[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76706-76738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31066]
[[Page 76705]]
Vol. 77
Friday,
No. 249
December 28, 2012
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for the Arctic,
Okhotsk, and Baltic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal and Endangered Status
for the Ladoga Subspecies of the Ringed Seal; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 76706]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 101126590-2478-03]
RIN 0648-XZ59
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for the
Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal and
Endangered Status for the Ladoga Subspecies of the Ringed Seal
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final determination to list the Arctic
(Phoca hispida hispida), Okhotsk (Phoca hispida ochotensis), and Baltic
(Phoca hispida botnica) subspecies of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida)
as threatened and the Ladoga (Phoca hispida ladogensis) subspecies of
the ringed seal as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We will propose to designate critical habitat for the Arctic ringed
seal in a future rulemaking. To assist us in this effort, we solicit
information that may be relevant to the designation of critical habitat
for Arctic ringed seals. In light of public comments and upon further
review, we are withdrawing the proposed ESA section 4(d) protective
regulations for threatened subspecies of the ringed seal because we
have determined that such regulations are not necessary or advisable
for the conservation of the Arctic, Okhotsk, or Baltic subspecies of
the ringed seal at this time. Given their current population sizes, the
long-term nature of the primary threat to these subspecies (habitat
alteration stemming from climate change), and the existing protections
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is unlikely that the
proposed protective regulations would provide appreciable conservation
benefits.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 26, 2013. Replies to
the request for information regarding designation of critical habitat
for Arctic ringed seals must be received by February 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and information related to the
identification of critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal to Jon
Kurland, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources,
Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit this
information, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2010-0258, by
any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
To submit information via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the
``submit a comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2010-0258 in the
keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the
resulting list and click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right
of that line.
Mail: Submit written comments to 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.
Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure
that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS.
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual,
or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered.
All comments received are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address,
etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender may be publicly accessible.
Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive
or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region,
(907) 271-5006; Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7638; or
Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8469.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 28, 2008, we initiated status reviews of ringed, bearded
(Erignathus barbatus), and spotted seals (Phoca largha) under the ESA
(73 FR 16617). On May 28, 2008, we received a petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity to list these three species of seals as
threatened or endangered under the ESA, primarily due to concerns about
threats to their habitat from climate warming and loss of sea ice. The
petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for these
species concurrently with listing under the ESA. In response to the
petition, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (73 FR 51615; September 4, 2008).
Accordingly, we prepared status reviews of ringed, bearded, and spotted
seals and solicited information pertaining to them.
On September 8, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
alleging that we failed to make the requisite 12-month finding on its
petition to list the three seal species. Subsequently, the Court
entered a consent decree under which we agreed to finalize the status
review of the ringed seal (and the bearded seal) and submit a 12-month
finding to the Office of the Federal Register by December 3, 2010.
Following completion of a status review report and 12-month finding for
spotted seals in October 2009 (74 FR 53683; October 20, 2009; see also
75 FR 65239; October 22, 2010), we established Biological Review Teams
(BRTs) to prepare status review reports for ringed and bearded seals.
The status review report for the ringed seal (Kelly et al., 2010a)
is a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including identification and
assessment of the past, present, and future threats to the species. The
BRT that prepared this report was composed of eight marine mammal
biologists, a fishery biologist, a marine chemist, and a climate
scientist from NMFS's Alaska and Northeast Fisheries Science Centers,
NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). The status review report underwent independent peer
review by five scientists with expertise in ringed seal biology, Arctic
sea ice, climate change, and ocean acidification.
The BRT reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available
on the ringed seal's taxonomy and concluded that there are five
currently recognized subspecies of the ringed seal: Arctic ringed seal;
Baltic ringed seal; Okhotsk ringed seal; Ladoga ringed seal; and Saimaa
ringed seal (which previously was listed as endangered under the ESA;
58 FR 26920; May 6, 1993).
On December 10, 2010, we published in the Federal Register a 12-
month finding and proposed to list the Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and
Ladoga subspecies
[[Page 76707]]
of the ringed seal as threatened (75 FR 77476). We also concluded in
that finding that the Saimaa subspecies of the ringed seal remains in
danger of extinction, consistent with its current listing as endangered
under the ESA. We published a 12-month finding for bearded seals as a
separate notification concurrently with this finding (75 FR 77496;
December 10, 2010), and proposed to list two population segments of
bearded seals as threatened.
On December 13, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a
document announcing a 6-month extension of the deadline for a final
listing determination to address substantial disagreement relating to
the sufficiency or accuracy of the model projections and analysis of
future sea ice, and in particular snow cover, for Arctic ringed seals
(76 FR 77466). At that time we also announced that to address the
disagreement and better inform our final determination, we would
conduct a special independent peer review of the sections of the status
review report over which there was substantial disagreement. We
subsequently conducted this special peer review and made available for
comment the resulting peer review report (NMFS, 2012) that consolidated
the comments received (77 FR 20773; April 6, 2012).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
Two key tasks are associated with conducting an ESA status review.
The first is to identify 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
to include ``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 FWS 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). The five
subspecies of the ringed seal qualify as ``species'' under the ESA. In
the Summary of Comments and Responses below, we discuss the application
of the DPS policy to the ringed seal subspecies.
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 over a different time frame. For example, threats stemming
from well-established, observed trends in a global physical process may
be foreseeable on a much longer time horizon than a threat stemming
from a potential, though unpredictable, episodic process such as an
outbreak of disease that may never have been observed to occur in the
species.
The principal threat to ringed seals is habitat alteration stemming
from climate change. In the 2008 status review for 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 for ringed seals (which is summarized in the preamble to
this final rule), and analyzed threats associated with climate change
through 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 uncertainty embedded in the assessment of the ribbon seal's
response to threats increased as the analysis extended farther into the
future.
Since completing the analysis for ribbon seals, with its climate
impact analysis, NMFS scientists have revised their analytical approach
to the foreseeability of threats due to climate change 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 (AR4; IPCC, 2007) extend through the end of the century (and we
note the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), due in 2014, will extend
even farther into the future), for our analysis of ringed seals we used
the same models to assess impacts from climate change through 2100. 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 do 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. This threat-specific approach creates a
more robust analysis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. It is also consistent with the memorandum issued by the
Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor, regarding the meaning
of the term ``foreseeable future'' (Opinion M-37021; January 16, 2009).
NMFS and FWS recently published a draft policy to clarify the
interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of the range'' in
the ESA definitions of ``threatened'' and ``endangered'' (76 FR 76987;
December 9, 2011). The draft policy consists of the following four
components:
1. If a species is found to be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as
endangered or threatened, respectively, and the ESA's protections apply
across the species' entire range.
2. A portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
3. The range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
FWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination. This range
includes those areas throughout all or part of the species' life cycle,
even if they are not used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost
historical range is relevant to the analysis of the status of the
species, but cannot constitute a significant portion of a species'
range.
4. If the species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range, but it is endangered or threatened within a significant
portion of its range, and the population in that significant portion is
a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
The Services are currently reviewing public comment received on the
draft policy. While the Services' intent ultimately is to establish a
legally binding interpretation of the term ``significant portion of the
range,'' the draft policy does not have legal effect until such time as
it may be adopted as final policy. However, the discussion
[[Page 76708]]
and conclusions set forth in the draft policy are consistent with
NMFS's past practice as well as our understanding of the statutory
framework and language. We have therefore considered the draft policy
as non-binding guidance in evaluating whether to list the Arctic,
Okhotsk, Ladoga, and/or Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal under the
ESA.
Species Information
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
ringed seal is presented in the status review report (Kelly et al.,
2010a; available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). This
information, along with an analysis of species delineation and DPSs,
was summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR 77476;
December 10, 2010) and will not be repeated here.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Ringed Seal
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine,
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or
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. The preamble to the proposed rule discussed each of these
factors for each subspecies of the ringed seal (75 FR 77476; December
10, 2010). That discussion will not be repeated in its entirety here,
but we provide a summary for each of the factors below. Section 4.2 of
the status review report provides a more detailed discussion of the
factors affecting the five subspecies of the ringed seal (see
ADDRESSES). The data on ringed seal abundance and trends of most
populations are unavailable or imprecise, especially in the Arctic and
Okhotsk subspecies, and there is little basis for quantitatively
linking projected environmental conditions or other factors to ringed
seal survival or reproduction. Our risk assessment therefore primarily
evaluated important habitat features and was based upon the best
available scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the
BRT members.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The main concern about the conservation status of ringed seals
stems from the likelihood that their sea ice habitat has been modified
by the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the
foreseeable future. A second concern, related by the common driver of
carbon dioxide (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 each of the subspecies of the
ringed seal therefore requires a focus on the observed and projected
changes in sea ice, snow cover, ocean temperature, ocean pH (acidity),
and associated changes in ringed seal prey species.
The threats associated with impacts of the warming climate on the
habitat of ringed seals (analyzed in the preamble to the proposed rule
and in the status review report), to the extent that they may pose
risks to these seals, are expected to manifest throughout the current
breeding and molting range (for snow and ice related threats) or
throughout the entire range (for ocean warming and acidification) of
each of the subspecies.
While our inferences about future regional ice and snow conditions
are based upon the best available scientific and commercial data, we
recognize that there are uncertainties associated with predictions
based on hemispheric projections or indirect means. We also note that
judging the timing of the onset of potential impacts to ringed seals is
complicated by the coarse resolution of the IPCC models. Nevertheless,
NMFS determined that the models reflect reasonable assumptions
regarding habitat alterations to be faced by ringed seals in the
foreseeable future.
Regional Sea Ice and Snow Cover Predictions by Subspecies
Arctic ringed seal: In the East Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort, Kara-
Laptev, and Greenland Seas, as well as in Baffin Bay and the Canadian
Arctic Archipelago, little or no decline in ice extent is expected in
April and May during the remainder of this century. In most of these
areas, a moderate decline in sea ice is predicted during June within
this century; while substantial declines in sea ice are projected in
July and November after mid-century. The central Arctic (defined as
regions north of 80[deg] N. latitude) also shows declines in sea ice
cover that are most apparent in July and November after 2050. For
Hudson Bay, under a warmer climate scenario (for the years 2041-2070)
Joly et al. (2010) projected a reduction in the sea ice season of 7-9
weeks, with substantial reductions in sea ice cover most apparent in
July and during the first months of winter.
In the Bering Sea, April and May ice cover is projected to decline
throughout this century, with substantial inter-annual variability
forecasted in the eastern Bering Sea. The projection for May indicates
that there will commonly be years with little or no ice in the western
Bering Sea beyond mid-century. Very little ice has remained in the
eastern Bering Sea in June since the mid-1970s. Sea ice cover in the
Barents Sea in April and May is also projected to decline throughout
this century, and in the months of June and July, ice is expected to
disappear rapidly in the coming decades.
Based on model projections, April snow depths over much of the
range of the Arctic ringed seal averaged 25-35 cm in the first decade
of this century, consistent with on-ice measurements by Russian
scientists (Weeks, 2010). By mid-century, a substantial decrease in
areas with April snow depths of 25-35 cm is projected (much of it
reduced to 20-25 cm). The deepest snow (25-30 cm) is forecasted to be
found just north of Greenland, in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and
in an area tapering north from there into the central Arctic Basin.
Southerly regions, such as the Bering Sea and Barents Sea, are
forecasted to have snow depths of 5 cm or less by mid-century. By the
end of the century, April snow depths of 20-25 cm are forecasted only
for a portion of the central Arctic, most of the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago, and a few small isolated areas in a few other regions.
Areas with 25-30 cm of snow are projected to be limited to a few small
isolated pockets in the Canadian Arctic by 2090-2099.
Okhotsk ringed seal: None of the IPCC models performed
satisfactorily at projecting sea ice for the Sea of Okhotsk, so
projected surface air temperatures were examined relative to current
climate conditions as a proxy to predict sea ice extent and duration.
Sea ice extent is strongly controlled by temperature; this is
especially true for smaller bodies of water relative to the grid size
of available models. Also, the physical processes by which increased
greenhouse gases (GHGs) lead to warming are better understood and more
easily modeled than the other processes that influence sea ice
[[Page 76709]]
formation and persistence. Therefore, whether the whole geographic
region around the Sea of Okhotsk is above or below the freezing point
of sea water should be a reasonable indicator of the presence or
absence of sea ice.
Based on that analysis, ice is expected to persist in the Sea of
Okhotsk in March during the remainder of this century, although ice may
be limited to the northern region in most years after mid-century.
Conditions for sea ice in April are likely to be limited to the far
northern reaches of the Sea of Okhotsk or non-existent by 2100. Little
to no sea ice is expected in May by mid-century. Average snow depth
projections for April show depths of 15-20 cm only in the northern
portions of the Sea of Okhotsk in the past 10 years and nowhere in that
sea by mid-century. By the end of the century average snow depths are
projected to be 10 cm or less even in the northern Sea of Okhotsk.
Baltic and Ladoga ringed seals: For the Baltic Sea, we considered
the analysis of regional climate models by Jylh[auml] et al. (2008).
They used seven regional climate models and found good agreement with
observations for the 1902-2000 comparison period. For the forecast
period 2071-2100, one model predicted a change to mostly mild
conditions, while the remaining models predicted unprecedentedly mild
conditions. They noted that their estimates for a warming climate were
in agreement with other studies that found unprecedentedly mild ice
extent conditions in the majority of years after about 2030. The model
we used to project snow depths (CCSM3) did not provide adequate
resolution for the Baltic Sea. The climate models analyzed by
Jylh[auml] et al. (2008), however, forecasted decreases of 45-60 days
in duration of snow cover by the end of the century in the northern
Baltic Sea region. The shortened seasonal snow cover would result
primarily from earlier spring melts, but also from delayed onset of
snow cover. Depth of snow is forecasted to decrease 50-70 percent in
the region over the same period. The depth of snow also will be
decreased by mid-winter thaws and rain events. Simulations of the snow
cover indicated that an increasing proportion of the snow pack will
consist of icy or wet snow.
For example, ice cover has diminished about 12 percent over the
past 50 years in Lake Ladoga. Although we are not aware of any ice
forecasts specific to Lake Ladoga, the simulations of future climate
reported by Jylh[auml] et al. (2008) suggest warming winters with
reduced ice and snow cover. Snow cover in Finland and the Scandinavian
Peninsula is projected to decrease 10-30 percent before mid-century and
50-90 percent by 2100 (Saelthun et al., 1998, cited in Kuusisto, 2005).
