show they forage
extensively, diving shallowly (less than 10 m), and spending only about
10 percent of their time hauled out with pups and the remainder nearby
at the surface or diving. Despite the relative independence of mothers
and pups, their bond is described as strong, with females being
unusually tolerant of threats in order to remain or reunite with pups.
A mixture of crustaceans and milk in the stomachs of pups indicates
that independent foraging occurs prior to weaning, at least in some
areas.
Molting
Adult and juvenile bearded seals molt annually, a process that in
mature phocid seals typically begins shortly after mating. Bearded
seals haul out of the water more frequently during molting, a behavior
that facilitates higher skin temperatures and may accelerate shedding
and regrowth of hair and epidermis. Though not studied in bearded
seals, molting has been described as diffuse, with individuals
potentially shedding hair throughout the year but with a pulse in the
spring and summer. This is reflected in the wide range of estimates for
the timing of molting, though these estimates are also based on
irregular observations.
The need for a platform on which to haul out and molt from late
spring to mid-summer, when sea ice is rapidly melting and retreating,
may necessitate movement for bearded seals between
[[Page 77499]]
habitats for breeding and molting. In the Sea of Okhotsk, the spatial
distribution of bearded seals is similar between whelping and molting
seasons so only short movements occur. In contrast, bearded seals that
whelp and mate in the Bering Sea migrate long distances to summering
grounds at the ice edge in the Chukchi Sea, a period of movement that
coincides with the observed timing of molting. Similar migrations prior
to and during the molting period have been presumed for bearded seals
in the White and southeastern Barents Seas to more easterly and
northern areas of the Barents Sea, where ice persists through the
summer. Also during the interval between breeding and molting, passive
movements on ice over large distances have been postulated between the
White and Barents Seas, and from there further east to the Kara Sea. A
post-breeding migration of bearded seals to molting grounds has also
been postulated to occur from the southern Laptev Sea westward into the
eastern Kara Sea. In some locations where bearded seals use terrestrial
haul-out sites seasonally, the molting period overlaps with this use.
However, the molting phenology of bearded seals on shore is unknown.
Food Habits
Bearded seals are considered to be foraging generalists because
they have a diverse diet with a large variety of prey items throughout
their circumpolar range. Bearded seals feed primarily on a variety of
invertebrates and some fishes found on or near the sea bottom. They are
also able to switch their diet to include schooling pelagic fishes when
advantageous. The bulk of the diet appears to consist of relatively few
prey types, primarily bivalve mollusks and crustaceans like crabs and
shrimps. However, fishes like sculpins, Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida),
polar cod (Arctogadus glacialis), or saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis)
can also be a significant component. There is conflicting evidence
regarding the importance of fish in the bearded seal diet throughout
its range. Several studies have found high frequencies of fishes in the
diet, but it is not known whether major consumption of fish is related
to the availability of prey resources or the preferential selection of
prey. Seasonal changes in diet composition have been observed
throughout the year. For example, clams and fishes have been reported
as more important in spring and summer months than in fall and winter.
Species Delineation
The BRT reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available
on the bearded seal's taxonomy and concluded that there are two widely
recognized subspecies of bearded seals: Erignathus barbatus barbatus,
often described as inhabiting the Atlantic sector of the seal's range;
and Erignathus barbatus nauticus, inhabiting the Pacific sector of the
range. Distribution maps published by Burns (1981) and Kovacs (2002)
provide the known northern and southern extents of the distribution. As
discussed above, the BRT defined geographic boundaries for the
divisions between the two subspecies (Figure 1), subject to the strong
caveat that distinct boundaries do not appear to exist in the actual
populations. Our DPS analysis follows.
Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) two elements
are considered when evaluating whether a population segment qualifies
as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the
species or subspecies to which it belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
If a population segment is considered to be discrete under one or
both of the above conditions, its biological and ecological
significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated in light of
the ESA's legislative history indicating that the authority to list
DPSs be used ``sparingly,'' while encouraging the conservation of
genetic diversity (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session).
This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the
discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the
range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its
historic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
If a population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a
DPS) its evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based
on the ESA's definitions of those terms and a review of the factors
enumerated in section 4(a)(1).
Evaluation of Discreteness
The range of the bearded seal occurs in cold, seasonally or
annually ice-covered Arctic and subarctic waters, without persistent
intrusions of warm water or other conditions that would pose potential
physiological barriers. Furthermore, the seasonal timings of
reproduction and molting vary little throughout the bearded seal's
distribution, suggesting that there are no obvious ecological
separation factors.
The underwater vocalizations of males during the breeding season
recorded in Alaskan, Canadian, and Norwegian waters are often more
similar between adjacent geographical regions than between more distant
sites, suggesting that bearded seals may have strong fidelity to
specific breeding sites. However, these observed differences in
vocalizations may be due to other factors such as ecological influences
or sexual selection, and not to distance or geographic barriers.
Bearded seals are known to make seasonal movements of greater than
1,000 km, and so only very large geographical barriers would have the
potential by themselves to maintain discreteness between breeding
concentrations. As primarily benthic feeders, bearded seals may be
constrained to relatively shallow waters and so expanses of deep water
may also pose barriers to movement.
Erignathus barbatus nauticus: Given the bearded seal's circumpolar
distribution and their ability to travel long distances, it is
difficult to imagine that land masses pose a significant barrier to the
movement of this subspecies, with one exception: The great southerly
extent of the Kamchatka Peninsula. The seasonal ice does not extend
south to the tip of that peninsula, and the continental shelf is very
narrow along its eastern Bering Sea coast. The seals' affinity for ice
and shallow waters may help to confine bearded seals to their
respective sea basins in the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Heptner et al.
(1976) and Krylov et al. (1964) described a typical annual pattern of
bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk to be one of staying near the ice
edge when ice is present, and then moving north and closer to shore as
the
[[Page 77500]]
ice recedes in summer. Unlike other researchers describing tendencies
of the species as a whole, Krylov et al. (1964) described the bearded
seal as more or less sedentary, based primarily on observations of
seals in the Sea of Okhotsk. Indeed, published maps indicate that the
southeastern coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula is the only location
where the distribution of the bearded seal is not contiguous (Burns,
1981; Kovacs, 2002; Blix, 2005), and there are no known records of
bearded seals moving between the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea.
Kosygin and Potelov (1971) conducted a study of craniometric and
morphological differences between bearded seals in the White, Barents,
and Kara Seas, and bearded seals in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.
They reported differences in measurements between the three regions,
although they suggested that the differences were not significant
enough to justify dividing the population into subspecies. Fedoseev
(1973, 2000) also suggested that differences in the numbers of lip
vibrissae as well as length and weight indicate population structure
between the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Thus, under the first factor for
determining discreteness, the BRT concluded, and we concur, that the
available evidence indicates the discreteness of two population
segments: (1) The Sea of Okhotsk, and (2) the remainder of the range of
E. b. nauticus, hereafter referred to as the Beringia population
segment. Considerations of cross-boundary management do not outweigh or
contradict the division proposed above based on biological grounds. In
all countries in the range of the Beringia segment (Russia, United
States, and Canada) annual harvest rates are considered small relative
to the local populations and harvest is assumed to have little impact
on abundance. In addition, if the Kamchatka Peninsula serves as a
geographic barrier, the entire population of bearded seals in the Sea
of Okhotsk may lie entirely within Russian jurisdiction.
Erignathus barbatus barbatus: The Greenland and Norwegian Seas,
which separate northern Europe and Russia from Greenland, form a very
deep basin that could potentially act as a type of physical barrier to
a primarily benthic feeder. Risch et al. (2007) described distinct
differences in male vocalizations at breeding sites in Svalbard and
Canada; however, they also suggested that ecological influences or
sexual selection, and not a geographical feature restricting gene flow,
could be the cause of these differences. Gjertz et al. (2000) described
at least one pup known to travel from Svalbard nearly to the Greenland
coast across Fram Strait, and Davis et al. (2008) failed to find a
significant difference between populations on either side of the
Greenland Sea. Both of these studies suggest that the expanse of deep
water is apparently not a geographic barrier to bearded seals. However,
it should be noted that not all of the DNA samples used in the study by
Davis et al. (2008) were collected during the time of breeding, and so
might not reflect the potential for additional genetic discreteness if
discrete breeding groups disperse and mix during the non-breeding
period. When considered altogether, the BRT concluded, and we concur,
that subdividing E. b. barbatus into two or more DPSs is not warranted
because the best scientific and commercial data available does not
indicate that the populations are discrete.
The core range of the bearded seal includes the waters of five
countries (Russia, United States, Canada, Greenland, and Norway) with
management regimes sufficiently similar that considerations of cross-
boundary management and regulatory mechanisms do not support a positive
discreteness determination. In addition, in all countries in the range
of E. b. barbatus, annual harvest rates are considered small relative
to the local populations and harvest is assumed to have little impact
on abundance. Since we conclude that the E. b. barbatus populations are
not discrete, we do not address whether they would be considered
significant.
Evaluation of Significance
Having concluded that E. b. nauticus is composed of two discrete
segments, here we review information that the BRT found informative for
evaluating the biological and ecological significance of these
segments.
Throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are rarely
found on land (Kovacs, 2002). However, some adults in the Sea of
Okhotsk, and more rarely in Hudson Bay (COSEWIC, 2007), the White,
Laptev, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (Heptner et al., 1976;
Burns, 1981; Nelson, 1981; Smith, 1981), and Svalbard (Kovacs and
Lydersen, 2008) use haul-out sites ashore in late summer and early
autumn. In these locations, sea ice either melts completely or recedes
beyond the limits of shallow waters where seals are able to feed (Burns
and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981). By far the largest and most numerous and
predictable of these terrestrial haul-out sites are in the Sea of
Okhotsk, where they are distributed continuously throughout the bearded
seal range, and may comprise tens to more than a thousand individuals
(Scheffer, 1958; Tikhomorov, 1961; Krylov et al., 1964; Chugunkov,
1970; Tavrovskii, 1971; Heptner et al., 1976; Burns, 1981). Indeed, the
Sea of Okhotsk is the only portion of the range of E. b. nauticus
reported to have any such aggregation of adult haul-out sites (Fay,
1974; Burns and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981; Nelson, 1981). Although it is
not clear for how long bearded seals have exhibited this haul-out
behavior, its commonness is unique to the Sea of Okhotsk, possibly
reflecting responses or adaptations to changing conditions at the range
extremes. This difference in haul-out behavior may also provide
insights about the resilience of the species to the effects of climate
warming in other regions.