Effects of Changes in Ice and Snow Cover on Ringed Seals
Ringed seals are vulnerable to habitat loss from changes in the
extent or concentration of sea ice because they depend on this habitat
for pupping, nursing, molting, and resting. The ringed seal's broad
distribution, ability to undertake long movements, diverse diet, and
association with widely varying ice conditions suggest resilience in
the face of environmental variability. However, the ringed seal's long
generation time and ability to produce only a single pup each year will
challenge its ability to adapt to environmental changes such as the
diminishing ice and snow cover projected in a matter of decades. Ringed
seals apparently thrived during glacial maxima and survived warm
interglacial periods. How they survived the latter periods or in what
numbers is not known. Declines in sea ice cover in recent decades are
more extensive and rapid than any other known decline for at least the
last few thousand years (Polyak et al., 2010).
Ringed seals create birth lairs in areas of accumulated snow on
stable ice including the shorefast ice over continental shelves along
Arctic coasts, bays, and inter[hyphen]island channels. While some
authors suggest that shorefast ice (ice attached to the shore) is the
preferred pupping habitat of ringed seals due to its stability
throughout the pupping and nursing period, others have documented
ringed seal pupping on drifting pack ice both nearshore and offshore.
Both of these habitats can be affected by earlier warming and
break[hyphen]up in the spring, which shortens the length of time pups
have to grow and mature in a protected setting. Harwood et al. (2000)
reported that an early spring break[hyphen]up negatively impacted the
growth, condition, and apparent survival of unweaned ringed seal pups.
Early break-up was believed to have interrupted lactation in adult
females, which in turn, negatively affected the condition and growth of
pups.
Unusually heavy ice has also been implicated in shifting
distribution, high winter mortality, and reduced productivity of ringed
seals. It has been suggested that reduced ice thickness associated with
warming in some areas could lead to increased biological productivity
that might benefit ringed seals, at least in the short-term. However,
any transitory and localized benefits of reduced ice thickness are
expected to be outweighed by the negative effects of increased
thermoregulatory costs and vulnerability of seal pups to predation
associated with earlier ice break-up and reduced snow cover.
Ringed seals, especially the newborn, depend on snow cover for
protection from cold temperatures and predators. Occupation of
subnivean lairs is especially critical when pups are nursed in late
March-June. Ferguson et al. (2005) attributed low ringed seal
recruitment in western Hudson Bay to decreased snow depth in April and
May. Reduced snowfall results in less snow drift accumulation next to
pressure ridges, and pups in lairs with thin snow cover are more
vulnerable to predation than pups in lairs with thick snow cover
(Hammill and Smith, 1989; Ferguson et al., 2005). When snow cover is
insufficient, pups can also freeze in their lairs as documented in 1974
when roofs of lairs in the White Sea were only 5-10 cm thick (Lukin and
Potelov, 1978). Similarly, pup mortality from freezing and polar bear
(Ursus maritimus) predation increased when unusually warm spring
temperatures caused early melting near Baffin Island in the late 1970s
(Smith and Hammill, 1980; Stirling and Smith, 2004). Prematurely
exposed pups also are vulnerable to predation by wolves (Canis lupus)
and foxes (Alopex lagopus and Vulpes vulpes)--as documented during an
early snow melt in the White Sea in 1977 (Lukin, 1980)--and by gulls
(Laridae) and ravens (Corvus corax) as documented in the Barents Sea
(Gjertz and Lydersen, 1983; Lydersen and Gjertz, 1987; Lydersen et al.,
1987; Lydersen and Smith, 1989; Lydersen and Ryg, 1990; Lydersen,
1998). When lack of snow cover has forced birthing to occur in the
open, some studies have reported that nearly 100 percent of pups died
from predation (Kumlien, 1879; Lydersen et al., 1987; Lydersen and
Smith, 1989; Smith et al., 1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991). The high
fidelity to birthing sites exhibited by ringed seals also makes them
more susceptible to localized degradation of snow cover (Kelly et al.,
2010b).
Increased rain[hyphen]on[hyphen]snow events during the late winter
also negatively affect ringed seal recruitment by damaging or
eliminating snow[hyphen]covered birth lairs, increasing exposure and
the risk of hypothermia, and facilitating predation by polar bears and
other predators. Stirling and Smith (2004) documented the collapse of
subnivean lairs during unseasonal rains near southeastern Baffin Island
and the subsequent exposure of ringed seals to hypothermia.
[[Page 76710]]
They surmised that most of the pups that survived exposure to cold were
eventually killed by polar bears, Arctic foxes, or possibly gulls.
Stirling and Smith (2004) postulated that, should early season rain
become regular and widespread in the future, mortality of ringed seal
pups will increase, especially in more southerly parts of their range.
Potential Impacts of Projected Ice and Snow Cover Changes on Ringed
Seals
As discussed above, ringed seals divide their time between foraging
in the water, and reproducing and molting out of the water, where they
are especially vulnerable to predation. Females must nurse their pups
for 1-2 months, and the small pups are vulnerable to cold temperatures
and avian and mammalian predators on the ice, especially during the
nursing period. Thus, a specific habitat requirement for ringed seals
is adequate snow for the occupation of subnivean lairs, especially in
spring when pups are born and nursed.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover has declined in recent decades and
spring melt times have become earlier (ACIA, 2005). In most areas of
the Arctic Ocean, snow melt advanced 1-6 weeks from 1979-2007.
Throughout most of the ringed seal's range, snow melt occurred within a
couple of weeks of weaning. Thus, in the past three decades, snow melts
in many areas have been pre[hyphen]dating weaning. Shifts in the timing
of reproduction by other pinnipeds in response to changes in food
availability have been documented. However, the ability of ringed seals
to adapt to earlier snow melts by advancing the timing of reproduction
will be limited by snow depths. As discussed above, over most of the
Arctic Ocean, snow cover reaches its maximal depth in May, but most of
that accumulation takes place in autumn. It is therefore unlikely that
snow depths for birth lair formation would be improved earlier in the
spring. In addition, the pace at which snow melts are advancing is
rapid relative to the generation time of ringed seals, further
challenging the potential for an adaptive response.
Snow drifts to 45 cm or more are needed for excavation and
maintenance of simple lairs, and birth lairs require depths of 50 to 65
cm or more (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and Gjertz, 1986; Kelly,
1988; Furgal et al., 1996; Lydersen, 1998; Lukin et al., 2006). Such
drifts typically only occur where average snow depths are at least 20-
30 cm (on flat ice) and where drifting has taken place along pressure
ridges or ice hummocks (Hammill and Smith, 1991; Lydersen and Ryg,
1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991; Ferguson et al., 2005). We therefore
considered areas forecasted to have less than 20 cm average snow depth
in April to be inadequate for the formation of ringed seal birth lairs.
Arctic ringed seal: The depth and duration of snow cover is
projected to decrease throughout the range of Arctic ringed seals
within this century. Whether ringed seals will continue to move north
with retreating ice over the deeper, less productive Arctic Basin
waters and whether forage species that they prey on will also move
north is uncertain and speculative (see additional discussion below).
Initially, it is possible that impacts will be somewhat ameliorated if
the subspecies' range retracts northward with its sea ice habitats. By
2100, however, April snow cover is forecasted to become inadequate for
the formation and occupation of ringed seal birth lairs over much of
the subspecies' range. Thus, even if the range of the Arctic ringed
seal contracts northward, by 2100 April snow cover suitable for birth
lairs is expected to be limited to a portion of the central Arctic,
most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and a few other small isolated
areas. The projected decreases in ice and, especially, snow cover are
expected to lead to increased pup mortality from premature weaning,
hypothermia, and predation.
Okhotsk ringed seal: Based on temperature proxies (which were used
because the climate models did not meet the performance criteria for
projecting sea ice), ice is expected to persist in the Sea of Okhotsk
through the onset of pupping in March through the end of this century.
Ice suitable for pupping and nursing likely will be limited to the
northernmost portions of the sea, as ice is likely to be limited to
that region in April by the end of the century. The snow cover
projections suggest that snow depths may already be inadequate for
lairs in the Sea of Okhotsk, and most Okhotsk ringed seals apparently
now give birth on pack ice in the lee of ice hummocks. However, it
appears unlikely that this behavior could mitigate the threats posed by
the expected decreases in sea ice. The Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the
north by land, which will limit the ability of Okhotsk ringed seals to
respond to deteriorating sea ice and snow conditions by shifting their
range northward. Some Okhotsk ringed seals have been reported on
terrestrial resting sites during the ice-free season, but these sites
provide inferior pupping and nursing habitat. Within the foreseeable
future, the projected decreases in sea ice habitat suitable for
pupping, nursing, and molting in the Sea of Okhotsk are expected to
lead to reduced abundance and productivity.
Baltic and Ladoga ringed seals: The considerable reductions in ice
extent forecasted by mid-century, coupled with deteriorating snow
conditions, are expected to substantially alter the habitats of Baltic
ringed seals. Climate forecasts for northern Europe also suggest
reduced ice and snow cover for Lake Ladoga within this century. These
habitat changes are expected to lead to decreased survival of pups (due
to hypothermia, predation, and premature weaning) and considerable
declines in the abundance of these subspecies in the foreseeable
future. Although Baltic and Ladoga ringed seals have been reported
using terrestrial resting sites when ice is absent, these sites provide
inferior pupping and nursing habitat. As sea ice and snow conditions
deteriorate, Baltic ringed seals will be limited in their ability to
respond by shifting their range northward because the Baltic Sea is
bounded to the north by land; and the landlocked seal population in
Lake Ladoga will be unable to shift its range.
Impacts on Ringed Seals Related to Changes in Ocean Conditions
Ocean acidification is an ongoing process whereby chemical
reactions occur that reduce both seawater pH and the concentration of
carbonate ions when CO2 is absorbed by seawater. Results
from global ocean CO2 surveys over the past two 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. Seawater chemistry measurements in the Baltic Sea
suggest that this sea is equally vulnerable to acidification as the
Arctic. We are not aware of specific acidification studies in Lake
Ladoga. Fresh water systems, however, are much less buffered than ocean
waters and are likely to experience even larger changes in
acidification levels than marine systems. The most likely impact of
ocean acidification on ringed seals will be at lower tropic levels on
which the species' prey depends. Cascading effects are likely both in
the marine and freshwater environments. Our limited understanding of
planktonic and benthic calcifiers in the Arctic (e.g., even their
baseline geographical
[[Page 76711]]
distributions) means that future changes will be difficult to detect
and evaluate.
Warming water temperatures and decreasing ice likely will result in
a contraction in the range of Arctic cod, a primary prey of ringed
seals. The same changes will lead to colonization of the Arctic Ocean
by more southerly species, including potential prey, predators, and
competitors. The outcome of new competitive interactions cannot be
specified, but as sea-ice specialists, ringed seals may be at a
disadvantage in competition with generalists in an ice-diminished
Arctic. Prey biomass may be reduced as a consequence of increased
freshwater input and loss of sea ice habitat for amphipods and
copepods. On the other hand, overall pelagic productivity may increase.
Summary of Factor A Analysis
Climate models consistently project overall diminishing sea ice and
snow cover at least through the current century, with regional
variation in the timing and severity of those losses. Increasing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, including
CO2, will drive climate warming and increase acidification
of the ringed seal's ocean and lake habitats. The impact of ocean
warming and acidification on ringed seals is expected to be primarily
through changes in community composition. The precise extent and timing
of these changes is uncertain, yet the overall trend is clear: Ringed
seals will face an increasing degree of habitat modification through
the foreseeable future.
Diminishing ice and snow cover are the greatest challenges to
persistence of all of the ringed seal subspecies. While winter
precipitation is forecasted to increase in a warming Arctic, the
duration of ice cover is projected to be substantially reduced, and the
net effect will be lower snow accumulation on the ice. Within the
century, snow cover adequate for the formation and occupation of birth
lairs is forecasted to occur in only parts of the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago, a portion of the central Arctic, and a few small isolated
areas in other regions. Without the protection of lairs, ringed seals,
especially newborns, are vulnerable to freezing and predation. We
conclude that the ongoing and projected changes in sea ice habitat pose
significant threats to the persistence of each of the five subspecies
of the ringed seal and are likely to curtail the range of the species
substantially within the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Subsistence, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
Ringed seals have been hunted by humans for millennia and remain a
fundamental subsistence resource for many northern coastal communities
today. Ringed seals were also harvested commercially in large numbers
during the 20th century, which led to the depletion of their stocks in
many parts of their range. Commercial harvests in the Sea of Okhotsk
and predator-control harvests in the Baltic Sea and Lake Ladoga caused
population declines in the past, but have since been restricted.
Although subsistence harvest of the Arctic subspecies is currently
substantial in some regions, harvest levels presently seem sustainable.
Climate change is likely to alter patterns of subsistence harvest of
marine mammals by changing their local densities or distributions in
relation to hunting communities. Predictions of the impacts of climate
change on subsistence hunting pressure are constrained by the
complexity of interacting variables and imprecision of climate and sea
ice models at small scales. Accurate information on both harvest levels
and species' abundance and trends will be needed in order to assess the
future impacts of hunting as well as to respond appropriately to
potential climate-induced changes in populations. Recreational,
scientific, and educational uses of ringed seals are minimal and are
not expected to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. We
conclude that there is no evidence that overutilization of ringed seals
is occurring at present.
C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation
Ringed seals have co-evolved with numerous parasites and diseases,
and those relationships are presumed to be stable. Evidence of
distemper virus, for example, has been reported in Arctic ringed seals,
but there is no evidence of population-level impacts to ringed seal
abundance or productivity. After the proposed listing rule was
published, the occurrence of an elevated number of sick or dead ringed
seals in the Arctic and Bering Strait regions of Alaska beginning in
July 2011 led to the declaration of an unusual mortality event (UME) by
NMFS under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) on December 20,
2011. The underlying cause of this UME is unknown and remains under
focused expert investigation. Abiotic and biotic changes to ringed seal
habitat potentially could lead to exposure to new pathogens or new
levels of virulence, but we continue to consider the potential threats
to ringed seals from disease as low.
Ringed seals are most commonly preyed upon by Arctic foxes and
polar bears, and less commonly by other terrestrial carnivores, sharks,
and killer whales (Orcinus orca). When ringed seal pups are forced out
of subnivean lairs prematurely because of low snow accumulation and/or
early melts, gulls and ravens also successfully prey on them. Avian
predation is facilitated not only by lack of sufficient snow cover but
also by conditions favoring influxes of birds. Lydersen and Smith
(1989) pointed out that the small size of newborn ringed seals, coupled
with their prolonged nursing period, make them vulnerable to predation
by birds and likely set a southern limit to their distribution.
Ringed seals and bearded seals are the primary prey of polar bears.
Polar bear predation on ringed seals is most successful in moving
offshore ice, often along floe edges and rarely in ice-free waters.
Polar bears also successfully hunt ringed seals on stable shorefast ice
by catching animals when they surface to breathe and when they occupy
lairs. Hammill and Smith (1991) further noted that polar bear predation
on ringed seal pups increased 4-fold in a year when average snow depths
in their study area decreased from 23 to 10 cm. They concluded that
while a high proportion of pups born each year are lost to predation,
``without the protection provided by the subnivean lair, pup mortality
would be much higher.''
The distribution of Arctic foxes broadly overlaps with that of
Arctic ringed seals. Arctic foxes prey on newborn seals by tunneling
into the birth lairs. The range of the red fox overlaps with that of
the Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga subspecies, and on rare occasion red
foxes also prey on newborn ringed seals in lairs.
High rates of predation on ringed seal pups have been associated
with anomalous weather events that caused subnivean lairs to collapse
or melt before pups were weaned. Thus, declining snow depths and
duration of snow cover during the period when ringed seal pups are born
and nursed can be expected to lead to increased predation on ringed
seal pups. We conclude that the threat posed to ringed seals by
predation is currently moderate, but predation risk is expected to
increase as snow and sea ice conditions change with a warming climate.
[[Page 76712]]
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
As noted above in the discussion of Factor A, a primary concern
about the conservation status of the ringed seal stems from the
likelihood that its sea ice habitat has been modified by the warming
climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus projections are for
continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the foreseeable future
combined with modification of habitat by ocean acidification. Current
mechanisms do not effectively regulate GHG emissions, which are
contributing to global climate change and associated modifications to
ringed seal habitat. The projections we used to assess risks from GHG
emissions were based on the assumption that no new regulation will take
place (the underlying IPCC emissions scenarios were all ``non-
mitigated'' scenarios). Therefore, the inadequacy of mechanisms to
regulate GHG emissions is already included in our risk assessment, and
contributes to the risks posed to ringed seals by these emissions.
Based on questionnaire and interview data obtained from fishermen
at Lake Ladoga, Verevkin et al. (2006, 2010) concluded that annual
bycatch mortality of Ladoga ringed seals has been substantial in recent
years and that mitigation measures are needed. Thus inadequacy of
existing mechanisms to regulate bycatch of Ladoga ringed seals is
contributing to the severity of the threat posed by fisheries
interactions with that subspecies, and compounds the effects of threats
induced by climate change discussed above.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Pollution and Contaminants
Contaminants research on ringed seals is extensive and has been
conducted in most parts of the species' range (with the exception of
the Sea of Okhotsk), particularly throughout the Arctic environment
where ringed seals are an important diet item in coastal human
communities. Pollutants such as organochlorine (OC) compounds and heavy
metals have been found in all of the subspecies of ringed seal (with
the exception of the Okhotsk ringed seal). The variety, sources, and
transport mechanisms of contaminants vary across ringed seal
ecosystems. Statistical analysis of OC compounds in marine mammals has
shown that, for most OCs, the European Arctic is more contaminated than
the Canadian and U.S. Arctic.
Reduced productivity in the Baltic ringed seal in recent decades
resulted from impaired fertility that was associated with pollutants.
High levels of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) were found in Baltic (Bothnian Bay) ringed
seals in the 1960s and 1970s, and PCB levels were correlated with
reproductive failure. More recently, PFOSs (perfluorooctane sulfonate;
a perfluorinated contaminant or PFC) were reported as 15 times greater
in Baltic ringed seals than in Arctic ringed seals.
Present and future impacts of contaminants on ringed seal
populations warrant further study. Climate change has the potential to
increase the transport of pollutants from lower latitudes to the
Arctic, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring of ringed
seal contaminant levels. The BRT considered the potential threat posed
to ringed seals from contaminants as of low to moderate significance,
with the least threat identified for Arctic ringed seals and the
greatest for Baltic ringed seals.
Oil and Gas Activities
Extensive oil and gas reserves coupled with rising global demand
make it very likely that oil and gas development 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 affect ringed seals primarily through
noise, physical disturbance, and pollution, particularly in the event
of a large oil spill or blowout.
Within the range of the Arctic ringed seal, offshore oil and gas
exploration and production activities are currently underway in the
United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. In the United
States, oil and gas activities have been conducted off the coast of
Alaska since the 1970s, with most of the activity occurring in the
Beaufort Sea. Although five exploratory wells have previously been
drilled in the Chukchi Sea, no oil fields have been developed or
brought into production. Shell plans to drill up to three wells during
2012 at several locations in the northeast Chukchi Sea. Shell also
plans to drill offshore in the Beaufort Sea in 2012 near Camden Bay. No
offshore oil or gas fields are currently in development or production
in the Bering Sea.
About 80 percent of the oil and 99 percent of the gas produced in
the Arctic comes from Russia (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 likely
continue to be the dominant producer of Arctic oil and gas in the
future (AMAP, 2007). Oil and gas developments in the Kara and Barents
Seas began in 1992, and large-scale production activities were
initiated during 1998-2000. Oil and gas production activities are
expected to grow in the western Siberian provinces and Kara and Barents
Seas in the future. Recently there has also been renewed interest in
the Russian Chukchi Sea, as new evidence emerges to support the notion
that the region may contain world-class oil and gas reserves. In the
Sea of Okhotsk, oil and natural gas operations are active off the
northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, and future developments are
planned in the western Kamchatka and Magadan regions.
A major project underway in the Baltic Sea is the Nord Stream
1,200-km gas line, which will be the longest subsea natural gas
pipeline in the world. Concerns have been expressed about the potential
disturbance of World War II landmines and chemical toxins in the
sediment during construction. There are also concerns about potential
leaks and spills from the pipeline and impacts on the Baltic Sea marine
environment once the pipeline is operational. Circulation of waters in
the Baltic Sea is limited and any contaminants may not be flushed
efficiently.
Large oil spills or blowouts are considered to be the greatest
threat of oil and gas exploration activities in the marine environment.
In contrast to spills on land, large spills at sea are difficult to
contain and may spread over hundreds or thousands of kilometers.
Responding to a spill in the Arctic environment would be particularly
challenging. The U.S. Arctic has very little infrastructure to support
oil spill response, with few roads and no major port facilities.
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 would be the most
[[Page 76713]]
challenging because industry and government have little experience
containing or effectively recovering spilled oil in such conditions.
The difficulties experienced in stopping and containing the blowout at
the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico, where environmental
conditions and response preparedness are comparatively good (but waters
are much deeper than the Arctic continental shelf), 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
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 (Sakhalin Island). In the Arctic, a blowout at an offshore
platform in the Ekofisk oil field in the North Sea in 1977 released
more than 200,000 barrels of oil.
Researchers have suggested that pups of ice-associated seals may be
particularly vulnerable to fouling of their dense lanugo coats. Adults,
juveniles, and weaned young of the year rely on blubber for insulation,
so effects of oiling on their thermoregulation are expected to be
minimal. A variety of other acute effects of oil exposure have been
shown to reduce seals' health and possibly survival. Direct ingestion
of oil, ingestion of contaminated prey, or inhalation of hydrocarbon
vapors can cause serious health effects including death.
The BRT considered the threat posed to ringed seals by disturbance,
injury, or mortality from oil spills, and/or other discharges, as of
low to moderate significance, with the greatest threat identified for
Okhotsk and Baltic ringed seals.
Commercial Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch
Commercial fisheries may affect ringed seals through direct
interactions (i.e., incidental take or bycatch) and indirectly through
competition for prey resources and other impacts on prey populations.
NMFS has access to estimates of Arctic ringed seal bycatch only for
commercial fisheries that operate in Alaska waters. Based on data from
2002-2006, there has been an annual average of 0.46 Arctic ringed seal
mortalities incidental to commercial fishing operations. NAMMCO (2002)
stated that in the North Atlantic region Arctic ringed seals are seldom
caught in fishing gear because their distribution does not coincide
with intensive fisheries in most areas. We could find no information
regarding ringed seal bycatch levels in the Sea of Okhotsk; however,
given the intensive levels of commercial fishing that occur in this
sea, bycatch of ringed seals likely occurs there. The BRT considered
the threat posed to Okhotsk ringed seals from physical disturbance
associated with the combined factors of oil and gas development,
shipping, and commercial fisheries moderately significant.
Drowning in fishing gear has been reported as one of the most
significant mortality factors for seals in the Baltic Sea, especially
for young seals. There are no reliable estimates of seal bycatch in
this sea, and existing estimates are known to be low in many areas,
making risk assessment difficult. Based on monitoring of 5 percent of
the commercial fishing effort in the Swedish coastal fisheries, bycatch
of Baltic ringed seals was estimated at 50 seals in 2004. In Finland,
it was estimated that about 70 Baltic ringed seals were caught by
fishing gear annually during the period 1997-1999. There are no
estimates of seal bycatch from Lithuanian, Estonian, or Russian waters
of the Baltic. It has been suggested that decreases in the use of the
most harmful types of nets (i.e., gillnets and unprotected trap nets),
along with the development of seal-proof fishing gear, may have
resulted in a decline in Baltic ringed seal bycatch (Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, 2007).
It has been estimated that 200-400 Ladoga ringed seals died
annually in fishing gear during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fishing
patterns reportedly changed since then, and in the late 1990s fishing
was not regarded to be a threat to Ladoga ringed seal populations,
although it was suggested that it could become so should market
conditions improve (Sipil[auml] and Hyv[auml]rinen, 1998). Based on
interviews with fishermen in Lake Ladoga, Verevkin et al. (2006)
reported that at least 483 Ladoga ringed seals were killed in fishing
gear in 2003, even though official records only recorded 60 cases of
bycatch. Further, Verevkin et al. (2010) reported questionnaire
responses by fishermen that indicated annual bycatch of Ladoga ringed
seals caught in fishing nets has been substantial in recent years.
For indirect interactions, we note that commercial fisheries target
a number of known ringed seal prey species such as walleye pollock
(Theragra chalcogramma), Pacific cod, herring (Clupea sp.), and
capelin. These fisheries may affect ringed seals indirectly through
reductions in prey biomass and through other fishing mediated changes
in ringed seal prey species.
Shipping
The reduction in Arctic sea ice that has occurred in recent years
has renewed interest in using the Arctic Ocean as a potential waterway
for coastal, regional, and trans-Arctic marine operations. Climate
models predict that the warming trend in the Arctic will accelerate,
causing the ice to begin melting earlier in the spring and resume
freezing later in the fall, resulting in an expansion of potential
shipping routes and lengthening the potential navigation season.
The most significant risk posed by shipping activities in the
Arctic is the accidental or illegal discharge of oil or other toxic
substances carried by ships, due to their immediate and potentially
long-term effects on individual animals, populations, food webs, and
the environment. Shipping activities can also affect ringed seals
directly through noise and physical disturbance (e.g., icebreaking
vessels), as well as indirectly through ship emissions and the
possibility of introducing exotic species that may affect ringed seal
food webs.
Current and future shipping activities in the Arctic pose varying
levels of threats to ringed seals depending on the type and intensity
of the shipping activity and its degree of spatial and temporal overlap
with ringed seal habitats. These factors are inherently difficult to
predict, making threat assessment highly uncertain. However, given what
is currently known about ringed seal populations and shipping activity
in the Arctic, some general assessments can be made. Arctic ringed seal
densities are variable and depend on many factors; however, they are
often reported to be widely distributed in relatively low densities and
rarely congregate in large numbers. This may help mitigate the risks of
more localized shipping threats (e.g., oil spills or physical
disturbance), since the impacts from such events would be less likely
to affect large numbers of seals. The fact that nearly all shipping
activity in the Arctic (with the exception of icebreaking) purposefully
avoids areas of ice and primarily occurs during the ice-free or low-ice
seasons also helps to
[[Page 76714]]
mitigate the risks associated with shipping to ringed seals, since they
are closely associated with ice at nearly all times of the year.
Icebreakers pose special risks to ringed seals because they are capable
of operating year-round in all but the heaviest ice conditions and are
often used to escort other types of vessels (e.g., tankers and bulk
carriers) through ice-covered areas. If icebreaking activities increase
in the Arctic in the future as expected, the likelihood of negative
impacts (e.g., oil spills, pollution, noise, disturbance, and habitat
alteration) occurring in ice-covered areas where ringed seals occur
will likely also increase.
Though few details are available regarding shipping levels in the
Sea of Okhotsk, resource development over the last decade stands out as
a likely significant contributor. Relatively high levels of shipping
are needed to support present oil and gas operations. In addition,
large-scale commercial fishing occurs in many parts of the sea. Winter
shipping activities in the southern Sea of Okhotsk are expected to
increase considerably as oil and gas production pushes the development
and use of new classes of icebreaking ships, thereby increasing the
potential for shipping accidents and oil spills in the ice-covered
regions of this sea.
The Baltic Sea is one of the most heavily trafficked shipping areas
in the world, with more than 2,000 large ships (including about 200 oil
tankers) sailing on its waters on an average day. Additionally, ferry
lines, fishing boats, and cruise ships frequent the Baltic Sea. Both
the number and size of ships (especially oil tankers) have grown in
recent years, and the amount of oil transported in the Baltic
(especially from the Gulf of Finland) has increased significantly since
2000. The risk of oil exposure for seals living in the Baltic Sea is
considered to be greatest in the Gulf of Finland, where oil shipping
routes pass through ringed seal pupping areas as well as close to rocks
and islets where seals sometimes haul out. Icebreaking during the
winter is considered to be the most significant marine traffic factor
for seals in the Baltic Sea, especially in the Bothnian Bay.
Lake Ladoga is connected to the Baltic Sea and other bodies of
water via a network of rivers and canals that are used as waterways to
transport people, resources, and cargo throughout the Baltic region.
However, reviews of the biology and conservation of Ladoga ringed seals
have not identified shipping-related activities (other than accidental
bycatch in fishing gear) as being important risks to the conservation
status of this subspecies.