The Sea of Okhotsk covers a vast area and is home to many thousands
of bearded seals. Similarly, the range of the Beringia population
segment includes a vast area that provides habitat for many thousands
of bearded seals. Loss of either segment of the subspecies' range would
result in a substantially large gap in the overall range of the
subspecies.
The existence of bearded seals in the unusual or unique ecological
setting found in the Sea of Okhotsk, as well as the fact that loss of
either the Okhotsk or Beringia segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of the taxon, support our conclusion that the Beringia
and Okhotsk population segments of E. b. nauticus are each significant
to the subspecies as a whole.
DPS Conclusions
In summary, the Beringia and Okhotsk population segments of E. b.
nauticus are discrete because they are markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors. They are significant
because the loss of either of the two DPSs would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the Okhotsk DPS exists
in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We
therefore conclude that these two population segments meet both the
discreteness and significance criteria of the DPS policy. We consider
these two population segments to be DPSs (the Beringia DPS and the
Okhotsk DPS) (Figure 1).
[[Page 77501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE10.090
Abundance and Trends
No accurate worldwide abundance estimates exist for bearded seals.
Several factors make it difficult to accurately assess the bearded
seal's abundance and trends. The remoteness and dynamic nature of their
sea ice habitat, time spent below the surface and their broad
distribution and seasonal movements make surveying bearded seals
expensive and logistically challenging. Additionally, the species'
range crosses political boundaries, and there has been limited
international cooperation to conduct range-wide surveys. Details of
survey methods and data are often limited or have not been published,
making it difficult to judge the reliability of the reported numbers.
Logistical challenges also make it difficult to collect the necessary
behavioral data to make proper adjustments to seal counts. Until very
recently, no suitable behavioral data have been available to correct
for the proportion of seals in the water at the time of surveys.
Research is just beginning to address these limitations, and so current
and accurate abundance estimates are not yet available. We make
estimates based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
combining recent and historical data.
Beringia DPS
Data analyzed from aerial surveys conducted in April and May 2007
produced an abundance estimate of 63,200 bearded seals in an area of
81,600 sq km in the eastern Bering Sea (Ver Hoef et al., 2010). This is
a partial estimate for bearded seals in the U.S. waters of the Bering
Sea because the survey area did not include some known bearded seal
habitat in the eastern Bering Sea and north of St. Lawrence Island. The
estimate is similar in magnitude to the western Bering Sea estimates
reported by Fedoseev (2000) from surveys in 1974-1987, which ranged
from 57,000 to 87,000. The BRT considers the current total Bering Sea
bearded seal population to be about double the partial estimate
reported by Ver Hoef et al. (2010) for U.S. waters, or approximately
125,000 individuals.
[[Page 77502]]
Aerial surveys flown along the coast from Shishmaref to Barrow
during May-June 1999 and 2000 provided average annual bearded seal
density estimates. A crude abundance estimate based on these densities,
and without any correction for seals in the water, is 13,600 bearded
seals. These surveys covered only a portion (U.S. coastal) of the
Chukchi Sea. Assuming that the waters along the Chukchi Peninsula on
the Russian side of the Chukchi Sea contain similar numbers of bearded
seals, the combined total would be about 27,000 individuals.
Aerial surveys of the eastern Beaufort Sea conducted in June during
1974-1979, provided estimates that averaged 2,100 bearded seals,
uncorrected for seals in the water. The ice-covered continental shelf
of the western Beaufort Sea is roughly half the area surveyed,
suggesting a crude estimate for the entire Beaufort Sea in June of
about 3,150, uncorrected for seals in the water. For such a large area
in which the subsistence use of bearded seals is important to Alaska
Native and Inuvialuit communities, this number is likely to be a
substantial underestimate. A possible explanation is that many of the
subsistence harvests of bearded seals in this region may occur after a
rapid seasonal influx of seals from the Bering and Chukchi Seas in the
early summer, later than the period in which the surveys were flown.
In the East Siberian Sea, Obukhov (1974) described bearded seals as
rare, but present during July-September, based on year-round
observations (1959-1965) of a region extending about 350 km east from
the mouth of the Kolyma River. Typically, one bearded seal was seen
during 200-250 km of travel. Geller (1957) described the zone between
the Kola Peninsula and Chukotka as comparatively poor in marine mammals
relative to the more western and eastern portions of the northern
Russian coasts. We are not aware of any other information about bearded
seal abundance in the East Siberian Sea.
Although the present population size of the Beringia DPS is very
uncertain, based on these reported abundance estimates, the current
population size is estimated at 155,000 individuals.
Okhotsk DPS
Fedoseev (2000) presented multiple years of unpublished seal survey
data from 1968 to 1990; however, specific methodologies were not
provided for any of the surveys or analyses. Most of these surveys were
designed primarily for ringed and ribbon seals, as they were more
abundant and of higher commercial value. Recognizing the sparse
documentation of the survey methods and data, as well as the 20 years
or more that have elapsed since the last survey, the BRT recommends
considering the 1990 estimate of 95,000 individuals to be the current
estimated population size of the Okhotsk DPS.
Erignathus barbatus barbatus
Cleator (1996) suggested that a minimum of 190,000 bearded seals
inhabit Canadian waters based on summing the different available
indices for bearded seal abundance. The BRT recommends considering the
current bearded seal population in Hudson Bay, the Canadian
Archipelago, and western Baffin Bay to be 188,000 individuals. This
value was chosen based on the estimate for Canadian waters of 190,000,
minus 2,000 to account for the average number estimated to occur in the
Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea (which is part of the E. b.
nauticus subspecies). There are few estimates of abundance available
for other parts of the range of E. b. barbatus, and there is sparse
documentation of the methods used to produce these estimates.
Consequently, the BRT considered all regional estimates for E. b.
barbatus to be unreliable, except for those in Canadian waters. The
population size of E. b. barbatus is therefore very uncertain, but NMFS
experts estimate it to be 188,000 individuals.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Bearded Seal
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine,
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or
threatened because of any one or a combination of the following
factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence. These factors are discussed below, with the Beringia DPS,
the Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. barbatus considered under each factor. The
reader is also directed to section 4.2 of the status review report for
a more detailed discussion of the factors affecting bearded seals (see
ADDRESSES). As discussed above, data on bearded seal abundance and
trends of most populations are unavailable or imprecise, and there is
little basis for quantitatively linking projected environmental
conditions or other factors to bearded seal survival or reproduction.
Our risk assessment therefore primarily evaluated important habitat
features and was based upon the best available scientific and
commercial data and the expert opinion of the BRT members.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The main concern about the conservation status of bearded seals
stems from the likelihood that their sea ice habitat has been modified
by the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the
foreseeable future. A second concern, related by the common driver of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, is the modification of
habitat by ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and
other important aspects of the marine ecosystem. A reliable assessment
of the future conservation status of bearded seals therefore requires a
focus on observed and projected changes in sea ice, ocean temperature,
ocean pH (acidity), and associated changes in bearded seal prey
species.
The threats (analyzed below) associated with impacts of the warming
climate on the habitat of bearded seals, to the extent that they may
pose risks to these seals, are expected to manifest throughout the
current breeding and molting range (for sea ice related threats) or
throughout the entire range (for ocean warming and acidification) of
each of the population units, since the spatial resolution of data
pertaining to these threats is currently limited.
Overview of Global Climate Change and Effects on the Annual Formation
of the Bearded Seal's Sea Ice Habitat
Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere can be divided into first-year
sea ice that formed in the most recent autumn-winter period, and multi-
year sea ice that has survived at least one summer melt season. The
Arctic Ocean is covered by a mix of multi-year sea ice. More southerly
regions, such as the Bering Sea, Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay,
and the Sea of Okhotsk are known as seasonal ice zones, where first
year sea ice is renewed every winter. Both the observed and the
projected effects of a warming global climate are most extreme in
northern high-latitude regions, in large part due to the ice-albedo
feedback mechanism in which melting of snow and sea ice lowers
reflectivity and thereby further increases surface warming by
absorption of solar radiation.
[[Page 77503]]
Sea ice extent at the end of summer (September) 2007 in the Arctic
Ocean was a record low (4.3 million sq km), nearly 40 percent below the
long-term average and 23 percent below the previous record set in 2005
(5.6 million sq km) (Stroeve et al., 2008). Sea ice extent in September
2010 was the third lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind
2007 and 2008 (second lowest). Most of the loss of sea ice was on the
Pacific side of the Arctic. Of even greater long-term significance was
the loss of over 40 percent of Arctic multi-year sea ice over the last
5 years (Kwok et al., 2009). While the annual minimum of sea ice extent
is often taken as an index of the state of Arctic sea ice, the recent
reductions of the area of multi-year sea ice and the reduction of sea
ice thickness is of greater physical importance. It would take many
years to restore the ice thickness through annual growth, and the loss
of multi-year sea ice makes it unlikely that the Arctic will return to
previous climatological conditions. Continued loss of sea ice will be a
major driver of changes across the Arctic over the next decades,
especially in late summer and autumn.
Sea ice and other climatic conditions that influence bearded seal
habitats are quite different between the Arctic and seasonal ice zones.
In the Arctic, sea ice loss is a summer feature with a delay in freeze
up occurring into the following fall. Sea ice persists in the Arctic
from late fall through mid-summer due to cold and dark winter
conditions. Sea ice variability is primarily determined by radiation
and melting processes during the summer season. In contrast, the
seasonal ice zones are free of sea ice during summer. The variability
in extent, thickness, and other sea ice characteristics important to
marine mammals is determined primarily by changes in the number,
intensity, and track of winter and spring storms in the sub-Arctic.