The threats posed from shipping activity in the Sea of Okhotsk,
Baltic Sea, and Lake Ladoga and are largely the same as they are for
the Arctic. Two obvious but important distinctions between these
regions and the Arctic are that these bodies of water are
geographically smaller and more confined than many areas where the
Arctic subspecies lives, and they contain much smaller populations of
ringed seals. Therefore, shipping and ringed seals are more likely to
overlap spatially in these regions, and a single accident (e.g., a
large oil spill) could potentially impact these smaller populations
severely. However, the lack of specific information on threats and
impacts (now and in the future) makes threat assessment in these
regions uncertain. More information is needed to adequately assess the
risks of shipping to ringed seals. The BRT considered the threat posed
to Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals from physical disturbance
associated with the combined factors of oil and gas development,
shipping, and commercial fisheries moderately significant, while also
noting that drowning of seals in fishing nets and disturbance from
human activities are specific conservation concerns for Ladoga ringed
seals.
Summary of Factor E
We find that the threats posed by pollutants, oil and gas
activities, fisheries, and shipping do not individually or collectively
place the Arctic or Okhotsk subspecies of ringed seals at risk of
becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. We recognize, however,
that the significance of these threats would likely increase for
populations diminished by the effects of climate change or other
threats.
Reduced productivity in the Baltic Sea ringed seal in recent
decades resulted from impaired fertility that was associated with
pollutants. We do not have any information to conclude that there are
currently population-level effects on Baltic ringed seals from
contaminant exposure. We find that the threats posed by pollutants,
petroleum development, commercial fisheries, and increased ship traffic
do not individually or collectively pose a significant risk to the
persistence of the Baltic ringed seals. We recognize, however, that the
significance of these threats would likely increase for populations
diminished by the effects of climate change or other threats. We also
note that, particularly given the elevated contaminant load in the
Baltic Sea, continued efforts are necessary to ensure that population-
level effects from contaminant exposure do not recur in Baltic ringed
seals in the future.
Drowning of seals in fishing gear and disturbance by human
activities are conservation concerns for ringed seals in Lake Ladoga
and could exacerbate the effects of climate change on this seal
population. Drowning in fishing gear is also one of the most
significant sources of mortality for ringed seals in the Baltic Sea.
Although we currently do not have any data to conclude that these
threats are having population-level effects on Baltic ringed seals,
reported bycatch mortality in Lake Ladoga appears to pose a significant
threat to that subspecies, particularly when combined with the effects
of climate change on ringed seal habitat.
Analysis of Demographic Risks
Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested
demographically as risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial
structure and connectivity, and genetic and ecological diversity. These
demographic risks provide the most direct indices or proxies of
extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance and with few
populations will be less tolerant to environmental variation,
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity,
ecological interactions, and other processes. A rate of productivity
that is unstable or declining over a long period of time can indicate
poor resiliency to future environmental change. A species that is not
widely distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats is at
increased risk of extinction due to environmental perturbations,
including catastrophic events. A species that has lost locally-adapted
genetic and ecological diversity may lack the raw resources necessary
to exploit a wide array of environments and endure short- and long-term
environmental changes.
The key factors limiting the viability of all five ringed seal
subspecies are the forecasted reductions in ice extent and, in
particular, depths and duration of snow cover on ice. Early snow melts
already are evident in much of the species' range. Increasingly late
ice formation in autumn is forecasted, contributing to expectations of
substantial decreases in snow accumulation. The ringed seal's specific
requirement for habitats with adequate spring snow cover is manifested
in the pups' low tolerance for exposure to wet, cold conditions and
their vulnerability to predation. Premature failure of the snow cover
has caused high mortality due to freezing and predation. Climate
[[Page 76715]]
warming will result in increasingly early snow melts, exposing
vulnerable ringed seal pups to predators and hypothermia.
The BRT considered the current risks to the persistence of Arctic,
Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals as low to moderate, with the
Ladoga ringed seal receiving the highest scores. Within the foreseeable
future, the BRT judged the risks to Arctic ringed seal persistence to
be moderate (diversity and abundance) to high (productivity and spatial
structure). As noted above, the impacts to Arctic ringed seals may be
somewhat ameliorated initially if the subspecies' range retracts
northward with sea ice habitats, but by the end of the century snow
depths are projected to be insufficient for lair formation and
maintenance throughout much of the subspecies' range, including the
potentially retracted northward one. The BRT also judged the risks to
persistence of the Okhotsk and Baltic ringed seal in the foreseeable
future to be moderate (diversity) to high (abundance, productivity, and
spatial structure). Okhotsk and Baltic ringed seals will have limited
opportunity to shift their range northward because the sea ice will
retract toward land.
Risks to Ladoga ringed seal persistence within the foreseeable
future were judged by the BRT to be moderate (diversity), or high to
very high (abundance, productivity, and spatial structure). As noted
above, Ladoga ringed seals are a landlocked population that will be
unable to shift their range in response to the pronounced degradation
of ice and snow habitats forecasted to occur.
Conservation Efforts
When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the ESA requires NMFS 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 (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 monitoring compliance and
effectiveness, incorporates the principles of adaptive management, and
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing
determination.
International Conservation Efforts Specifically to Protect Ringed Seals
Baltic ringed seals: (1) Some protected areas in Sweden, Finland,
the Russian Federation, and Estonia include Baltic ringed seal habitat;
(2) the Baltic ringed seal is included in the Red Book of the Russian
Federation as ``Category 2'' (decreasing abundance), is classified as
``Endangered'' in the Red Data Book of Estonia, and is listed as ``Near
Threatened'' on the Finnish and Swedish Red Lists; and (3) Helsinki
Commission (HELCOM) recommendation 27-28/2 (2006) on conservation of
seals in the Baltic Sea established a seal expert group to address and
coordinate seal conservation and management across the Baltic Sea
region. This expert group has made progress toward completing a set of
related tasks identified in the HELCOM recommendation, including
coordinating development of national management plans and developing
monitoring programs. The national red lists and red data books noted
above highlight the conservation status of listed species and can
inform conservation planning and prioritization.
Ladoga ringed seals: (1) In May 2009, Ladoga Skerries National
Park, which will encompass northern and northwest Lake Ladoga, was
added to the Russian Federation's list of protected areas to be
established; and (2) the Ladoga ringed seal is included in the Red Data
Books of the Russian Federation, the Leningrad Region, and Karelia.
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 ringed seal is currently classified
as a species of ``Least Concern'' on the IUCN Red List. The Red List
assessment notes that, given the risks posed to the ringed seal by
climate change, the conservation status of all ringed seal subspecies
should be reassessed within a decade. The European Red List compiles
assessments of the conservation status of European species according to
IUCN red listing guidelines. The assessment for the ringed seal
currently classifies the Ladoga ringed seal as ``Vulnerable.'' The
Baltic ringed seal is classified as a species of ``Least Concern'' on
the European Red List, with the caveats that population numbers remain
low and that there are significant conservation concerns in some part
of the Baltic Sea. Similar to inclusion in national red lists and red
data books, these listings highlight the conservation status of listed
species and can inform conservation planning and prioritization.
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats (Bern Convention) is a regional treaty on conservation.
Current parties to the Bern Convention within the range of the ringed
seal include Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. The
agreement calls for signatories to provide special protection for fauna
species listed in Appendix II (species to be strictly protected) and
Appendix III to the convention (species for which any exploitation is
to be regulated). The Ladoga ringed seal is listed under Appendix II,
and other ringed seals fall under Appendix III. Hunting of Ladoga
ringed seals has been prohibited since 1980, and hunting of Baltic
ringed seals has also been suspended (although Finland permitted the
harvest of small numbers of ringed seals in the Bothnian Bay beginning
in 2010).
The provisions of the Council of the European Union's Directive 92/
43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora
(Habitats Directive) are intended to promote the conservation of
biodiversity in European Union (EU) member countries. EU members meet
the habitat conservation requirements of the directive by designating
qualified sites for inclusion in a special conservation areas network
known as Natura 2000. Current members of the EU within the range of the
ringed seal include Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Annex II to the
Habitats Directive lists species whose conservation is to be
specifically considered in designating special
[[Page 76716]]
conservation areas, Annex IV identifies species determined to be in
need of strict protection, and Annex V identifies species whose
exploitation may require specific management measures to maintain
favorable conservation status. The Baltic ringed seal is listed in
Annex II and V, and the Arctic ringed seal is listed in Annex V. Some
designated Natura 2000 sites include Baltic ringed seal habitat.
In 2005 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) designated
the Baltic Sea Area outside of Russian territorial waters as a
Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA), which provides a framework
under IMO's International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) for developing internationally agreed upon
measures to reduce risks posed from maritime shipping activities. To
date, a maritime traffic separation scheme is the sole protective
measure associated with the Baltic PSSA. Expansion of Russian oil
terminals is contributing to a marked increase in oil transport in the
Baltic Sea; however, the Russian Federation has declined to support the
Baltic Sea PSSA designation.
HELCOM's main goal since the Helsinki convention first entered
force in 1980 has been to address Baltic Sea pollution caused by
hazardous substances and to restore and safeguard the ecology of the
Baltic. HELCOM acts as a coordinating body among the nine countries
with coasts along the Baltic Sea. Activities of HELCOM have led to
significant reductions in a number of monitored hazardous substances in
the Baltic Sea. However, pollution caused by hazardous substances
continues to pose risks.
The Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation, and
Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic (North Atlantic
Marine Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]) was established in 1992 by a
regional agreement among the governments of Greenland, Iceland, Norway,
and the Faroe Islands to cooperatively conserve and manage marine
mammals in the North Atlantic. NAMMCO has provided a forum for the
exchange of information and coordination among member countries on
ringed seal research and management.
Domestic U.S. Conservation Efforts
NMFS is not aware of any formalized conservation efforts for ringed
seals that have yet to be implemented, or which have recently been
implemented but have yet to show their effectiveness in removing
threats to the species. Therefore, we do not need to evaluate any
domestic conservation efforts under our Policy on Evaluating
Conservation Efforts (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003).
NMFS has established a co-management agreement with the Ice Seal
Committee (ISC) to conserve and provide co-management of subsistence
use of ice seals by Alaska Natives. The ISC is an Alaska Native
Organization dedicated to conserving seal populations, habitat, and
hunting in order to help preserve native cultures and traditions. The
ISC co-manages ice seals with NMFS by monitoring subsistence harvest
and cooperating on needed research and education programs pertaining to
ice seals. NMFS's National Marine Mammal Laboratory is engaged in an
active research program for ringed seals. The new information from this
research will be used to enhance our understanding of the risk factors
affecting ringed seals, thereby improving our ability to develop
effective management measures for the species.
Listing Determinations
We have reviewed the status of the ringed seal, fully considering
the best scientific and commercial data available, including the status
review report. We have reviewed threats to these subspecies of the
ringed seal, as well as other relevant factors, and considered
conservation efforts and special designations for ringed seals by
states and foreign nations. In consideration of all of the threats and
potential threats to ringed seals identified above, the assessment of
the risks posed by those threats, the possible cumulative impacts, and
the uncertainty associated with all of these, we draw the following
conclusions:
Arctic subspecies: (1) There are no specific estimates of
population size available for the Arctic subspecies, but most experts
postulate that the population numbers in the millions. (2) The depth
and duration of snow cover are forecasted to decrease substantially
throughout the range of the Arctic ringed seal. Within this century,
snow cover is forecasted to be inadequate for the formation and
occupation of birth lairs over most of the subspecies' range. (3)
Because ringed seals stay with the ice as it annually advances and
retreats, the southern edge of the ringed seal's range may initially
shift northward. Whether ringed seals will continue to move north with
retreating ice over the deeper, less productive Arctic Basin waters and
whether the species that they prey on will also move north is
uncertain. (4) The Arctic ringed seal's pupping and nursing seasons are
adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The projected decreases in
sea ice, snow cover, and thermal capacity of birthing lairs will likely
lead to decreased pup survival. Thus, within the foreseeable future it
is likely that the number of Arctic ringed seals will decline
substantially, and they will no longer persist in substantial portions
of their range. We have determined that the Arctic subspecies of the
ringed seal is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range,
but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
are listing it as threatened.
Okhotsk subspecies: (1) The best available scientific data suggest
a conservative estimate of 676,000 ringed seals in the Sea of Okhotsk,
apparently reduced from historical numbers. It has been estimated that
the ringed seal population in the Sea of Okhotsk numbered more than one
million in 1955. (2) Before the end of the current century, ice
suitable for pupping and nursing is forecasted to be limited to the
northernmost regions of the Sea of Okhotsk, and projections suggest
that snow cover may already be inadequate for birth lairs. The Sea of
Okhotsk is bounded to the north by land, which will limit the ability
of Okhotsk ringed seals to respond to deteriorating sea ice and snow
conditions by shifting their range northward. (3) Although some Okhotsk
ringed seals have been reported resting on island shores during the
ice-free season, we are not aware of any occurrence of ringed seals
whelping or nursing young on land. (4) The Okhotsk ringed seal's
pupping and nursing seasons are adapted to the phenology of ice and
snow. Decreases in sea ice habitat suitable for pupping, nursing, and
molting will likely lead to declines in abundance and productivity of
the Okhotsk subspecies. We have determined that the Okhotsk subspecies
of the ringed seal is not in danger of extinction throughout its range,
but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
are listing it as threatened.
Baltic subspecies: (1) Current estimates of 10,000 Baltic ringed
seals suggest that the population has been significantly reduced from
historical numbers. It has been estimated that about 180,000 ringed
seals inhabited the Baltic Sea in 1900 and that by the 1940s this
population had been reduced to about 25,000. (2) Reduced productivity
in the Baltic subspecies in recent decades resulted from impaired
fertility associated with pollutants. (3) Dramatic reductions in sea
ice extent are projected by mid-century and beyond in the Baltic Sea,
coupled with declining depth and insulating properties of snow
[[Page 76717]]
cover on Baltic Sea ice. The Baltic Sea is bounded to the north by
land, which will limit the ability of Baltic ringed seals to respond to
deteriorating sea ice and snow conditions by shifting their range
northward. (4) Although Baltic ringed seals have been reported resting
on island shores or offshore reefs during the ice-free season, we are
not aware of any occurrence of ringed seals whelping or nursing young
on land. (5) The Baltic ringed seal's pupping and nursing seasons are
adapted to the phenology of ice and snow. The projected substantial
reductions in sea ice extent and deteriorating snow conditions are
expected to lead to decreased survival of pups and a substantial
decline in the abundance of the Baltic subspecies. We have determined
that the Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal is not in danger of
extinction throughout all its range, but is likely to become so within
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are listing it as threatened.
Ladoga subspecies: (1) The population size of the ringed seal in
Lake Ladoga is currently estimated at 3,000 to 5,000 seals, a decrease
from estimates of 20,000 seals reported for the 1930s, and estimates of
5,000 to 10,000 seals in the 1960s. (2) Reduced ice and snow cover are
expected in Lake Ladoga within this century based on regional
projections. As ice and snow conditions deteriorate, the landlocked
population of Ladoga ringed seals will be unable to respond by shifting
its range. (3) Although Ladoga ringed seals have been reported resting
on rocks and island shores during the ice-free season, we are not aware
of any occurrence of ringed seals whelping or nursing young on land.
(4) The Ladoga ringed seal's pupping and nursing seasons are adapted to
the phenology of ice and snow. Reductions in ice and snow are expected
to lead to decreased survival of pups and a substantial decline in the
abundance of this subspecies. (5) Ongoing mortality incidental to
fishing activities is also a significant conservation concern. Based on
the substantial threats currently affecting Ladoga ringed seals at a
significant level across the range of this subspecies, the high
likelihood that the severity of the impacts of deteriorating snow and
ice conditions will increase for this subspecies in the foreseeable
future, and the fact that the subspecies is landlocked and will be
unable to respond to habitat loss by dispersing to new habitat, we have
determined that the Ladoga ringed seal is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
endangered.
Significant Portion of the Range Evaluation
Under the ESA and our implementing regulations, a species warrants
listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. In our analysis for this final rule,
we initially evaluated the status of and threats to the Arctic,
Okhotsk, and Baltic subspecies throughout their entire ranges. We found
that the consequences of habitat change associated with a warming
climate can be expected to manifest throughout the current breeding and
molting ranges of ringed seals, and that the ongoing and projected
changes in sea ice habitat pose significant threats to the persistence
of these subspecies. The magnitude of the threats posed to the
persistence of ringed seals, including from changes in sea ice habitat,
are likely to vary to some degree across the range of the species
depending on a number of factors, including where affected populations
occur. In light of the potential differences in the magnitude of the
threats to specific areas or populations, we evaluated whether the
Arctic, Okhotsk, or Baltic subspecies might be in danger of extinction
in any significant portions of their ranges. In accordance with our
draft policy on ``significant portion of its range,'' our first step in
this evaluation was to review the entire supporting record for this
final determination to ``identify any portions of the range[s] of the
[subspecies] that warrant further consideration'' (76 FR 77002;
December 9, 2011). We evaluated whether substantial information
indicated ``that (i) the portions may be significant [within the
meaning of the draft policy] and (ii) the species [occupying those
portions] may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future'' (76 FR 77002; December 9, 2011). Under the
draft policy, both considerations must apply to warrant listing a
species as endangered throughout its range based upon threats within a
portion of the range. In other words, if either consideration does not
apply, we would not list a species as endangered based solely upon its
status within a significant portion of its range. For the Arctic and
Okhotsk subspecies, we found it more efficient to address the status
question first, whereas for the Baltic subspecies, we found it more
efficient to address the significance question first.
The consequences of the potential threats to the Arctic and Okhotsk
subspecies, including from changes in sea ice habitat, have been
addressed in other sections of the preamble to this final rule. Based
on our review of the record, we did not find substantial information
indicating that any of the threats to the Arctic and Okhotsk
subspecies, including those associated with the changes in sea ice
habitat, are so severe or so concentrated as to indicate that either
subspecies currently qualifies as endangered within some portion of its
range. As described in our Listing Determinations, the threats are such
that we concluded that Arctic and Okhotsk ringed seals are likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future. As a result, we find
that the best available data show that there are no portions of their
ranges in which the threats are so concentrated or acute as to place
those portions of the ranges of either subspecies in danger of
extinction. Because we find that the Arctic and Okhotsk subspecies are
not endangered in any portions of their ranges, we need not address the
question of whether any portions may be significant.
About 75 percent of the Baltic population is found in the Gulf of
Bothnia (Bothnian Bay) in the northern Baltic Sea, while considerably
smaller portions of the population are found in the Gulf of Riga and
Gulf of Finland (15 percent and 5 percent of Baltic ringed seals,
respectively; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2007). Palo et al.
(2001) noted that the Baltic Sea subspecies has recently been
fragmented into these three breeding segments, but that genetic
evidence of the separation is not yet evident. Recent population
increases in the Baltic subspecies have been attributed entirely to the
Gulf of Bothnia portion of the population, while little growth rate or
possible declines have been suggested for ringed seals in the Gulf of
Finland and Gulf of Riga (Harkonnen et al., 2008; Karlsson et al.,
2008). We conclude that the best information available does not suggest
that declines in or loss of the Gulf of Finland and/or Gulf of Riga
portion(s) would result in a substantial decline in the rest of the
subspecies. We find that: (1) there is substantial information
indicating that the Gulf of Bothnia may be a significant portion of the
Baltic ringed seal's range; and (2) the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of
Riga are not so significant that the decline or loss of these portions
of the range would leave the remainder of the subspecies in danger of
extinction, and thus they do not constitute significant portions of the
Baltic ringed seal's range.
The consequences of the potential threats to the Baltic subspecies,
including from climate change, have been addressed in other sections of
the
[[Page 76718]]
preamble to this final rule. As described in our Listing
Determinations, the threats are such that we concluded that Baltic
ringed seals are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future. We do not have any information that would lead to a different
conclusion for ringed seals in the Gulf of Bothnia. Therefore, we find
that the Gulf of Bothnia portion of the Baltic subspecies' range is not
in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so within the
foreseeable future.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species. The
term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d)
authorizes NMFS to issue regulations it considers necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may
include any or all of the section 9 prohibitions. These regulations
apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S.
jurisdiction. On December 10, 2010, we proposed protective regulations
pursuant to section 4(d) to include all of the prohibitions in section
9(a)(1) (75 FR 77476) based on a preliminary finding that such measures
were necessary and advisable for the conservation of the threatened
subspecies of the ringed seal.
In light of public comments and upon further review, we are
withdrawing the proposed ESA section 4(d) protective regulations for
ringed seals. We received comments arguing against adoption of the 4(d)
rule and we have not received any information, and are not aware of
any, indicating that the addition of the ESA section 9 prohibitions
would apply to any activities that are currently unregulated and are
having, or have the potential to have, significant effects on the
Arctic, Okhotsk, or Baltic subspecies. Further, the Arctic, Okhotsk,
and Baltic subspecies appear sufficiently abundant to withstand typical
year-to-year variation and natural episodic perturbations in the near
term. The principal threat to these subspecies of ringed seals is
habitat alteration stemming from climate change within the foreseeable
future. This is a long-term threat and the consequences for ringed
seals will manifest themselves over the next several decades. Finally,
ringed seals currently benefit from existing protections under the
MMPA, and activities that may take listed species and involve a Federal
action will still be subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA to ensure such actions will not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species. We therefore conclude that it is unlikely
that the proposed section 4(d) regulations would provide appreciable
conservation benefits. As a result, we have concluded that the 4(d)
regulations are not necessary at this time. Such regulations could be
promulgated at some future time if warranted by new information.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult
with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
a species proposed for listing, or to adversely modify critical habitat
or proposed critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must
enter into consultation with us. Examples of Federal actions that may
affect Arctic ringed seals include permits and authorizations relating
to coastal development and habitat alteration, oil and gas development
(including seismic exploration), toxic waste and other pollutant
discharges, and cooperative agreements for subsistence harvest.
For the Ladoga subspecies of the ringed seal that we are listing as
endangered, take will be prohibited under section 9 of the ESA.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide us with authority to
grant exceptions to the ESA's section 9 ``take'' prohibitions. Section
10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued
to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or to
enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. The type of
activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/
enhancement permit include scientific research that targets ringed
seals. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits are required for
non-Federal activities that may incidentally take a listed species in
the course of otherwise lawful activity.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, NMFS 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). 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
identify, to the extent known, 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 Ladoga ringed seal occurs outside the jurisdiction of the
United States, we are presently unaware of any specific activities that
could result in violation of section 9 of the ESA for this subspecies.
However, we note that it is illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' within the United States
or upon the high seas, import or export, deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, or to sell or offer for sale in interstate or
foreign commerce, any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)) defines critical
habitat as: (i) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 3 of the ESA
also defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and
``conservation'' to mean ``to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the
listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on
the best scientific data available, and must take into consideration
the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Once critical
habitat 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.
[[Page 76719]]
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, we lack the
data and information necessary to identify and describe PCEs of the
habitat of the Arctic ringed seal, as well as the economic consequences
of designating critical habitat. In the proposed rule, we solicited
information on the economic attributes within the range of the Arctic
ringed seal that could be impacted by critical habitat designation, as
well as the identification of the PCEs or ``essential features'' of
this habitat and to what extent those features may require special
management considerations or protection. However, few substantive
comments were received in response to this request. We find designation
of critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals to be not determinable at
this time. We will propose critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals in
a separate rulemaking. Because the known distributions of the Okhotsk,
Baltic, and Ladoga subspecies of the ringed seal occur outside the
jurisdiction of the United States, we will not propose critical habitat
for Okhotsk, Baltic, or Ladoga ringed seals.
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that subsequent rulemaking resulting from this final rule
will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting
information from the public, other governmental agencies, Alaska
Natives, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested
parties. Specifically, we request comments and information to help us
identify: (1) The PCEs or ``essential features'' of critical habitat
for Arctic ringed seals, and to what extent those features may require
special management considerations or protection; as well as (2) the
economic, national security, and other relevant attributes within the
range of the Arctic ringed seal that could be impacted by critical
habitat designation. Although the range of the Arctic ringed seal is
circumpolar, regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify 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. You may submit this information by any
one of several methods (see ADDRESSES and DATES). Comments and
information submitted during the initial comment period on the December
10, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 77476) or during the comment period on
the peer review report (77 FR 20773; April 6, 2012) should not be
resubmitted since they are already part of the record.
Summary of Comments and Responses
With the publication of the proposed listing determination for the
Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga subspecies of the ringed seal on
December 10, 2010 (75 FR 77476), we announced a 60-day public comment
period that extended through February 8, 2011. We extended the comment
period an additional 45 days in response to public requests (76 FR
6754; February 8, 2011). Also in response to public requests, including
from the State of Alaska, we held three public hearings in Alaska in
Anchorage, Barrow, and Nome (76 FR 9733, February 22, 2011; 76 FR
14882, March 18, 2011).
During the public comment periods on the proposed rule we received
a total of 5,294 comment submissions in the form of letters via mail,
fax, and electronically through the Federal eRulemaking portal. These
included 5,238 form letter submissions and 56 other unique submissions.
In addition, at the three public hearings we received testimony from 41
people and received written submissions from 12 people. Comments were
received from U.S. State and Federal Agencies including the Marine
Mammal Commission and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG);
government agencies of Canada, Nunavut, and Greenland; Native
Organizations such as the Ice Seal Committee (ISC; Alaska Native co-
management organization); environmental groups; industry groups; and
interested individuals.
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy
on Peer Review (59 FR 34270), we requested the expert opinion of four
independent scientists with expertise in seal biology and/or Arctic sea
ice and climate change regarding the pertinent scientific data and
assumptions concerning the biological and ecological information use in
the proposed rule. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the
best biological and commercial information was used in the decision-
making process, including input of appropriate experts and specialists.
We received comments from three of these reviewers. Two of the
reviewers questioned the magnitude and immediacy of the threats posed
to Arctic ringed seals by the projected changes in sea ice habitat, in
particular on-ice snow cover, while the third reviewer was generally
supportive of the information and analyses underlying the
determinations.
The differences of opinion amongst the peer reviewers, as well as
uncertainty in the best available information regarding the effects of
climate change, led NMFS to take additional steps to ensure a sound
basis for our final determination on whether to list ringed seals under
the ESA. To better inform our final listing determination and address
the disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available
data relevant to the determination, on December 13, 2011, we extended
the deadline for the final listing decision by 6 months to June 10,
2012 (76 FR 77466). Subsequently, we conducted special independent peer
review of the sections of the ringed seal status review report (Kelly
et al., 2010a) related to the disagreement. For this special peer
review, we recruited two scientists with marine mammal expertise and
specific knowledge of ringed seals, and two physical scientists with
expertise in climate change and Arctic sea ice and snow to review these
sections of the status review report and provide responses to specific
review questions. We received comments from the two physical scientists
and one of the marine mammal specialists. We
[[Page 76720]]
consolidated the comments received in a peer review report that was
made available for comment during a 30-day comment period that opened
April 6, 2012 (77 FR 20773). During this public comment period on the
special peer review we received an additional 15 comment submissions
via fax and electronically through the Federal eRulemaking portal.
We fully considered all comments received from the public and peer
reviewers on the proposed rule in developing this final listing of the
Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga subspecies of the ringed seal.
Summaries of the substantive public and peer review comments that we
received concerning our proposed listing determination for these
subspecies, and our responses to all of the significant issues they
raise, are provided below. Comments of a similar nature were grouped
together where appropriate.
Some peer reviewers provided feedback of an editorial nature that
noted inadvertent minor errors in the proposed rule and offered non-
substantive but clarifying changes to wording. We have addressed these
editorial comments in this final rule as appropriate. Because these
comments did not result in substantive changes to the final rule, we
have not detailed them here. In addition to the specific comments
detailed below relating to the proposed listing rule, we also received
comments expressing general support for or opposition to the proposed
rule and comments conveying peer-reviewed journal articles, technical
reports, and references to scientific literature regarding threats to
the species and its habitat. Unless otherwise noted in our responses
below, after thorough review, we concluded that the additional
information received was considered previously or did not alter our
determinations regarding the status of the four ringed seal subspecies.
Peer Review Comments
Comment 1: Four peer reviewers commented that the best available
data on ringed seal demographics and current and past abundance are
limited to poor or non-existent. Consequently, these reviewers noted
that there is considerable uncertainty associated with these
parameters, including in many areas of Canadian waters. In addition,
one reviewer noted that results of ringed seal surveys reported by
Kingsley et al. (1985) were not cited. One of the reviewers also
commented that new information regarding the health and status of
ringed seals in Alaska that became available after the proposed rule
was published (i.e., Quakenbush et al., 2011) should be considered, and
that this information indicates they are currently doing as well or
better than they have since the 1960s. The State of Alaska submitted a
summary of this information with its comments on the proposed rule, and
also subsequently submitted a full copy of Quakenbush et al. (2011),
commenting that these data indicate Arctic ringed seals are currently
healthy.