Although there are connections between sea ice conditions in the Arctic
and the seasonal ice zones, the early loss of summer sea ice in the
Arctic cannot be extrapolated to the seasonal ice zones, which are
behaving differently than the Arctic. For example, the Bering Sea has
had 4 years of colder than normal winter and spring conditions from
2007 to 2010, with near record sea ice extents, rivaling the sea ice
maximum in the mid-1970s, despite record retreats in summer.
IPCC Model Projections
The analysis and synthesis of information presented by the IPCC in
its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) represents the scientific consensus
view on the causes and future of climate change. The IPCC AR4 used a
range of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced under six
``marker'' scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
(SRES) (IPCC, 2000) to project plausible outcomes under clearly-stated
assumptions about socio-economic factors that will influence the
emissions. Conditional on each scenario, the best estimate and likely
range of emissions were projected through the end of the 21st century.
It is important to note that the SRES scenarios do not contain explicit
assumptions about implementation of agreements or protocols on emission
limits beyond current mitigation policies and related sustainable
development practices.
Conditions such as surface air temperature and sea ice area are
linked in the IPCC climate models to GHG emissions by the physics of
radiation processes. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it
has a long residence time and is only slowly removed by ocean
absorption and other processes. Based on IPCC AR4 climate models,
expected global warming--defined as the change in global mean surface
air temperature (SAT)--by the year 2100 depends strongly on the assumed
emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. By contrast, warming out to
about 2040-2050 will be primarily due to emissions that have already
occurred and those that will occur over the next decade. Thus,
conditions projected to mid-century are less sensitive to assumed
future emission scenarios. Uncertainty in the amount of warming out to
mid-century is primarily a function of model-to-model differences in
the way that the physical processes are incorporated, and this
uncertainty can be addressed in predicting ecological responses by
incorporating the range in projections from different models.
Comprehensive Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs)
are the major objective tools that scientists use to understand the
complex interaction of processes that determine future climate change.
The IPCC used the simulations from about two dozen AOGCMs developed by
17 international modeling centers as the basis for the AR4 (IPCC,
2007). The AOGCM results are archived as part of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project-Phase 3 (CMIP3) at the Program for Climate
Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). The CMIP3 AOGCMs provide
reliable projections, because they are built on well-known dynamical
and physical principles, and they simulate quite well many large scale
aspects of present-day conditions. However, the coarse resolution of
most current climate models dictates careful application on small
scales in heterogeneous regions.
There are three main contributors to divergence in AOGCM climate
projections: Large natural variations, the range in emissions
scenarios, and across-model differences. The first of these,
variability from natural variation, can be incorporated by averaging
the projections over decades, or, preferably, by forming ensemble
averages from several runs of the same model. The second source of
variation arises from the range in plausible emissions scenarios. As
discussed above, the impacts of the scenarios are rather similar before
mid-21st century. For the second half of the 21st century, however, and
especially by 2100, the choice of the emission scenario becomes the
major source of variation among climate projections and dominates over
natural variability and model-to-model differences (IPCC, 2007).
Because the current consensus is to treat all SRES emissions scenarios
as equally likely, one option for representing the full range of
variability in potential outcomes would be to project from any model
under all of the six ``marker'' scenarios. This can be impractical in
many situations, so the typical procedure for projecting impacts is to
use an intermediate scenario, such as A1B or B2 to predict trends, or
one intermediate and one extreme scenario (e.g., A1B and A2) to
represent a significant range of variability. The third primary source
of variability results from differences among models in factors such as
spatial resolution. This variation can be addressed and mitigated in
part by using the ensemble means from multiple models.
There is no universal method for combining AOGCMs for climate
projections, and there is no one best model. The approach taken by the
BRT for selecting the models used to project future sea ice conditions
is summarized below.
Data and Analytical Methods
NMFS scientists have recognized that the physical basis for some of
the primary threats faced by the species had been projected, under
certain assumptions, through the end of the 21st century, and that
these projections currently form the most widely accepted version of
the best available data about future conditions. In our risk assessment
for bearded seals, we therefore considered the full 21st century
projections to analyze the threats stemming from climate change.
The CMIP3 (IPCC) model simulations used in the BRT analyses were
obtained from PCMDI on-line (PCMDI, 2010). The
[[Page 77504]]
six IPCC models previously identified by Wang and Overland (2009) as
performing satisfactorily at reproducing the magnitude of the observed
seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in the Arctic under the A1B
(``medium'') and A2 (``high'') emissions scenarios were used to project
monthly sea ice concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere in March-July
for each of the decadal periods 2025-2035, 2045-2055, and 2085-2095.
Climate models generally perform better on continental or larger
scales, but because habitat changes are not uniform throughout the
hemisphere, the six IPCC models used to project sea ice conditions in
the Northern Hemisphere were further evaluated independently on their
performance at reproducing the magnitude of the observed seasonal cycle
of sea ice extent in 12 different regions throughout the bearded seal's
range, including five regions for the Beringia DPS, one region for the
Okhotsk DPS, and six regions for E. b. barbatus. Models that met the
performance criteria were used to project sea ice extent for the months
of November and April-July through 2100. For the Beringia DPS, in two
regions (Chukchi and east Siberian Seas) six of the models simulated
sea ice conditions in reasonable agreement with observations, in two
regions (Beaufort and eastern Bering Seas) four models met the
performance criteria, and in the western Bering Sea a single model met
the performance criteria. For E. b. barbatus, none of the models
performed satisfactorily in six of the seven regions (a single model
was retained in the Barents Sea). The models also did not meet the
performance criteria for the Sea of Okhotsk. Other less direct means of
predicting regional ice cover, such as comparison of surface air
temperature predictions with past climatology (Sea of Okhotsk),
evaluation of other existing analyses (Hudson Bay) or results from the
hemispheric predictions (the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay,
Greenland Sea, and the Kara and Laptev Seas), were used for regions
where ice projections could not be obtained. For Hudson Bay we referred
to the analysis of Joly et al. (2010). They used a regional sea ice-
ocean model to investigate the response of sea ice and oceanic heat
storage in the Hudson Bay system to a climate-warming scenario. These
predicted regional sea ice conditions are summarized below in assessing
the potential impacts of changes in sea ice on bearded seals.
While our inferences about future regional ice conditions are based
upon the best available scientific and commercial data, we recognize
that there are uncertainties associated with predictions based on
hemispheric projections or indirect means. We also note that judging
the timing of onset of potential impacts to bearded seals is
complicated by the coarse resolution of the IPCC models.
Northern Hemisphere Predictions
Projections of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent for November
indicate a major delay in fall freeze-up by 2050 north of Alaska and in
the Barents Sea. By 2090, the average sea ice concentration is below 50
percent in the Russian Arctic and some models show a nearly ice free
Arctic, except for the region of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In
March and April, winter type conditions persist out to 2090. There is
some reduction of sea ice by 2050 in the outer portions of the seasonal
ice zones, but the sea ice south of Bering Strait, eastern Barents Sea,
Baffin Bay, and the Kara and Laptev Seas remains substantial. May shows
diminishing sea ice cover at 2050 and 2090 in the Barents and Bering
Seas and Sea of Okhotsk. The month of June begins to show substantial
changes as the century progresses. Current conditions occasionally
exhibit a lack of sea ice near the Bering Strait by June. By 2050,
however, this sea ice loss becomes a major feature, with open water
continuing along the northern Alaskan coast in most models. Open water
in June spreads to the East Siberian Shelf by 2090. The eastern Barents
Sea experiences a reduction in sea ice between 2030 and 2050. The
models indicate that sea ice in Baffin Bay will be affected very little
until the end of the century.
In July, the Arctic Ocean shows a marked effect of global warming,
with the sea ice retreating to a central core as the century
progresses. The loss of multi-year sea ice over the last 5 years has
provided independent evidence for this conclusion. By 2050, the
continental shelves of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas
are nearly ice free in July, with ice concentrations less than 20
percent in the ensemble mean projections. The Kara and Laptev Seas also
show a reduction of sea ice in coastal regions by mid-century in most
but not all models. The Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the adjacent
Arctic Ocean north of Canada and Greenland, however, are predicted to
become a refuge for sea ice through the end of the century. This
conclusion is supported by typical Arctic wind patterns, which tend to
blow onshore in this region. Indeed, this refuge region is why sea ice
scientists use the phrase: A nearly sea ice free summer Arctic by mid-
century.
Potential Impacts of Changes in Sea Ice on Bearded Seals
In order to feed on the seafloor, bearded seals are known to nearly
always occupy shallow waters (Fedoseev, 2000; Kovacs, 2002). The
preferred depth range is often described as less than 200 m (Kosygin,
1971; Heptner et al., 1976; Burns and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981;
Fedoseev, 1984; Nelson et al., 1984; Kingsley et al., 1985; Fedoseev,
2000; Kovacs, 2002), though adults have been known to dive to around
300 m (Kovacs, 2002; Cameron and Boveng, 2009), and six of seven pups
instrumented near Svalbard have been recorded at depths greater than
488 m (Kovacs, 2002). The BRT defined the core distribution of bearded
seals (e.g., whelping, nursing, breeding, molting, and most feeding) as
those areas of known extent that are in water less than 500 m deep.
An assessment of the risks to bearded seals posed by climate change
must consider the species' life-history functions, how they are linked
with sea ice, and how altering that link will affect the vital rates of
reproduction and survival. The main functions of sea ice relating to
the species' life-history are: (1) A dry and stable platform for
whelping and nursing of pups in April and May (Kovacs et al., 1996;
Atkinson, 1997); (2) a rearing habitat that allows mothers to feed and
replenish energy reserves lost while nursing; (3) a habitat that allows
a pup to gain experience diving, swimming, and hunting with its mother,
and that provides a platform for resting, relatively isolated from most
terrestrial and marine predators; (4) a habitat for rutting males to
hold territories and attract post-lactating females; and (5) a platform
suitable for extended periods of hauling out during molting.