Response: We agree that data on ringed seal demography and
population size are limited. None of the published reports (including
Kingsley et al., 1985) provide reliable estimates of total or range-
wide population size. We have taken Quakenbush et al.'s (2011) data
(available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice.htm) into consideration in reaching our final listing
determination, and these data will be useful in future status reviews.
We note, however, that healthy individual animals are not inconsistent
with a population facing threats that would cause it to become in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. For example, animals
sampled from the endangered Western DPS of Steller sea lions have
consistently been found to be healthy. In the case of ringed seals,
substantial losses due to predation and hypothermia associated with
reduced snow cover could not be detected by assessing the health of
survivors. In fact, survivors might be expected to fare well for a
period of time as a consequence of reduced competition.
Comment 2: A peer reviewer suggested that although the ringed seal
population in the Sea of Okhotsk is reported to have been in a state of
steady decline for 55 years, there are still a substantial number of
seals estimated in this population. This reviewer noted that it is
possible that the perceived decline reflects sampling error rather than
an actual decline in abundance.
Response: We must base our listing decisions solely on the best
scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a status
review of the species and taking into account efforts to protect the
species. Improved population estimates certainly are desirable. In the
meantime, as discussed in the proposed rule and detailed in the status
review report, the best available information indicates a decline for
the Okhotsk subspecies from historical numbers.
Comment 3: Four peer reviewers expressed the view that the
atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) used for climate,
sea ice, and snow prediction are not appropriate for directly linking
to ringed seal habitat or for predicting snow on sea ice at a scale
that is important for ringed seals. For example, some of these
reviewers commented that the models: (1) Do not represent precipitation
adequately, particularly at a local scale (one reviewer stated that it
is well known that AOGCMs do not adequately predict precipitation, and
two reviewers noted that some regional models predict precipitation
poorly); (2) do not account for openings in the ice that are large
sources of moisture and heat in the atmosphere, thus making winter
precipitation prediction problematic; and (3) do not account for ice
surface roughness caused by deformation in autumn through winter, or
wind speeds and directions, which are critical to the distribution and
accumulation pattern of snow on ice. Related comments of some of these
reviewers suggested that increased deformation can be expected as ice
forms later in the autumn and remains thinner throughout the winter,
and that this could actually mean an improvement to Arctic ringed seal
habitat. One of these reviewers pointed out that in addition, the
projections of future Arctic snow cover are discussed in terms of the
present climatology of snow over sea ice (i.e., increased precipitation
in autumn and spring, and less in winter). This reviewer suggested that
snow climatology would be expected to change due to more open water
later into the winter, which would provide a moisture source for
increasing pulses of snow on sea ice in the autumn and perhaps through
winter if the atmosphere remained warmer. Several public comments,
including from the State of Alaska, Canada's Department of Fisheries
and Oceans (DFO), and Nunavut's Department of Environment, expressed
more general concerns about limitations with the model projections of
snow cover, and some commenters also suggested that the model
projections should be verified by field observations.
In contrast, a third peer reviewer commented that the model
considered in the status review is the best source available for snow
cover projections, and a commenter expressed a similar view. The
commenter also noted that the snow depth findings of the status review
are now supported by a new snow depth analysis by Hezel et al. (2012)
that uses a more advanced suite of models from the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5; IPCC AR5) and suggested that
this analysis addresses some of the
[[Page 76721]]
critiques raised in the special peer review.
Response: The model (CCSM3; IPCC) that we used to project snow
depths includes the ice-thickness distribution and therefore accounts
for sea ice deformation as a function of the sea ice compressive
strength (resistance to compressive stresses; computed from the
potential energy of the ice-thickness distribution) and the opening and
closing rates of leads (linear cracks of open water in the ice) in the
ice (computed from the ice motion field). The model has roughly 2
percent open water and 10 percent of the area with ice thickness less
than 60 cm in the central Arctic in winter months. These aspects of the
model are well documented in Holland et al. (2006). The consequence of
resolving open water and thin ice allows for higher evaporation rates
over these surfaces. The model shows a greater rate of evaporation as
the sea ice concentration declines over the 21st century. This
contributes to higher snowfall rates in winter (November-March).
Sea ice deformation rates in the CCSM3 indicate the 21st century
will see increased deformation rates in regions where sea ice motion is
towards the shore, such as north of Greenland and the Canadian
Archipelago. As we noted in the proposed rule and the status review
report, this region is projected to maintain summer sea ice cover
during this century longer than any other. Though we agree that there
may be a greater concentration of deformed ice in some regions where
snow may collect, the CCSM3 (and other models analyzed by Hezel et al.,
2012) also predicts that snow depths will decrease on average in this
region within this century. When ice floes (sheets of floating ice)
converge, they first must fill in leads between the floes. Hence when
there is more open water in the 21st century and only occasional
converging events, there can be less rafting and ridging. Therefore,
deformation is not expected to increase in frequency everywhere. For
example, the projected deformation rate changes little in the CCSM3 in
most of the Barents Sea and Siberian coastal regions.
As noted by a commenter, recently, Hezel et al. (2012) considered
historical and 21st century snow depth changes on Arctic sea ice using
10 models from the CMIP5 that had snow depth data available. The model
projections were compared with existing observations, and according to
Hezel et al. (2012), the model projections were on average about 10
percent below observations, but about one-third of the individual
models projected more snow than observed. Despite the broad range of
snow depths among the 10 models over the 21st century, the models all
agree that snow depths will decline substantially in the future,
similar to the CCSM3. Snow depths decline faster in the models with
greater initial depth, so the spread in the model projections declines
over time, lending greater support for these forecasts. Hezel et al.
(2012) discuss that over the 21st century, the loss of sea ice as a
platform to collect snow in autumn and early winter (due to later sea
ice formation) results in a substantial reduction in the amount of snow
that can accumulate on sea ice, the primary concern that was also
expressed in the status review report and the proposed rule. Hezel et
al. (2012) also discuss that their analysis may underestimate future
decreases in snow depths because decreases in autumn and winter sea ice
concentrations could result in loss of drifting snow into leads, and
the models also do not account for the effect of rainfall in winter and
spring on net snow accumulation and melting.
We continue to conclude that the best available information
suggests that the CCSM3 projects snow depth reasonably well. We note,
for example, that snow depths from the CCSM3 are consistent with
measured snow in the Arctic Ocean (Radionov et al., 1997) and Hudson
Bay (Ferguson et al., 2005). The resolution of the model projections of
snow is certainly limited, but the CCSM3 and more recent model results
point unequivocally to less snow accumulation on the ice throughout the
range of the species. The reviewers/commenters did not present--and we
are not aware of--evidence that snow accumulation is likely to increase
at any scale that would likely be helpful for ringed seal populations
responding to the expected climate warming.
Comment 4: A peer reviewer commented that fast (shorefast) ice
conditions are not considered adequately in any of the AOGCMs used.
This reviewer expressed the opinion that this is a key problem with the
assessment because a significant amount of Arctic ringed seal habitat
is related to fast ice, and fast ice zones will also be less affected
than marginal ice zones.
Response: The sea ice dynamical schemes used in AOGCMs (including
the CCSM3) have regions of very slow moving ice, though not perfectly
rigid. These regions exhibit little deformation and lead openings in
AOGCMs. NMFS did not use AOGCMs to estimate changes to the fast ice
area. Instead, we used AOGCMs to estimate changes to snow depth and sea
ice area. Nevertheless, the status review report indicated that there
is already clear evidence of advancement in the break-up date of fast
ice and the onset of snow melt in several parts of the Arctic (e.g.,
Ferguson et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2006). No evidence was found by
the BRT or presented by the peer reviewers or other commenters that
indicates these trends are likely to abate or reverse. Early break up
and early snow melt dates have clearly been associated with poor
survival of ringed seal young. Therefore, these trends are likely to
result in reduced productivity, resilience, and abundance of the Arctic
ringed seal population, despite the fact that the models do not
explicitly distinguish fast ice from pack ice (both of which are
important ringed seal habitats).
Comment 5: A peer reviewer, as well as Canada's DFO, noted
observations of regional snow conditions and ringed seal pupping that
they suggested may conflict with the model projections of snow depths
and the 20 cm minimum snow depth criterion identified for ringed seal
birth lairs. The reviewer pointed out that based on CCSM3 model
projections presented in the status review report, average April snow
depths on sea ice for the first decade of this century in Hudson Bay
appear to be below 20 cm, which she suggested implies longer-term
reproductive failure in this population than the decline and/or perhaps
decadal cycles suggested by the available data. In addition, this
reviewer noted that loss of sea ice and snow can vary regionally, and
that this needs to be taken into consideration in evaluating impacts. A
few public comments also pointed out what were believed to be
discrepancies in some regions between the model projections of snow
depths and local observations, and expressed the view that a model that
does not agree with current conditions should not be used to project
future conditions. For example, these comments noted that: (1) Ringed
seals continue to occupy and reproduce in the northern Bering Sea,
while the model projections suggest that snow depths are currently
below 20 cm in these areas; and (2) the observed trend in annual
snowfall accumulation since the 1980s in the vicinity of Barrow shows a
clear upward trend, with levels similar to or exceeding those recorded
during previous periods when ringed seals successfully maintained
lairs.
Response: The models should be interpreted as indicating trends in
conditions when averaged over large areas. There may well be local or
regional variation sufficient to produce locally different trends. A
single model is prone to large errors on the scale of
[[Page 76722]]
a few hundred kilometers. For example, the CCSM3 has too much sea ice
area in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Labrador Sea. On the scale of the
Northern Hemisphere, the errors across these regions cancel somewhat.
Another appropriate use of a model is to evaluate agreement across
regions. Although the rate of change varies by region, the CCSM3 has
snow depth decreasing everywhere, which lends support for the projected
direction of future change.
Comment 6: A peer reviewer expressed the opinion that insufficient
consideration is given to the greater role that the Arctic Archipelago
will likely play as an ice retention zone over the coming decades.
Response: The proposed rule noted that the Arctic Archipelago is
predicted to become an ice refuge through the end of this century.
Indeed, the Archipelago ``will likely play'' a ``greater role'' in
ringed seal habitat ``over the coming decades,'' but not because
habitat will improve there (snow accumulation, for example, is
projected to decline). Rather, the Archipelago's increased role will
reflect greater losses of ice and snow elsewhere in the Arctic. In
other words, the Archipelago is projected to be the last possible
remnant of suitable habitat, although we do not know how suitable or
for how long.
Comment 7: A peer reviewer expressed the opinion that use of
temperatures as a proxy for projecting sea ice conditions in the Sea of
Okhotsk appears problematic given that: (1) The climate models did not
perform satisfactorily at projecting sea ice, and sea ice extent is
strongly controlled by temperature; and (2) temperature itself is
strongly controlled by sea ice conditions.
Response: The decision to use temperature as an indicator for the
presence of ice is a geographic size issue. While the climate models'
grid size is too coarse to develop full sea ice physics for the Sea of
Okhotsk, these models are able to resolve temperature, which is mostly
controlled by large-scale weather patterns on the order of 500 km or
more. As the reviewer notes, sea ice extent is strongly controlled by
temperature; this is especially true for smaller bodies of water
relative to the grid size of available models. Thus, whether the whole
geographic region around the Sea of Okhotsk is above or below the
freezing point of sea water should be a reasonable indicator of the
presence or absence of sea ice.
Comment 8: A peer reviewer suggested that climate models capable of
adequately capturing fast ice formation, the physics of snow
precipitation, and the catchment of snow should be a high priority for
development.
Response: We agree with this recommendation.
Comment 9: A peer reviewer expressed the view that climate model
predictions should not be considered beyond mid-century because they
rely on assumptions about future policy decisions that will affect GHG
emissions and are thus highly speculative. Related public comments,
including from the State of Alaska, noted that NMFS's recent ESA
listing determination for the ribbon seal and a subsequent court
decision concluded that projections of climate scenarios beyond 2050
are too heavily dependent on socioeconomic assumptions and are
therefore too divergent for reliable use in assessing threats to the
species. Two reviewers and several commenters expressed the opinion
that trying to predict the response of seals to environmental change
beyond mid-century increases the uncertainty unreasonably. A reviewer
and several public comments also pointed out that assessing impacts to
ringed seals from climate change through the end of this century is
inconsistent with: (1) Other recent ESA determinations for Arctic
species, such as ribbon seal and polar bear, that considered species
responses through mid-century; (2) the IUCN red list process, which
uses a timeframe of three generation lengths; and (3) the mid-century
timeframe considered to evaluate environmental responses of marine
mammals to climate change in a special issue (March 2008) of the
journal Ecological Applications (Walsh, 2008). A few commenters
expressed the opinion that the altered approach is significant because
the listing determinations are wholly dependent upon NMFS's use of a
100-year foreseeable future. Several commenters expressed the opinion
that inadequate justification was provided for NMFS's use of a 100-year
foreseeable future. Many of these commenters suggested that the best
scientific data support a ``foreseeable future'' time frame of no more
than 50 years, and some commenters such as the State of Alaska
suggested a shorter time horizon of no more than 20 years. In contrast,
another peer reviewer and some commenters expressed support for use of
climate model projections through the end of the 21st century.
Response: The ESA requires us to make a decision as to whether the
species under consideration is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (endangered), or is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (threatened) based on the best
scientific and commercial data available. While we may consider the
assessment processes of other scientists (i.e., IUCN; Walsh, 2008), we
must make a determination as to whether a species meets the definition
of threatened or endangered based upon an assessment of the threats
according to section 4 of the ESA. We have done so in this rule, using
a threat-specific approach to the ``foreseeable future'' as discussed
below and in the proposed listing rule.
In the December 30, 2008, ribbon seal listing decision (73 FR
79822) the horizon of the foreseeable future was determined to be the
year 2050. The reasons for limiting the review to 2050 included the
difficulty in incorporating the increased divergence and uncertainty in
future emissions scenarios beyond this time, as well as the lack of
data for threats other than those related to climate change beyond
2050, and that the uncertainty inherent in assessing ribbon seal
responses to threats increased as the analysis extended farther into
the future. By contrast, in our more recent analyses for spotted,
ringed, and bearded seals, we did not identify a single specific time
as the foreseeable future. Rather, we addressed the foreseeable future
based on the available data for each respective threat. This approach
better reflects real conditions in that some threats (e.g., disease
outbreaks) appear more randomly through time and are therefore
difficult to predict, whereas other threats (climate change) evince
documented trends supported by paleoclimatic data from which reasonably
accurate predictions can be made farther into the future. Thus, the
time period covered for what is reasonably foreseeable for one threat
may not be the same for another. The approach is also consistent with
the memorandum issued by the Department of Interior, Office of the
Solicitor, regarding the meaning of the term ``foreseeable future''
(Opinion M-37021; January 16, 2009). In consideration of this modified
threat-specific approach, NMFS initiated a new status review of the
ribbon seal on December 13, 2011 (76 FR 77467).
As discussed in the proposed listing rule, the analysis and
synthesis of information presented in the IPCC's AR4 represents the
scientific consensus view on the causes and future of climate change.
The IPCC's AR4 used state-of-the-art AOGCMs under six ``marker''
scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES; IPCC,
2000) to develop climate projections under
[[Page 76723]]
clearly stated assumptions about socioeconomic factors that could
influence the emissions. Conditional on each scenario, the best
estimate and likely range of emissions were projected through the end
of the 21st century. In our review of the status of the ringed seal, we
considered model projections of sea ice developed using the A1B
scenario, a medium ``business-as-usual'' emissions scenario, as well
the A2 scenario, a high emissions scenario, to represent a significant
range of variability in future emissions.
We also note that the SRES scenarios do not assume implementation
of additional climate initiatives beyond current mitigation policies.
This is consistent with consideration of ``existing'' regulatory
mechanisms in our analysis under ESA listing Factor D. It is also
consistent with our Policy on Evaluating Conservation Efforts (68 FR
15100; March 28, 2003), which requires that in making listing decisions
we consider only formalized conservation efforts that are sufficiently
certain to be implemented and effective.
The model projections of global warming (defined as the expected
global change in surface air temperature) out to about 2040-2050 are
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 emissions scenarios. For
the second half of the 21st century, however, the choice of an
emissions scenario becomes the major source of variation among climate
projections. As noted above, in our 2008 listing decision for ribbon
seal, the foreseeable future was determined to be the year 2050. The
identification of mid-century as the foreseeable future took into
consideration the approach taken by FWS in conducting its status review
of the polar bear under the ESA, and the IPCC assertion that GHG levels
are expected to increase in a manner that is largely independent of
assumed emissions scenarios until about the middle of the 21st century,
after which the emissions scenarios become increasingly influential.
Subsequently, in the listing analyses for spotted, ringed, and
bearded seals, we noted that although projections of GHGs become
increasingly uncertain and subject to assumed emissions scenarios in
the latter half of the 21st century, projections of air temperatures
consistently indicate that warming will continue throughout the
century. Although the magnitude of the warming depends somewhat on the
assumed emissions scenario, the trend is clear and unidirectional. To
the extent that the IPCC model suite represents a consensus view, there
is relatively little uncertainty that warming will continue. Because
sea ice production and persistence is related to air temperature
through well-known physical processes, the expectation is also that
loss of sea ice and reduced snow cover will continue throughout the
21st century. Thus, the more recent inclusion of projections out to the
year 2100 reflects NMFS's intention to use the best and most current
data and analytical approaches available. AOGCM projections
consistently show continued reductions in ice extent and multi-year ice
(ice that has survived at least one summer melt season) throughout the
21st century (e.g., Holland et al., 2006; Zhang and Walsh, 2006;
Overland and Wang, 2007), albeit with a spread among the models in the
projected reductions. In addition, as discussed by Douglas (2010), the
observed rate of Arctic sea ice loss has been reported as greater than
the collective projections of most IPCC-recognized AOGCMs (e.g.,
Stroeve et al., 2007; Wang and Overland, 2009), suggesting that the
projections of sea ice declines within this century may in fact be
conservative.
We concluded that in this review of the status of the ringed seal,
the climate projections in the IPCC's AR4, as well as the scientific
papers used in this report or resulting from this report, represent the
best scientific and commercial data available to inform our assessment
of the potential impacts from climate change. In our risk assessment
for ringed seals, we therefore considered the full 21st century
projections to analyze the threats stemming from climate change. We
continue to recognize that the farther into the future the analysis
extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we incorporated that
consideration into our assessments of the threats and the species'
responses to the threats.
Comment 10: Three peer reviewers expressed the opinion that the
potential for ringed seals to modify their behavior in response to
climate conditions is underestimated. These reviewers suggested that
plasticity in ringed seal life-history activities includes variability
in timing of reproduction and molting relative to changes in the ice
and snow cover season; the ability to survive slightly shortened
nursing periods; and the ability to migrate over long distances, to use
alternative platforms to haul out on, and to use alternative food
resources. One reviewer noted that changes in Ladoga and Saimaa seal
reproductive behavior in recent history (e.g., increased use of
shorelines for lair construction) also demonstrate adaptive responses.
The resilience and adaptability of ringed seals was also noted in
several public comments, including those of Canada's DFO, Nunavut's
Department of Environment, and Greenland's Department of Fishing,
Hunting, and Agriculture (DFHA). In addition, a related public comment
expressed the view that the determination appears to contradict NMFS's
emphasis in its recent ESA listing determinations for ribbon and
spotted seals on the ability of ice seals to adapt to declines in sea
ice.
Response: Presumably the reviewers are referring to phenotypic
plasticity, which is the ability of an individual genotype (genetic
composition) to produce multiple phenotypes (observable characteristics
or traits) in response to its environment. Plasticity in the timing of
ringed seal reproduction and molting is not established. More
importantly, the BRT would predict population reductions as habitat
changes (i.e., depth and duration of ice and especially snow cover
decreases) require changes in the timing of reproduction and molting,
decreased nursing periods, changes in migration, use of alternative
haul-out substrates, and changes in diet. If the reviewers are arguing
that ringed seal populations might persist in the face of such changes,
we agree. If the reviewers are suggesting that ringed seal populations
would not be expected to decline significantly in the face of such
changes, we disagree.
Comment 11: A peer reviewer commented that regional variation in
the minimum snow depth required for Arctic ringed seal lair
construction and maintenance is an important consideration, and noted
that the ambient temperatures and primary predator in a particular
region may influence the minimum snow drift depth needed for birth lair
formation and maintenance. This reviewer discussed that ringed seal
birth lairs have been successfully constructed in drifts shallower than
45 cm, with corresponding snow depths on flat ice of less than 20 cm,
in some parts of the subspecies' range, and also noted how difficult it
is to measure snow depth and how poor the data coverage is across
various parts of the Arctic ringed seal's range. A commenter expressed
the opinion that given the reviewer's emphasis on regional variation,
20 cm average snow depth might not be adequate in many regions. This
commenter also noted that Ferguson et al. (2005) found a minimum of 32
cm average snow depth was needed for lairs in western Hudson Bay.
[[Page 76724]]
Response: We recognize that there is some uncertainty in
measurement of snow depth and in identifying a threshold depth
(measured as the average accumulation of snow on flat ice) for adequate
recruitment of ringed seals. The minimum adequate snow depth is
unlikely to be a sharp threshold, so that there will no doubt be many
cases in which successful lairs have been created and maintained in
snow shallower than the threshold, and also many cases where ringed
seals have succumbed to predation or exposure in lairs made in deeper
snow. Also, there may be regional differences in this threshold depth,
though the examples that were cited in the status review report and the
proposed rule, and used to estimate the snow depth threshold, included
documentation of predation by bears, foxes, and birds. However, our
conclusions were based primarily on the expectation that snow depths
will decrease substantially in the coming decades, and that poor
survival of young seals has already been documented in recent years
with early break-up or onset of snow melt. No compelling evidence was
received during the peer reviews and public comment periods to indicate
that these impacts are likely to abate or reverse, or that they are
expected to be isolated to particular regions. We discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule that the best available estimate of the
minimum average snow depth (on flat ice) for the formation of birthing
lairs is at least 20-30 cm, and we considered areas projected to have
less than 20 cm average snow depth in April to be inadequate for the
formation of ringed seal birth lairs. However, the conclusion that snow
habitat will decline substantially throughout the ringed seal's range
was not highly dependent on that specific value.
Comment 12: A peer reviewer commented that while the observations
reported of the effects of extreme weather events on Arctic ringed
seals are important to consider, there are relatively few data on how
these habitat effects are influencing longer-term reproductive
potential and population dynamics need to be considered in the proper
geographic and temporal context. This reviewer noted that these
observations are also for Arctic ringed seals in the southern extent of
their range and in the western Arctic, where ringed seals are expected
to be more strongly affected by climate change. Therefore, they need to
be considered in the proper geographic and temporal context.
Response: Long-term data on population dynamics of ice-associated
seals would be prohibitively difficult and expensive to acquire.
Therefore, it is critical and required by the ESA to make use of
existing data, which include observations from years or short periods
of extreme conditions, as analogs for projected future trends. As the
reviewer noted, it is important to keep in mind possible limitations of
this approach, including the geographic and temporal contexts. Although
several of the key studies relating ringed seal vital rates to
environmental conditions do come from southern parts of the species'
distribution, the conditions encountered in those studies did not
exceed the values for temperatures, minimum snow depths, and ice break-
up dates that are anticipated in the coming decades throughout most of
the Arctic ringed seal's range.
Comment 13: A peer reviewer suggested that the assumption that
inadequate snow depths and warmer temperatures will cause high pup
mortality due to the loss of thermal protection is based on very
limited data. This reviewer also commented that ringed seal pups may
not need lairs for thermal protection to the same degree as
temperatures warm, which may be why ringed seals successfully pup
without lairs in the Sea of Okhotsk. Another reviewer commented that
the thermal benefit of lairs appears secondary to predator avoidance. A
related public comment noted that some data on seal pup mortality due
to hypothermia (i.e., Hammill and Smith, 1991) suggest that seal pups
are largely unaffected by the snow depth of subnivean lairs, and are in
fact much more tolerant of temperature extremes than suggested.
Response: Substantial data indicate high pup mortality due to
hypothermia and predation as a consequence of inadequate snow cover
(Kumlien, 1879; Lydersen et al., 1987; Lydersen and Smith, 1989; Smith
et al., 1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991; Hammill and Smith, 1989;
Hammill and Smith, 1991). The suggestion that ringed seals may not need
lairs to the same degree as temperatures warm is overly simplistic.
Unseasonal warming and rains will become increasingly common as the
climate warms, and such events have led to high pup mortality when
collapse of lairs was followed by a return to cold temperatures (Lukin
and Potelov, 1978; Stirling and Smith, 2004; Ferguson et al., 2005).
Whether one benefit is secondary or not, the preamble to the proposed
rule summarized considerable data that was detailed in the status
review report indicating that lairs protect seals from both cold and
predators.
Comment 14: A peer reviewer suggested that the climate model
projections of snow cover indicate it is highly likely sufficient snow
will be available to Arctic ringed seals in the foreseeable future
during the key months when reproduction is likely to occur.
Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule,
contrary to this reviewer's suggestion, by the end of the century,
April snow cover is projected to become inadequate for the formation
and occupation of ringed seal birth lairs over much of the Arctic
ringed seal's range.
Comment 15: A peer reviewer commented that the increasing
probability of spring precipitation coming in the form of rain during
the critical birth lair period (i.e., April) is of particular concern.
Response: This concern (i.e., potential for spring rain to damage
lairs) was identified in the preamble to the proposed rule and was
acknowledged and considered by the BRT in its risk assessment (see
Kelly et al., 2010a). We note that Hezel et al. (2012) reported a
projected increase in rainfall in April and May through the end of this
century.
Comment 16: One of the peer reviewers expressed the opinion there
should be more focus on the seasonal thresholds and types of ice that
are thought to be important for ringed seals, as some thresholds are
likely to be more critical than others. This reviewer suggested this
type of synthesis is needed to evaluate how important changing ice
extent, thickness, and presence of multiyear ice will be in the future.
For example, a change in ice thickness in core Arctic habitat may be
less significant than a change in freeze-up dynamics that affects ice
roughness and subsequent snow drift development in the medium and long-
term.
Response: A multi-factorial model of the impacts of ice extent,
thickness, and ice type on ringed seal populations would be desirable.
However, we are not aware of any time series or other data sets that
could be used in such an analysis.
Comment 17: A peer reviewer noted there are few data on what
proportion of the habitat identified as ``suitable'' is actually used
by Arctic ringed seals, and commented that without this information it
is difficult to evaluate the impact of ice loss. This reviewer
suggested that in core Arctic areas, availability of ice may not be a
limiting factor, even with changes in the short and medium term.
Response: The greatest uncertainty about areas actually used by
ringed seals
[[Page 76725]]
is with respect to the offshore areas, especially the central Arctic
Basin. Along the coasts and in the marginal seas, there is relatively
good evidence that ringed seals are currently widespread if not
ubiquitous in areas with regular presence of suitable winter ice and
snow cover. Many of these areas are projected to become unsuitable
within the 21st century. Because potentially suitable sea ice and snow
are projected to be present in parts of core Arctic areas longer than
in other areas of the Arctic ringed seal's range, ringed seals may be
affected later in these areas. Nevertheless, reductions in snow depths
are projected throughout the Arctic ringed seal's range, including in
core Arctic areas, such that Arctic ringed seals are threatened by the
anticipated habitat changes throughout their range.
Comment 18: A peer reviewer commented that considerable emphasis is
placed on the projected loss of multi-year and seasonal ice cover.
However, this reviewer noted that Arctic ringed seals avoid multi-year
ice, instead preferring stable first-year ice and stable pack ice, and
they only require ice during breeding and possibly molting. In
addition, the reviewer commented that how Arctic ringed seals might
respond to replacement of multi-year sea ice by seasonal first-year ice
is not sufficiently considered, noting that although the Arctic Basin
has relatively low productivity, it is unclear whether this will remain
the case in the future. Another peer reviewer and Greenland's DFHA both
commented that the translation of multi-year ice into more first-year
ice could actually increase the amount of ringed seal habitat.