Whelping and nursing: Pregnant females are considered to require
sea ice as a dry birthing platform (Kovacs et al., 1996; Atkinson,
1997). Similarly, pups are thought to nurse only while on ice. If
suitable ice cover is absent from shallow feeding areas during whelping
and nursing, bearded seals would be forced to seek either sea ice
habitat over deeper water or coastal regions in the vicinity of haul-
out sites on shore. A shift to whelping and nursing on land would
represent a major behavioral change that could compromise the ability
of bearded seals, particularly pups, to escape predators, as this is a
highly developed response on ice versus land. Further, predators abound
on continental shorelines, in contrast with
[[Page 77505]]
sea ice habitat where predators are sparse; and small islands where
predators are relatively absent offer limited areas for whelping and
nursing as compared to the more extensive substrate currently provided
by suitable sea ice.
Bearded seal mothers feed throughout the lactation period,
continuously replenishing fat reserves lost while nursing pups
(Holsvik, 1998; Krafft et al., 2000). Therefore, the presence of a
sufficient food resource near the nursing location is also important.
Rearing young in poorer foraging grounds would require mothers to
forage for longer periods and (or) compromise their own body condition,
both of which could impact the transfer of energy to offspring and
affect survival of pups, mothers, or both.
Pup maturation: When not on the ice, there is a close association
between mothers and pups, which travel together at the surface and
during diving (Lydersen et al, 1994; Gjertz et al., 2000; Krafft et
al., 2000). Pups develop diving, swimming, and foraging skills over the
nursing period, and perhaps beyond (Watanabe et al., 2009). Learning to
forage in a sub-optimal habitat could impair a pup's ability to learn
effective foraging skills, potentially impacting its long-term
survival. Further, hauling out reduces thermoregulatory demands which,
in Arctic climates, may be critical for maintaining energy balance.
Hauling out is especially important for growing pups, which have a
disproportionately large skin surface and rate of heat loss in the
water (Harding et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2010).
Mating: Male bearded seals are believed to establish territories
under the sea ice and exhibit complex acoustic and diving displays to
attract females. Breeding behaviors are exhibited by males up to
several weeks in advance of females' arrival at locations to give
birth. Mating takes place soon after females wean their pups. The
stability of ice cover is believed to have influenced the evolution of
this mating system.
Molting: There is a peak in the molt during May-June, when most
bearded seals (except young of the year) tend to haul out on ice to
warm their skin. Molting in the water during this period could incur
energetic costs which might reduce survival rates.
For any of these life history events, a greater tendency of bearded
seals to aggregate while hauled out on land or in reduced ice could
increase intra- and inter-specific competition for resources, the
potential for disease transmission, and predation; all of which could
affect annual survival rates. In particular, a reduction in suitable
sea ice habitat would likely increase the overlap in the distribution
of bearded seals and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), another ice-associated
benthic feeder with similar habitat preferences and diet. The walrus is
also a predator of bearded seal, though seemingly infrequent. Hauling
out closer to shore or on land could also increase the risks of
predation from polar bears, terrestrial carnivores, and humans.
For a long-lived and abundant animal with a large range, the
mechanisms identified above (i.e., low ice extent or absence of sea ice
over shallow feeding areas) are not likely to be significant to an
entire population in any one year. Rather, the overall strength of the
impacts is likely a function of the frequency of years in which they
occur, and the proportion of the population's range over which they
occur. The low ice years, which will occur more frequently than in the
past, may have impacts on recruitment via reduced pup survival if, for
example, pregnant females are ineffective or slow at adjusting their
breeding locales for variability of the position of the sea ice front.
Potential mechanisms for resilience on relatively short time scales
include adjustments to the timing of breeding in response to shorter
periods of ice cover, and adjustments of the breeding range in response
to reduced ice extent. The extent to which bearded seals might adapt to
more frequent years with early ice melt by shifting the timing of
reproduction is uncertain. There are many examples of shifts in timing
of reproduction by pinnipeds and terrestrial mammals in response to
body condition and food availability. In most of these cases, sub-
optimal conditions led to reproduction later in the season, a response
that would not likely be beneficial to bearded seals. A shift to an
earlier melt date may, however, over the longer term provide selection
pressure for an evolutionary response over many generations toward
earlier reproduction.
It is impossible to predict whether bearded seals would be more
likely to occupy ice habitats over the deep waters of the Arctic Ocean
basin or more terrestrial habitats if sea ice failed to extend over the
shelf. Outside the critical life history periods related to
reproduction and molting there is evidence that bearded seals might not
require the presence of sea ice for hauling out, and instead remain in
the water for weeks or months at a time. Even during the spring and
summer bearded seals also appear to possess some plasticity in their
ability to occupy different habitats at the extremes of their range.
For example, throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are
seldom found on land; however, in the Sea of Okhotsk, bearded seals are
known to use haul-out sites ashore regularly and predictably during the
ice free periods in late summer and early autumn. Also, western and
central Baffin Bay are unique among whelping areas as mothers with
dependent pups have been observed on pack ice over deep water (greater
than 500 m). These behaviors are extremely rare in the core
distributions of bearded seals; therefore, the habitats that
necessitate them should be considered sub-optimal. Consequently,
predicted reductions in sea ice extent, particularly when such
reductions separate ice from shallow water feeding habitats, can be
reasonably used as a proxy for predicting years of reduced survival and
recruitment, though not the magnitude of the impact. In addition, the
frequency of predicted low ice years can serve as a useful tool for
assessing the cumulative risks posed by climate change.
Assessing the potential impacts of the predicted changes in sea ice
cover and the frequency of low ice years on the conservation status of
bearded seals requires knowledge or assumptions about the relationships
between sea ice and bearded seal vital rates. Because no quantitative
studies of these relationships have been conducted, we relied upon two
studies in the Bering Sea that estimated bearded seal preference for
ice concentrations based on aerial survey observations of seal
densities. Simpkins et al. (2003) found that bearded seals near St.
Lawrence Island in March preferred 70-90 percent ice coverage, as
compared with 0-70 percent and 90-100 percent. Preliminary results from
another study in the Bering Sea (Ver Hoef et al., In review) found
substantially lower probability of bearded seal occurrence in areas of
0-25 percent ice coverage during April-May. Lacking a more direct
measure of the relationship between bearded seal vital rates and ice
coverage, we considered areas within the current core distribution of
bearded seals where the decadal averages and minimums of ice
projections (centered on the years 2050 and 2090) were below 25 percent
concentrations as inadequate for whelping and nursing. We also assumed
that the sea ice requirements for molting in May-June are less
stringent than those for whelping and rearing pups, and that 15 percent
ice concentration in June would be minimally sufficient for molting.
[[Page 77506]]
Beringia DPS: In the Bering Sea, early springtime sea ice habitat
for bearded seal whelping should be sufficient in most years through
2050 and out to the second half of the 21st century, when the average
ice extent in April is forecasted to be approximately 50 percent of the
present-day extent. The general trend in projections of sea ice for May
(nursing, rearing and some molting) through June (molting) in the
Bering Sea is toward a longer ice-free period resulting from more rapid
spring melt. Until at least the middle of the 21st century, projections
show some years with near-maximum ice extent; however, less ice is
forecasted on average, manifested as more frequent years in which the
spring retreat occurs earlier and the peak ice extent is lower. By the
end of the 21st century, projections for the Bering Sea indicate that
there will commonly be years with little or no ice in May, and that sea
ice in June is expected to be non-existent in most years.
Projections of sea ice concentration indicate that there will
typically be 25 percent or greater ice concentration in April-May over
a substantial portion of the shelf zone in the Bering Sea through 2055.
By 2095 ice concentrations of 25 percent or greater are projected only
in small zones of the Gulf of Anadyr and in the area between St.
Lawrence Island and Bering Strait by May. In the minimal ice years the
projections indicate there will be little or no ice of 25 percent or
greater concentration over the shelf zone in the Bering Sea during
April and May, perhaps commencing as early as the next decade.
Conditions will be particularly poor for the molt in June when typical
ice predictions suggest less than 15 percent ice by mid-century.
Projections suggest that the spring and summer ice edge could retreat
to deep waters of the Arctic Ocean basin, potentially separating sea
ice suitable for pup maturation and molting from benthic feedings
areas.
In the East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, the average ice
extents during April and May (i.e., the period of whelping, nursing,
mating and some molting) are all predicted to be very close to
historical averages out to the end of the 21st century. However, the
annual variability of this extent is forecasted to continue to
increase, and single model runs indicate the possibility of a few years
in which April and May sea ice would cover only half (or in the case of
the Chukchi Sea, none) of the Arctic shelf in these regions by the end
of the century. In June, also a time of molting, the average sea ice
extent is predicted to cover no more than half of the shelf in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas by the end of the century. By the end of the
century, the East Siberian Sea is not projected to experience losses in
ice extent of these magnitudes until July.
The projections indicate that there will typically be 25 percent or
greater ice concentration in April-June over the entire shelf zones in
the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas through the end of the
century. In the minimal ice years 25 percent or greater ice
concentration is projected over the shelf zones in April and May in
these regions through the end of the century, except in the eastern
Chukchi and central Beaufort Seas. By June 2095, ice suitable for
molting (i.e., 15 percent or more concentration) is projected to be
mostly absent in these regions in minimal years, except in the western
Chukchi Sea and northern East Siberian Sea.
A reduction in spring and summer sea ice concentrations could
conceivably result in the development of new areas containing suitable
habitat or enhancement of existing suboptimal habitat. For example, the
East Siberian Sea has been said to be relatively low in bearded seal
numbers and has historically had very high ice concentrations and long
seasonal ice coverage. Ice concentrations projected for May-June near
the end of the century in this region include substantial areas with
20-80 percent ice, potentially suitable for bearded seal reproduction,
molting, and foraging. However, it is prudent to assume that the net
difference between sea ice related habitat creation and loss will be
negative, especially because other factors like ocean warming and
acidification (discussed below) are likely to impact habitat.
A substantial portion of the Beringia DPS currently whelps in the
Bering Sea, where a longer ice-free period is forecasted in May and
June. To adapt to this sea ice regime, bearded seals would likely have
to shift their nursing, rearing, and molting areas to the ice covered
seas north of the Bering Strait, potentially with poor access to food,
or to coastal haul-out sites on shore, potentially with increased risks
of disturbance, predation, and competition. Both of these scenarios
would require bearded seals to adapt to novel (i.e., suboptimal)
conditions, and to exploit habitats to which they may not be well
adapted, likely compromising their reproduction and survival rates.
Further, the spring and summer ice edge may retreat to deep waters of
the Arctic Ocean basin, which could separate sea ice suitable for pup
maturation and molting from benthic feeding areas. Accordingly, we
conclude that the projected changes in sea ice habitat pose significant
threats to the persistence of the Beringia DPS, and it is likely to
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Okhotsk DPS: As noted above, none of the IPCC models performed
satisfactorily at projecting sea ice for the Sea of Okhotsk, and so
projected surface air temperatures were examined relative to current
climate conditions as a proxy to predict sea ice extent and duration.
The Sea of Okhotsk is located southwest of the Bering Sea, and thus can
be expected to have earlier radiative heating in the spring. The region
is dominated in winter and spring, however, by cold continental air
masses and offshore flow. Sea ice is formed rapidly and is generally
advected southward. As this region is dominated by cold air masses for
much of the winter and spring, we would expect that the present
seasonal cycle of first year sea ice will continue to dominate the
future habitat of the Sea of Okhotsk.
Based on the temperature proxies, a continuation of sea ice
formation or presence is expected for March (some whelping and nursing)
in the Sea of Okhotsk through the end of this century, though the ice
may be limited to the northern region in most years after mid-century.
However, little to no sea ice is expected in May by 2050, and in April
by the end of the century, months critical for whelping, nursing, pup
maturation, breeding, and molting. Hence, the most significant threats
posed to the Okhotsk DPS were judged to be decreases in sea ice habitat
suitable for these important life history events.
Over the long term, bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk do not have
the prospect of following a shift in the average position of the ice
front northward. Therefore, the question of whether a future lack of
sea ice will cause the Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals to go extinct
depends in part on how successful the populations are at moving their
reproductive activities from ice to haul-out sites on shore. Although
some bearded seals in this area are known to use land for hauling out,
this only occurs in late summer and early autumn. We are not aware of
any occurrence of bearded seals whelping or nursing young on land, so
this predicted loss of sea ice is expected to be significantly
detrimental to the long term viability of the population. We conclude
that the expected changes in sea ice habitat pose a significant threat
to the Okhotsk DPS and it is likely to become an endangered species in
the
[[Page 77507]]
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
E. b. barbatus: The models predict that ice in April-June will
continue to persist in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago throughout this
century. Even in the low ice years at the end of the century, the many
channels throughout the archipelago are still expected to contain ice.
Predictions for Baffin Bay were similar, showing April-June ice
concentrations near historical levels out to 2050. Sea ice cover and
extent is predicted to diminish somewhat during the last half of the
century, but average conditions should still provide sufficient ice for
the life history needs of bearded seals. At least until the end of the
21st century, some ice is always predicted along eastern Greenland in
April and May. In June, however, the low ice concentrations in minimum
years will not be sufficient for molting.
Joly et al. (2010) used a regional sea ice-ocean model and air
temperature projections to predict sea ice conditions in Hudson Bay out
to 2070. Compared to present averages, the extent of sea ice in April
is expected to change very little by 2070, though reductions of 20
percent in June ice and 60 percent in July ice are expected by 2070.
The authors also predict that sea ice in Hudson Bay would become up to
50 percent thinner over this time, though this would still likely
provide enough buoyancy for bearded seals.
Projections of sea ice extent for the Barents Sea indicate that ice
in April will continue to decline in a relatively constant linear trend
throughout the 21st century. The trend for May declines faster,
predicting half as much ice by 2050, and less than a quarter as much
ice by 2090. The White Sea (a southern inlet of the Barents Sea) is
forecast to be ice-free in May by 2050. The trend in ice loss for June
is faster still, predicting that ice will all but disappear in the
Barents Sea region in the next few decades. Whelping is believed to
occur in the drifting pack ice throughout the Barents Sea.
Concentrations of mothers with pups have been observed in loose pack
ice along several hundred kilometers of the seasonal ice edge from
southern Svalbard to the north-central Barents Sea. Observations also
suggest whelping occurs in the White Sea, with lower densities of pups
reported in the central and southern White Sea and in the western Kara
Sea. Bearded seals in the Barents Sea are believed to conduct seasonal
migrations following the ice edge. The impacts of an ice-free Barents
Sea would depend largely on the ability of bearded seals to relocate to
more ice covered waters. However, there is little or no basis to
determine the likelihood of this occurring.
Although sea ice has covered the Kara and Laptev Seas throughout
most of the year in the past, a west-to-east reduction in the
concentration of springtime sea ice is predicted over the next century.
By the end of the century, in some years half of the Kara Sea could be
ice free in May, and in June by mid-century. In most years however, ice
(albeit in low concentrations) is forecasted to cover the Kara Sea
shelf. Similarly, out to the end of the century, the Laptev Sea is
predicted to always have springtime ice. In July, by century's end,
significant portions of both seas are predicted to be ice free in most
years. Unlike most regions, the peak of molting in these seas is
reportedly well into July (Chapskii, 1938; Heptner et al., 1976), so
bearded seals in these areas would need to modify the location or
timing of their molt to avoid the consequences of increased metabolism
by molting in the water and/or incomplete molting. Bearded seals in the
White and Laptev Seas are known to occasionally haul out on shore
during late-summer and early-autumn (Heptner et al., 1976). This
behavior could mitigate the impacts of an ice-free July.
Bearded seals are considered rare in the Laptev Sea (Heptner et
al., 1976), which currently has extremely high concentrations of ice
throughout most of the year. As such, an effect of global warming may
well be to increase suitable haul-out habitat for bearded seals in the
Kara and Laptev Seas, potentially offsetting to some extent a decrease
of habitat further west. It is prudent to assume, though, that the net
difference between sea ice related habitat creation and loss will be
negative, especially because other factors like ocean warming and
acidification (discussed below) are likely to impact habitat and there
is no information about the quality of feeding habitat that may
underlie the haul-out habitat in the future.
Given the projected reductions in spring and summer sea ice, the
threat posed to E. b. barbatus by potential spatial separation of sea
ice resting areas from benthic feeding habitat appears to be moderate
to high (but lower than for the Beringia DPS). A decline in sea ice
suitable for molting also appears to pose a moderate threat. If
suitable sea ice is absent during molting, bearded seals would have to
relocate to other ice-covered waters, potentially with poorer access to
food, or to coastal regions in the vicinity of haul-out sites on shore.
Further, these behavioral changes could increase the risks of
disturbance, predation, and competition. Both scenarios would require
bearded seals to adapt to novel (i.e., suboptimal) conditions, and to
exploit habitats to which they may not be well adapted, likely
compromising their survival rates.
Nevertheless, conditions during April-June should still provide
sufficient ice for the life history needs of bearded seals within major
portions of the range of E. b. barbatus through the end of this
century, including in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay, and
Hudson Bay. The BRT estimated that 188,000 bearded seals occur in these
areas. We therefore conclude the threats posed by the projected changes
in sea ice habitat are not likely to place E. b. barbatus in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also analyzed whether E. b. barbatus is threatened or endangered
within a significant portion of its range. To address this issue, we
first considered whether the subspecies is threatened in any portion of
its range and then whether that portion is significant. We find that
the greatest threats posed by the projected changes in sea ice habitat
are in the Barents, White, and Kara Seas. As discussed above, by 2090
the Barents Sea is predicted to show a loss in sea ice of more than 75
percent in May, and to be virtually ice-free in June and July. The
White Sea, a southern inlet of the Barents Sea, is forecast to be ice-
free in May by 2050. In addition, half of the Kara Sea is expected to
be ice-free in May by 2090, and in June by 2050. We noted above that
the BRT considered all regional estimates of abundance for E. b.
barbatus to be unreliable, except those in Canadian waters. We
similarly have no information on the relative significance of these
regions to bearded seals. We do not, however, have any information
indicating that these areas are significant to the subspecies' biology,
ecology, or general conservation needs. These areas do not appear to
contain particularly high-quality habitat for bearded seals, or to have
characteristics that would make bearded seals less susceptible to the
threats posed by climate change (i.e., contribute significantly to the
resilience of the subspecies). By contrast, the large habitat areas in
Hudson Bay, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and Baffin Bay, which
support an estimated 188,000 bearded seals, are expected to persist
through the end of the century. Accordingly, we conclude that E. b.
barbatus is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
in a significant portion of its range.
[[Page 77508]]
Impacts on Bearded Seals Related to Changes in Ocean Conditions
Ocean acidification is an ongoing process whereby chemical
reactions occur that reduce both seawater pH and the concentration of
carbonate ions when CO2 is absorbed by seawater. Results
from global ocean CO2 surveys over the past 2 decades have
shown that ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising
atmospheric CO2 levels. The process of ocean acidification
has long been recognized, but the ecological implications of such
chemical changes have only recently begun to be appreciated. The waters
of the Arctic and adjacent seas are among the most vulnerable to ocean
acidification. The most likely impact of ocean acidification on bearded
seals will be through the loss of benthic calcifiers and lower trophic
levels on which the species' prey depends. Cascading effects are likely
both in the marine and freshwater environments. Our limited
understanding of planktonic and benthic calcifiers in the Arctic (e.g.,
even their baseline geographical distributions) means that future
changes will be difficult to detect and evaluate.
Warming of the oceans is predicted to drive species ranges toward
higher latitudes. Additionally, climate change can strongly influence
fish distribution and abundance. What can be predicted with some
certainty is that further shifts in spatial distribution and northward
range extensions are inevitable, and that the species composition of
the plankton and fish communities will continue to change under a
warming climate.
Bearded seals of different age classes are thought to feed at
different trophic levels, so any ecosystem change could be expected to
impact bearded seals in a variety of ways. Changes in bearded seal
prey, anticipated in response to ocean warming and loss of sea ice and,
potentially, ocean acidification, have the potential for negative
impacts, but the possibilities are complex. These ecosystem responses
may have very long lags as they propagate through trophic webs. Because
of bearded seals' apparent dietary flexibility, these threats are of
less concern than the direct effects of potential sea ice degradation.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Subsistence, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
Recreational, scientific, and educational utilization of bearded
seals is currently at low levels and is not expected to increase to
significant threat levels in the foreseeable future. The solitary
nature of bearded seals has made them less suitable for commercial
exploitation than many other seal species. Still, they may have been
depleted by commercial harvests in some areas of the Sea of Okhotsk and
the Bering, Barents, and White Seas during the mid-20th century. There
is currently no significant commercial harvest of bearded seals and
significant harvests seem unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Bearded seals have been a very important species for subsistence of
indigenous people in the Arctic for thousands of years. The current
subsistence harvest is substantial in some areas, but there is little
or no evidence that subsistence harvests have or are likely to pose
serious risks to the species. Climate change is likely to alter
patterns of subsistence harvest of marine mammals by changing their
densities or distributions in relation to hunting communities.
Predictions of the impacts of climate change on subsistence hunting
pressure are constrained by the complexity of the interacting variables
and imprecision of climate and sea models at small scales. Accurate
information on both harvest levels and species' abundance and trends
will be needed in order to assess the impacts of hunting as well as to
respond appropriately to potential climate-induced changes in
populations. We conclude that overutilization does not currently
threaten the Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, or E. b. barbatus.
C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation
A variety of diseases and parasites have been documented to occur
in bearded seals. The seals have likely co-evolved with many of these
and the observed prevalence is typical and similar to other species of
seals. The transmission of many known diseases of pinnipeds is often
facilitated by animals crowding together and by the continuous or
repeated occupation of a site. The pack ice habitat and the more
solitary behavior of bearded seals may therefore limit disease
transmission. Other than at shore-based haul-out sites in the Sea of
Okhotsk in summer and fall, bearded seals do not crowd together and
rarely share small ice floes with more than a few other seals, so
conditions that would favor disease transmission do not exist for most
of the year. Abiotic and biotic changes to bearded seal habitat
potentially could lead to exposure to new pathogens or new levels of
virulence, but we consider the potential threats to bearded seals as
low.
Polar bears are the primary predators of bearded seals. Other
predators include brown bears (Ursus arctos), killer whales (Orcinus
orca), sharks, and walruses. Predation under the future scenario of
reduced sea ice is difficult to assess. Polar bear predation may
decrease, but predation by killer whales, sharks, and walrus may
increase. The range of plausible scenarios is large, making it
impossible to predict the direction or magnitude of the net impact on
bearded seal mortality.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
A primary concern about the conservation status of the bearded seal
stems from the likelihood that its sea ice habitat has been modified by
the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the
foreseeable future. A second major concern, related by the common
driver of CO2 emissions, is the modification of habitat by
ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and other
important aspects of the marine ecosystem. There are currently no
effective mechanisms to regulate GHG emissions, which are contributing
to global climate change and associated modifications to bearded seal
habitat. The risk posed to bearded seals due to the lack of mechanisms
to regulate GHG emissions is directly correlated to the risk posed by
the effects of these emissions. The projections we used to assess risks
from GHG emissions were based on the assumption that no regulation will
take place (the underlying IPPC emissions scenarios were all ``non-
mitigated'' scenarios). Therefore, the lack of mechanisms to regulate
GHG emissions is already included in our risk assessment. We recognize
that the lack of effective mechanisms to regulate global GHG emissions
is contributing to the risks posed to bearded seals by these emissions.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Pollution and Contaminants
Research on contaminants and bearded seals is limited compared to
the extensive information available for ringed seals. Pollutants such
as organochlorine compounds (OC) and heavy metals have been found in
most bearded seal populations. The variety, sources, and transport
mechanisms of the contaminants vary across the bearded seal's range,
but these compounds appear to be ubiquitous in the Arctic marine food
chain. Statistical analysis of OCs in marine mammals has
[[Page 77509]]
shown that, for most OCs, the European Arctic is more contaminated than
the Canadian and U.S. Arctic. Present and future impacts of
contaminants on bearded seal populations should remain a high priority
issue. Climate change has the potential to increase the transport of
pollutants from lower latitudes to the Arctic, highlighting the
importance of continued monitoring of bearded seal contaminant levels.
Oil and Gas Activities
Extensive oil and gas reserves coupled with rising global demand
make it very likely that oil and gas activity will increase throughout
the U.S. Arctic and internationally in the future. Climate change is
expected to enhance marine access to offshore oil and gas reserves by
reducing sea ice extent, thickness, and seasonal duration, thereby
improving ship access to these resources around the margins of the
Arctic Basin. Oil and gas exploration, development, and production
activities include, but are not limited to: seismic surveys;
exploratory, delineation, and production drilling operations;
construction of artificial islands, causeways, ice roads, shore-based
facilities, and pipelines; and vessel and aircraft operations. These
activities have the potential to impact bearded seals, primarily
through noise, physical disturbance, and pollution, particularly in the
event of a large oil spill or blowout.
Within the range of the bearded seal, offshore oil and gas
exploration and production activities are currently underway in the
United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. In the United
States, oil and gas activities have been conducted off the coast of
Alaska since the 1970s, with most of the activity occurring in the
Beaufort Sea. Although five exploratory wells have been drilled in the
past, no oil fields have been developed or brought into production in
the Chukchi Sea to date. In December 2009, an exploration plan was
approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (formerly the Minerals Management Service) for drilling at
five potential sites within three prospects in the Chukchi Sea in 2010.
These plans have been put on hold until at least 2011 pending further
review following the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are no offshore oil or gas fields currently in development or
production in the Bering Sea.
Of all the oil and gas produced in the Arctic today, about 80
percent of the oil and 99 percent of the gas comes from the Russian
Arctic (AMAP, 2007). With over 75 percent of known Arctic oil, over 90
percent of known Arctic gas, and vast estimates of undiscovered oil and
gas reserves, Russia will continue to be the dominant producer of
Arctic oil and gas in the future (AMAP, 2007). Oil and gas developments
in the Kara and Barents Seas began in 1992, and large-scale production
activities were initiated during 1998-2000. Oil and gas production
activities are expected to grow in the western Siberian provinces and
Kara and Barents Seas in the future. Recently there has also been
renewed interest in the Russian Chukchi Sea, as new evidence emerges to
support the notion that the region may contain world-class oil and gas
reserves. In the Sea of Okhotsk, oil and natural gas operations are
active off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, and future
developments are planned in the western Kamchatka and Magadan regions.
Large oil spills or blowouts are considered to be the greatest
threat of oil and gas exploration activities in the marine environment.
In contrast to spills on land, large spills at sea are difficult to
contain and may spread over hundreds or thousands of kilometers.
Responding to a spill in the Arctic environment would be particularly
challenging. Reaching a spill site and responding effectively would be
especially difficult, if not impossible, in winter when weather can be
severe and daylight extremely limited. Oil spills under ice or in ice-
covered waters are the most challenging to deal with, simply because
they cannot be contained or recovered effectively with current
technology. The difficulties experienced in stopping and containing the
oil blowout at the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico, where
environmental conditions and response preparedness are comparatively
good, point toward even greater challenges of attempting a similar feat
in a much more environmentally severe and geographically remote
location.
Although planning, management, and use of best practices can help
reduce risks and impacts, the history of oil and gas activities,
including recent events, indicates that accidents cannot be eliminated.
Tanker spills, pipeline leaks, and oil blowouts are likely to occur in
the future, even under the most stringent regulatory and safety
systems. In the Sea of Okhotsk, an accident at an oil production
complex resulted in a large (3.5 ton) spill in 1999, and in winter
2009, an unknown quantity of oil associated with a tanker fouled 3 km
of coastline and hundreds of birds in Aniva Bay. To date, there have
been no large spills in the Arctic marine environment from oil and gas
activities.
Researchers have suggested that pups of ice-associated seals may be
particularly vulnerable to fouling of their dense lanugo coat. Though
bearded seal pups exhibit some prenatal molting, they are generally not
fully molted at birth, and thus would be particularly prone to physical
impacts of contacting oil. Adults, juveniles, and weaned young of the
year rely on blubber for insulation, so effects on their
thermoregulation are expected to be minimal. Other acute effects of oil
exposure which have been shown to reduce seal's health and possibly
survival include skin irritation, disorientation, lethargy,
conjunctivitis, corneal ulcers, and liver lesions. Direct ingestion of
oil, ingestion of contaminated prey, or inhalation of hydrocarbon
vapors can cause serious health effects including death.
It is important to evaluate the effects of anthropogenic
perturbations, such as oil spills, in the context of historical data.
Without historical data on distribution and abundance, it is difficult
to predict the impacts of an oil spill on bearded seals. Population
monitoring studies implemented in areas where significant industrial
activities are likely to occur would allow for comparison of future
impacts with historical patterns, and thus to determine the magnitude
of potential effects.
In summary, the threats to bearded seals from oil and gas
activities are greatest where these activities converge with breeding
aggregations or in migration corridors such as in the Bering Strait. In
particular, bearded seals in ice-covered remote regions are most
vulnerable to oil and gas activities, primarily due to potential oil
spill impacts.
Commercial Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch
Commercial fisheries may impact bearded seals through direct
interactions (i.e., incidental take or bycatch) and indirectly through
competition for prey resources and other impacts on prey populations.
Estimates of bearded seal bycatch could only be found for commercial
fisheries that operate in Alaska waters. Based on data from 2002-2006,
there has been an annual average of 1.0 mortalities of bearded seals
incidental to commercial fishing operations. Although no information
could be found regarding bearded seal bycatch in the Sea of Okhotsk,
given the intensive levels of commercial fishing that occur in this
[[Page 77510]]
sea, bycatch of bearded seals likely occurs there as well.
For indirect impacts, we note that commercial fisheries target a
number of known bearded seal prey species, such as walleye pollock
(Theragra chalcogramma) and cod. These fisheries may affect bearded
seals indirectly through reduction in prey biomass and through other
fishing mediated changes in their prey species. Bottom trawl fisheries
also have the potential to indirectly affect bearded seals through
destruction or modification of benthic prey and/or their habitat.
Shipping
The extraordinary reduction in Arctic sea ice that has occurred in
recent years has renewed interest in using the Arctic Ocean as a
potential waterway for coastal, regional, and trans-Arctic marine
operations. Climate models predict that the warming trend in the Arctic
will accelerate, causing the ice to begin melting earlier in the spring
and resume freezing later in the fall, resulting in an expansion of
potential shipping routes and lengthening the potential navigation
season.
The most significant risk posed by shipping activities to bearded
seals in the Arctic is the accidental or illegal discharge of oil or
other toxic substances carried by ships, due to their immediate and
potentially long-term effects on individual animals, populations, food
webs, and the environment. Shipping activities can also affect bearded
seals directly through noise and physical disturbance (e.g.,
icebreaking vessels), as well as indirectly through ship emissions and
possible effects of introduction of exotic species on the lower trophic
levels of bearded seal food webs.
Current and future shipping activities in the Arctic pose varying
levels of threats to bearded seals depending on the type and intensity
of the shipping activity and its degree of spatial and temporal overlap
with bearded seal habitats. These factors are inherently difficult to
know or predict, making threat assessment highly uncertain. Most ships
in the Arctic purposefully avoid areas of ice and thus prefer periods
and areas which minimize the chance of encountering ice. This
necessarily mitigates many of the risks of shipping to populations of
bearded seals, since they are closely associated with ice throughout
the year. Icebreakers pose special risks to bearded seals because they
are capable of operating year-round in all but the heaviest ice
conditions and are often used to escort other types of vessels (e.g.,
tankers and bulk carriers) through ice-covered areas. If icebreaking
activities increase in the Arctic in the future as expected, the
likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., oil spills, pollution, noise,
disturbance, and habitat alteration) occurring in ice-covered areas
where bearded seals occur will likely also increase.
The potential threats and general threat assessment in the Sea of
Okhotsk are largely the same as they are in the Arctic, though with
less detail available regarding the spatial and temporal correspondence
of ships and bearded seals, save one notable exception. Though noise
and oil pollution from vessels are expected to have the same general
relevance in the Sea of Okhotsk, oil and gas activities near Sakhalin
Island are currently at high levels and poised for another major
expansion of the offshore oil fields that would require an increasing
number of tankers. About 25 percent of the Okhotsk bearded seal
population uses this area during whelping and molting, and as a
migration corridor (Fedoseev, 2000).
The main aggregations of bearded seals in the northern Sea of
Okhotsk are likely within the commercial shipping routes, but vessel
frequency and timing relative to periods when seals are hauled out on
ice are presently unknown. Some ports are kept open year-round by
icebreakers, largely to support year-round fishing, so there is greater
probability here of spatial and temporal overlaps with bearded seals
hauled out on ice. In a year with reduced ice, bearded seals were more
concentrated close to shore (Fedoseev, 2000), suggesting that seals
could become increasingly prone to shipping impacts as ice diminishes.
As is the case with the Arctic, a quantitative assessment of actual
threats and impacts in the Sea of Okhotsk is unrealistic due to a
general lack of published information on shipping patterns.
Modifications to shipping routes, and possible choke points (where
increases in vessel traffic are focused at sensitive places and times
for bearded seals) due to diminishing ice are likely, but there is
little data on which to base even qualitative predictions. However, the
predictions regarding shipping impacts in the Arctic are generally
applicable, and because of significant increases in predicted shipping,
it appears that bearded seals inhabiting the Sea of Okhotsk, in
particular the shelf area off central and northern Sakhalin Island, are
at increased risk of impacts. Winter shipping activities in the
southern Sea of Okhotsk are expected to increase considerably as oil
and gas production pushes the development and use of new classes of
icebreaking ships, thereby increasing the potential for shipping
accidents and oil spills in the ice-covered regions of this sea.
Summary for Factor E
We find that the threats posed by pollutants, oil and gas industry
activities, fisheries, and shipping do not individually or cumulatively
raise concern about them placing bearded seals at risk of becoming
endangered. We recognize, however, that the significance of these
threats would increase for populations diminished by the effects of
climate change or other threats. This is of particular note for bearded
seals in the Sea of Okhotsk, where oil and gas related activities are
expected to increase, and are judged to pose a moderate threat.
Analysis of Demographic Risks
Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested
demographically as risks to its abundance; productivity; spatial
structure and connectivity; and genetic and ecological diversity. These
demographic risks provide the most direct indices or proxies of
extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance and with few
populations will be less tolerant to environmental variation,
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity,
ecological interactions, and other processes. A rate of productivity
that is unstable or declining over a long period of time can indicate
poor resiliency to future environmental change. A species that is not
widely distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats is at
increased risk of extinction due to environmental perturbations,
including catastrophic events. A species that has lost locally adapted
genetic and ecological diversity may lack the raw resources necessary
to exploit a wide array of environments and endure short- and long-term
environmental changes.
The degree of risk posed by the threats associated with the impacts
of global climate change on bearded seal habitat is uncertain due to a
lack of quantitative information linking environmental conditions to
bearded seal vital rates, and a lack of information about how resilient
bearded seals will be to these changes. The BRT considered the current
risks (in terms of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity) to the persistence of the Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, and
E. b. barbatus as low or very low. The BRT judged the risks to the
persistence of the Beringia DPS within the foreseeable future to be
moderate (abundance and diversity) to
[[Page 77511]]
high (productivity and spatial structure), and to the Okhotsk DPS to be
high for abundance, productivity, and spatial structure, and moderate
for diversity. The risks to persistence of E. b. barbatus within the
foreseeable future were judged to be moderate.
Conservation Efforts
When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the ESA requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation,
or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the
species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes
and organizations, local governments, and private organizations. Also,
Federal, tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions (16 U.S.C.
1533(f)), and Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536)
constitute conservation measures. In addition to identifying these
efforts, under the ESA and our Policy on the Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), we must evaluate the
certainty of implementing the conservation efforts and the certainty
that the conservation efforts will be effective on the basis of whether
the effort or plan establishes specific conservation objectives,
identifies the necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for
decline, includes quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring
of compliance and effectiveness, incorporates the principles of
adaptive management, and is likely to improve the species' viability at
the time of the listing determination.
International Agreements
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red List identifies and documents those species
believed by its reviewers to be most in need of conservation attention
if global extinction rates are to be reduced, and is widely recognized
as the most comprehensive, apolitical global approach for evaluating
the conservation status of plant and animal species. In order to
produce Red Lists of threatened species worldwide, the IUCN Species
Survival Commission draws on a network of scientists and partner
organizations, which uses a standardized assessment process to
determine species' risks of extinction. However, it should be noted
that the IUCN Red List assessment criteria differ from the listing
criteria provided by the ESA. The bearded seal is currently classified
as a species of ``Least Concern'' on the IUCN Red List. These listings
highlight the conservation status of listed species and can inform
conservation planning and prioritization.
The Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation, and
Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic (North Atlantic
Marine Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]) was established in 1992 by a
regional agreement among the governments of Greenland, Iceland, Norway,
and the Faroe Islands to cooperatively conserve and manage marine
mammals in the North Atlantic. NAMMCO has provided a forum for the
exchange of information and coordination among member countries on
bearded seal research and management.
There are no known regulatory mechanisms that effectively address
the factors believed to be contributing to reductions in bearded seal
sea ice habitat at this time. The primary international regulatory
mechanisms addressing GHG emissions and global warming are the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
However, the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period only sets targets
for action through 2012. There is no regulatory mechanism governing GHG
emissions in the years beyond 2012. The United States, although a
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has not ratified it; therefore, the
Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States.
Domestic U.S. Regulatory Mechanisms
Several laws exist that directly or indirectly promote the
conservation and protection of bearded seals. These include the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as Amended, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act. Although there are some existing domestic regulatory mechanisms
directed at reducing GHG emissions, these mechanisms are not expected
to be effective in counteracting the growth in global GHG emissions
within the foreseeable future.
At this time, we are not aware of any formalized conservation
efforts for bearded seals that have yet to be implemented, or which
have recently been implemented, but have yet to show their
effectiveness in removing threats to the species. Therefore, we do not
need to evaluate any conservation efforts under the PECE.
NMFS has established a co-management agreement with the Ice Seal
Committee (ISC) to conserve and provide co-management of subsistence
use of ice seals by Alaska Natives. The ISC is an Alaska Native
Organization dedicated to conserving seal populations, habitat, and
hunting in order to help preserve native cultures and traditions. The
ISC co-manages ice seals with NMFS by monitoring subsistence harvest
and cooperating on needed research and education programs pertaining to
ice seals. NMFS' National Marine Mammal Laboratory is engaged in an
active research program for bearded seals. The new information from
research will be used to enhance our understanding of the risk factors
affecting bearded seals, thereby improving our ability to develop
effective management measures for the species.
Proposed Determinations
We have reviewed the status of the bearded seal, fully considering
the best scientific and commercial data available, including the status
review report. We have reviewed threats to the Beringia DPS, the
Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. barbatus, as well as other relevant factors, and
given consideration to conservation efforts and special designations
for bearded seals by states and foreign nations. In consideration of
all of the threats and potential threats to bearded seals identified
above, the assessment of the risks posed by those threats, the possible
cumulative impacts, and the uncertainty associated with all of these,
we draw the following conclusions:
Beringia DPS: (1) The present population size of the Beringia DPS
is very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 155,000 individuals.
(2) It is highly likely that reductions will occur in both the extent
and timing of sea ice in the range of the Beringia DPS, in particular
in the Bering Sea. To adapt to this ice regime, bearded seals would
likely have to shift their nursing, rearing, and molting areas to ice-
covered seas north of the Bering Strait, where projections suggest
there is potential for the ice edge to retreat to deep waters of the
Arctic basin. (3) There appears to be a moderate to high threat that
reductions in spring and summer sea ice could result in spatial
separation of sea ice resting areas from benthic feeding habitat.
Reductions in sea ice suitable for molting and pup maturation also
appear to pose moderate to high threats. (4) Within the foreseeable
future, the risks to the persistence of the Beringia DPS appear to be
moderate (abundance and diversity) to high (productivity and spatial
structure). We conclude that the Beringia DPS is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and we propose to
[[Page 77512]]
list this DPS as threatened under the ESA.
Okhotsk DPS: (1) The present population size of the Okhotsk DPS is
very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 95,000 individuals. (2)
Decreases in sea ice habitat suitable for whelping, nursing, pup
maturation, and molting pose the greatest threats to the persistence of
the Okhotsk DPS. As ice conditions deteriorate, Okhotsk bearded seals
will be limited in their ability to shift their range northward because
the Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the north by land. (3) Although some
bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk are known to use land for hauling
out, this only occurs in late summer and early autumn. We are not aware
of any occurrence of bearded seals whelping or nursing young on land,
so the predicted loss of sea ice is expected to be significantly
detrimental to the long term viability of the population. (4) Within
the foreseeable future the risks to the persistence of the Okhotsk DPS
due to demographic problems associated with abundance, productivity,
and spatial structure are expected to be high. We conclude that the
Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and we propose to list this DPS as threatened under the ESA.
E. b. barbatus: (1) The present population size of E. b. barbatus
is very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 188,000 individuals in
Canadian waters. (2) Although significant loss of sea ice habitat is
projected in the range of E. b. barbatus in this century, major
portions of the current range are predicted to be at the core of future
ice distributions. (3) Within the foreseeable future, the risks to the
persistence of E. b. barbatus in terms of abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, and diversity appear to be moderate, reflecting the
expected persistence of favorable sea ice habitat in major portions of
the subspecies' range. We find that E. b. barbatus is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. We therefore conclude that listing E. b. barbatus as threatened
or endangered under the ESA is not warranted.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to implement regulations ``to provide for the conservation of
[threatened] species'' that may include extending any or all of the
prohibitions of section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g)
also prohibits violations of protective regulations for threatened
species implemented under section 4(d). Based on the status of the
Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the bearded seal and their
conservation needs, we conclude that the ESA section 9 prohibitions are
necessary and advisable to provide for their conservation. We are
therefore proposing protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for
the Okhotsk DPS and the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal to include all
of the prohibitions in section 9(a)(1).
Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to
consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or to adversely
modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us.
Examples of Federal actions that may affect the Beringia DPS of bearded
seals include permits and authorizations relating to coastal
development and habitat alteration, oil and gas development (including
seismic exploration), toxic waste and other pollutant discharges, and
cooperative agreements for subsistence harvest.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide us with authority
to grant exceptions to the ESA's section 9 ``take'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or
to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. The type of
activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/
enhancement permit include scientific research that targets bearded
seals. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits are required for
non-Federal activities that may incidentally take a listed species in
the course of otherwise lawful activity.
Our Policies on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, we and FWS published a series of policies
regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of
scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum
extent possible, those activities that would or would not constitute a
violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272). We must also follow
the Office of Management and Budget policy for peer review as described
below.
Role of Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. The scientific information
contained in the bearded seal status review report (Cameron et al.,
2010) that supports this proposal to list the Beringia DPS and the
Okhotsk DPS as threatened species under the ESA received independent
peer review.
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a
final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. Independent
specialists will be selected from the academic and scientific
community, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the
effect of our ESA listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the
species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of
the final rule, specific activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will not
be considered likely to result in violation. Because the Okhotsk DPS
occurs outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, we are
presently unaware of any activities that could result in violation of
section 9 of the ESA for that DPS; however, because the possibility for
violations exists (for example, import into the United States), we have
proposed maintaining the section 9 protection. Activities that we
believe could result in violation of section 9 prohibitions against
``take'' of the Beringia DPS of bearded seals include: (1) Unauthorized
harvest or lethal takes of bearded seals in the Beringia DPS; (2) in-
water activities that
[[Page 77513]]
produce high levels of underwater noise, which may harass or injure
bearded seals in the Beringia DPS; and (3) discharging or dumping toxic
chemicals or other pollutants into areas used by the Beringia DPS of
bearded seals.
We believe, based on the best available information, the following
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) federally
funded or approved projects for which ESA section 7 consultation has
been completed and mitigated as necessary, and that are conducted in
accordance with any terms and conditions we provide in an incidental
take statement accompanying a biological opinion; and (2) takes of
bearded seals in the Beringia DPS that have been authorized by NMFS
pursuant to section 10 of the ESA. These lists are not exhaustive. They
are intended to provide some examples of the types of activities that
we might or might not consider as constituting a take of bearded seals
in the Beringia DPS.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5A)) defines critical habitat
as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the species, at the time it is listed * * * on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed * *
* upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3 of the ESA also
defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to
mean ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no
longer necessary.'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the
listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on
the best scientific data available, and must take into consideration
the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Once critical
habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies
to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions
that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This
requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement that Federal
agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence
of the species.
In determining what areas qualify as critical habitat, 50 CFR
424.12(b) requires that NMFS ``consider those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of a given species
including space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical
and ecological distribution of a species.'' The regulations further
direct NMFS to ``focus on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements * * * that are essential to the conservation of
the species,'' and specify that the ``known primary constituent
elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description.'' The
regulations identify primary constituent elements (PCEs) as including,
but not limited to: ``roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites,
feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity,
host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation
type, tide, and specific soil types.''
The ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to consider the economic
impact, the national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts
from designating critical habitat, and under section 4(b)(2), the
Secretary may exclude any area from such designation if the benefits of
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will
not result in the extinction of the species. At this time, the Beringia
DPS's critical habitat is not determinable. We will propose critical
habitat for the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal in a separate
rulemaking. To assist us with that rulemaking, we specifically request
information to help us identify the PCEs or ``essential features'' of
this habitat, and to what extent those features may require special
management considerations or protection, as well as the economic
attributes within the range of the Beringia DPS that could be impacted
by critical habitat designation. 50 CFR 424.12(h) specifies that
critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in
other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request
information only on potential areas of critical habitat within the
United States or waters within U.S. jurisdiction.
Because the known distribution of the Okhotsk DPS of the bearded
seal occurs in areas outside the jurisdiction of the United States, no
critical habitat will be designated as part of the proposed listing
action for this DPS.
Public Comments Solicited
Relying on the best scientific and commercial information
available, we exercised our best professional judgment in developing
this proposal to list the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the
bearded seal. To ensure that the final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are
soliciting comments and suggestions concerning this proposed rule from
the public, other concerned governments and agencies, Alaska Natives,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
Comments are encouraged on this proposal as well as on the status
review report (See DATES and ADDRESSES).
Comments are particularly sought concerning:
(1) The current population status of bearded seals;
(2) Biological or other information regarding the threats to
bearded seals;
(3) Information on the effectiveness of ongoing and planned bearded
seal conservation efforts by states or local entities;
(4) Activities that could result in a violation of section 9(a)(1)
of the ESA if such prohibitions applied to the Beringia DPS of the
bearded seal;
(5) Information related to the designation of critical habitat,
including identification of those physical or biological features which
are essential to the conservation of the Beringia DPS of the bearded
seal and which may require special management consideration or
protection; and
(6) Economic, national security, and other relevant impacts from
the designation of critical habitat for the Beringia DPS of the bearded
seal.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal
by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). We will review all
public comments and any additional information regarding the status of
the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS and will complete a final
determination within 1 year of publication of this proposed rule, as
required under the ESA. Final promulgation of the regulation(s) will
consider the comments and any additional information we receive, and
such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from
this proposal.
[[Page 77514]]
Public Hearings
50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the Secretary to promptly hold at
least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of
publication of a proposed rule to list a species. Such hearings provide
the opportunity for interested individuals and parties to give
opinions, exchange information, and engage in a constructive dialogue
concerning this proposed rule. We encourage the public's involvement in
this matter. If hearings are requested, details regarding the
location(s), date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming
Federal Register notice.
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analyses required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition,
this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This rule does not
contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
E.O. 13132, Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific
directives for consultation in situations where a regulation will
preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on
state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of
those circumstances is applicable to this rule.
E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal
with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward
Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care
with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise
of tribal rights. E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments--outlines the responsibilities of the Federal
Government in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public
Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law
108-447 (118 Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies to consult with
Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under
E.O. 13175.
We intend to coordinate with tribal governments and native
corporations which may be affected by the proposed action. We will
provide them with a copy of this proposed rule for review and comment,
and offer the opportunity to consult on the proposed action.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be
found on our Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ and is
available upon request from the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see
ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: December 3, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
2. In Sec. 223.102, in the table, amend paragraph (a) by adding
paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
-------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determination(s) designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Bearded seal, Beringia DPS Erignathus The Beringia DPS [INSERT FR NA.
barbatus includes all CITATION & DATE
nauticus. breeding WHEN PUBLISHED AS
populations of A FINAL RULE].
bearded seals
east of 157
degrees east
longitude, and
east of the
Kamchatka
Peninsula, in
the Pacific
Ocean.
(9) Bearded seal, Okhotsk DPS. Erignathus The Okhotsk DPS [INSERT FR NA.
barbatus includes all CITATION & DATE
nauticus. breeding WHEN PUBLISHED AS
populations of A FINAL RULE].
bearded seals
west of 157
degrees east
longitude, or
west of the
Kamchatka
Peninsula, in
the Pacific
Ocean.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement;
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement; see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
3. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec. 223.216 to read as follows:
Sec. 223.216 Beringia DPS of Bearded Seal.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the
Beringia DPS of bearded seal listed in Sec. 223.102(a)(8).
[[Page 77515]]
4. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec. 223.217 to read as follows:
Sec. 223.217 Okhotsk DPS of Bearded Seal.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the
Okhotsk DPS of bearded seal listed in Sec. 223.102(a)(9).
[FR Doc. 2010-30931 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P