A few commenters, including Canada's DFO, similarly suggested that
some habitat changes caused by projected changes in climatic
conditions, such as increased open water foraging areas, may be
beneficial to ringed seals. One commenter expressed the opinion that
NMFS arbitrarily adopted a precautionary approach that assumed the
worst possible future habitat conditions without taking into account
any future potential habitat gains. This commenter also stated that it
was unclear why NMFS provided the special peer reviewers of the bearded
seal status review a supplemental analysis that highlighted habitat
losses and gains based on the sea ice concentration criteria, but did
not provide a similar analysis for ringed seals.
Response: As discussed above, we used AOGCM projections to estimate
changes to snow depth and sea ice area throughout the range of Arctic
ringed seals. Thus, our analysis did not place particular emphasis on
certain ages or types of ice. NMFS considered the impacts of an
increased proportion of Arctic ice being made up of first-year ice.
Indeed, first-year ice is predicted to form progressively later in
fall, after much of the annual snow has already fallen, so snow depths
are projected to be diminished on first-year ice as well. An increase
in the proportion of first-year ice would not be beneficial to ringed
seal breeding and pup survival if snow depths on the new regions of
first-year ice are insufficient for lair creation and maintenance.
We agree that ongoing climate disruption and warming may cause some
habitat changes that could be beneficial to ringed seals. However, a
shift from unsuitable to suitable values of a few habitat dimensions is
not a strong indication that other habitat will become suitable
overall. For example, if Arctic ringed seals move north with retreating
ice and occupy new areas, they may encounter less prey availability in
the deeper, less productive Arctic Basin. The reviewer's assertion that
the Arctic Basin may become more productive is highly speculative;
unlike the physical models used to predict ice and snow, there is not a
broad scientific consensus on the general direction of the expected
trends.
We are not aware of any documented examples of ice-associated
species expanding into previously unsuitable habitat that has become
suitable due to climate or other large-scale shifts in conditions.
Therefore, we conclude that it is more likely that losses of current
habitat will outweigh any potential habitat gains. We also note that as
ice and snow cover decline, Arctic waters may become more hospitable to
species like spotted and harbor seals that do not depend on snow-
covered ice for breeding. So, as breeding habitat declines for ringed
seals, they may also face greater competition for food.
Regarding the supplemental analysis provided to the special peer
reviewers of the bearded seal status review report, that analysis
summarized the projected changes in areas of suitable bearded seal
habitat based on sea ice concentration and bathymetry criteria during
the months of reproduction and molting, both including and excluding
areas of potential habitat gains. Possible habitat gains for bearded
seals were described as areas where sea ice concentrations were
currently too dense to be considered suitable, but where projected
future concentrations fall within the suitable range. For ringed seals,
a key consideration in evaluating the potential impacts of the
projected changes in ice and snow is sufficient snow depth for the
formation and maintenance of lairs. We considered areas projected to
have less than 20 cm of average snow depth in April to be inadequate
for the formation of ringed seal birth lairs. Model projections
indicate that throughout the range of ringed seals there will be a
substantial reduction in on-ice snow cover within this century.
Therefore, a supplemental analysis similar to the one provided to the
bearded seal special peer reviewers would not have indicated any
potential gains in suitable habitat in terms of areas with snow depths
sufficient for ringed seal birth lairs in April.
Comment 19: A peer reviewer noted that there was discussion in the
status review report of limited evidence suggesting lack of a suitable
ice platform may lead to a delayed molt. This reviewer commented that
this should be discussed, along with the longer term impact from a
survival aspect. The Marine Mammal Commission submitted a related
comment that the projected loss of ice poses a threat to molting Arctic
ringed seals that should not be overlooked. The Commission noted that
failure of ice in a molting area may mean that seals are forced to
spend more time in the water, where they must expend more energy to
maintain body temperature-energy that does not go to the production of
a new coat.
Response: The limited evidence suggesting that a lack of suitable
ice may lead to a delayed molt was discussed in the status review
report. The BRT considered the threat posed from decreases in sea ice
habitat suitable for molting as moderately significant to the
persistence of Arctic, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals, and moderately
to highly significant to the persistence of Okhotsk ringed seals
(Tables 5-8; Kelly et al., 2010a).
Comment 20: A peer reviewer commented that given what is known
about the relatively diverse diet of Arctic ringed seals in different
regions and the potential for new species of forage fish to shift
northward, it is very difficult to predict how quickly the distribution
of ringed seals might change in some regions. This reviewer expressed
the opinion that it is likely to be highly variable, making conclusions
about climate change impacts over broad geographic regions difficult.
Response: NMFS agrees that drawing such conclusions is difficult.
The BRT members' assessments of the significance of specific threats to
ringed seal persistence in the foreseeable future were summarized in
the status review report in numerical scores. The BRT members assigned
relatively low threat
[[Page 76726]]
scores and low degrees of certainty to threats from changes in prey
availability or density and higher threat scores to changes in snow
cover and the impacts on rearing young (Table 5; Kelly et al., 2010a).
It is not clear how increased food would compensate for the loss of
snow, nor is it clear that forage fish moving north would not be
accompanied by predators that would compete with ringed seals for those
prey.
Comment 21: A peer reviewer suggested that the lack of subnivean
lairs in the Sea of Okhotsk has apparently not increased pup mortality
there to an extent that it has significantly decreased the population.
Response: Russian literature has been inconsistent as to whether or
not lairs are or were used in the Sea of Okhotsk. We know of no data
that would support the reviewer's assertion that pup mortality has not
increased or that the population has not significantly decreased. The
best available information would suggest the population has decreased,
but as noted elsewhere, estimates of population size are poor.
Comment 22: Two peer reviewers commented that Arctic ringed seals
are considerably more abundant and broadly distributed than Okhotsk and
Baltic ringed seals, and their habitat is forecast to change less
substantially. Therefore, it is unclear why the demographic risks for
all three populations were assessed at relatively similar levels.
Response: The ``relatively similar levels'' are, in part, a
function of the 1 to 5 numeric scale used to estimate risk in the
status review report. The BRT assessed the risk in terms of abundance
for the Okhotsk population as 31 percent higher than for the Arctic
population, and the risk for the Baltic population as 38 percent higher
than for the Arctic population in the foreseeable future (Table 10;
Kelly et al., 2010a). The assessment of demographic risks was detailed
for each population in section 4.3 of the status review report.
Comment 23: A peer reviewer commented that while it is acknowledged
that ringed seals have likely responded to previous warm periods, no
attempt is made to explore the extent of these warming periods and how
ringed seals may have adapted to them. The State of Alaska and another
commenter similarly suggested that past warming periods were not
adequately considered. They stated that the survival of ringed seals
during interglacial periods can be considered better evidence for
population persistence than predictive models of ice condition for
species extinction, and that this is a primary reason why listing of
ringed seals as threatened is not warranted. Greenland's DFHA expressed
a similar view.
Response: We are not aware of any available information on ringed
seal adaptive responses during the interglacial periods. A fundamental
difficulty in using pre-historic warm periods as analogs for the
current climate disruption is that the rate of warming in the pre-
historic periods is poorly known. The species' resilience to those
previous warming events, which may have been slower than the current
warming, does not necessarily translate into present-day resilience.
Moreover, there may be cumulative effects from climate warming and
ocean acidification, or other human impacts, that combine to limit the
species' resilience to the changes anticipated in the coming decades.
Comment 24: A peer reviewer commented that the magnitude of the
impact that increased predation might have relative to mortalities
associated with other climate related factors like an early spring rain
or an early break-up in a particular region is not discussed. This
reviewer also commented that how the suite of predators in a particular
range might change from predominantly ``on-ice'' species (e.g., polar
bears) to ``in-water'' species (e.g., sharks and killer whales) and
what impacts that might have is not addressed.
Response: Although the relative impacts of the various factors
cited by the reviewer are no doubt significant to the eventual status
of ringed seals in various portions of their range, we consider them
too speculative to evaluate at this time. The reviewer did not provide
additional data or evidence on which to base such an evaluation.
Comment 25: A peer reviewer expressed the opinion that the threat
posed to Arctic ringed seals by polar bear predation should be
qualified. This reviewer commented that it is unlikely polar bear
predation would cause significant pup mortality across the entire range
of the Arctic ringed seal. In addition, this reviewer noted that it is
assumed that polar bear abundance will remain high as snow conditions
deteriorate; however, it is expected that polar bear populations will
decline, which could reduce predator effects on ringed seals. In
addition, this reviewer commented that ringed seals may also become
less accessible to polar bears as seasonal sea ice decreases.
Greenland's DFHA similarly discussed the dynamic relationship between
polar bears and ringed seals, suggesting that observations of ringed
seal declines from increased polar bear predation during ice reductions
are part of the normal predator-prey cycle and should not be over-
interpreted in considering potential impacts of projected changes in
sea ice habitat.
Response: ``Significant pup mortality'' from polar bear predation
would not have to occur ``across the entire range of the Arctic ringed
seal'' to pose a threat. We recognize that expected declines in polar
bear populations could lessen predation on ringed seals; however,
decreased snow cover has also been shown to markedly increase predation
success by polar bears (Kumlien, 1879; Lydersen et al., 1987; Lydersen
and Smith, 1989; Hammill and Smith, 1989; Hammill and Smith, 1991;
Smith et al., 1991; Smith and Lydersen, 1991). While decreased sea ice
might decrease accessibility of seals to bears, it also may be that the
decreased extent of ice could concentrate ringed seals, resulting in
the opposite effect. The possible decreases in predation are
speculative, while increases in predation associated with decreased
snow cover have been well documented. Therefore, the best scientific
and commercial data available show that the threat posed to ringed
seals by predation is currently moderate, but this threat can be
expected to increase as snow and sea ice conditions change with a
warming climate.
Comment 26: A peer reviewer found the assessment of subsistence
harvest in the proposed rule reasonable, noting that harvest appears to
be substantial in some areas of the Arctic, but appears to remain
sustainable. This reviewer commented that the ISC has been developing a
harvest monitoring program with personnel assistance from the State of
Alaska. The Marine Mammal Commission also commented that it does not
believe that the subsistence harvest of ringed seals in U.S. waters
constitutes a significant risk factor for Arctic ringed seals, and
several other commenters expressed similar views regarding subsistence
harvest in U.S. waters, as well as elsewhere. In contrast, another
commenter expressed concern that the impact of Native subsistence
hunting on ringed seals is substantially underestimated. The commenter
expressed the view that NMFS needs to obtain reliable estimates of
subsistence harvest of ringed seals such that their conservation status
can be more closely monitored, in particular considering climate change
is expected to have impacts on ringed seals and those could be
exacerbated by other factors such as harvest. This commenter also
suggested that additional resources should be
[[Page 76727]]
devoted to obtaining these estimates of subsistence harvest, and
suggested that NMFS institute a harvest monitoring system rather than
rely on self-reporting.
A number of commenters, including the ISC and Greenland's DFHA,
emphasized that ice seals have been a vital subsistence species for
indigenous people in the Arctic and remain a fundamental resource for
many northern coastal communities. Some commenters, including the ISC,
requested that NMFS identify what additional measures would be required
before the subsistence hunt could be affected by Federal management of
ringed seals and under what conditions the agency would consider taking
those additional measures, and this information should be provided to
residents of all potentially affected communities.
Response: We recognize the importance of Arctic ringed seals to
Alaska Native coastal communities. Section 101(b) of the MMPA provides
an exemption that allows Alaska Natives to take ringed seals for
subsistence purposes as long as the take is not accomplished in a
wasteful manner. Section (10)(e) of the ESA also provides an exemption
from its prohibitions on the taking of endangered or threatened species
by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes, provided that such taking
is not accomplished in a wasteful manner. Although the number of ringed
seals harvested annually by Alaska Natives is not precisely known or
comprehensively monitored, ongoing hunter surveys in several
communities give no indication that the harvest numbers are excessive
or have a significant impact on the dynamics of the populations
(Quakenbush et al., 2011). The numbers of seals harvested have likely
declined substantially in recent decades because the need for food to
supply sled-dog teams has diminished as snowmobiles have been adopted
as the primary means of winter transport. The proportion of Alaska
Natives that make substantial use of marine mammals for subsistence may
also have declined due to increased availability and use of non-
traditional foods in coastal communities. However, there may also be a
counterbalancing increase in awareness of health benefits of
traditional foods compared with non-traditional alternatives.
Under the MMPA the Alaska stock of ringed seals will be considered
``depleted'' on the effective date of this listing. In the future, if
NMFS expressly concludes that harvest of ringed seals by Alaska Natives
is materially and negatively affecting the species, NMFS may regulate
such harvests pursuant to sections 101(b) and 103(d) of the MMPA. NMFS
would have to hold an administrative hearing on the record for such
proposed regulations. Currently, based on the best available data, the
subsistence harvest of ringed seals by Alaska Natives appears
sustainable. If the current situation changes, NMFS will work under co-
management with the ISC (under section 119 of the MMPA) to find the
best approach to ensure that sustainable subsistence harvest of these
seals by Alaska Natives can continue into the future. NMFS is also
continuing to work with the ISC to develop and expand collaborative
harvest monitoring methods.
Comment 27: A peer reviewer commented that it is suggested that
climate change will likely alter patterns of subsistence harvest of
marine mammals by hunting communities. However, this reviewer noted
that hunter questionnaire data from five Alaska villages (Quakenbush et
al., 2011) did not indicate decreases in ringed seal availability at
any location.
Response: The alterations to subsistence harvest patterns by
climate change suggested in the proposed rule are likely to occur at
some unspecified time in the future, when changes to snow and ice cover
are predicted to be more pronounced that they are at present. The
hunter questionnaire data relate to recent, not future, ringed seal
availability.
Comment 28: A peer reviewer commented that no information from the
subsistence community or the ISC is considered in the status review
report. This reviewer noted that subsistence hunters know a great deal
about the biology, ecology, behavior, and movement of ringed seals, and
keep a close watch for changes in the seals relative to environmental
change. Several related public comments, including from the ISC,
expressed the opinion that NMFS has not made adequate use of the
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of Alaska Natives related to ice
seals in the listing process. The ISC also suggested that NMFS should
conduct a TEK study related to ice seals. Another commenter
specifically suggested that TEK should be sought and incorporated into
model projections of future snow cover on sea ice; and that the
adaptive capacity of Arctic ringed seals should be further investigated
by seeking observations of Native communities, especially those in the
southern part of its range. This commenter also suggested that NMFS
should use an empirical static modeling approach (Guisan and Zimmerman,
2000) to defensibly derive habitat parameters and use TEK to provide
presence/absence data for model fitting and evaluation.
Response: The contribution of TEK to the overall understanding of
ice-associated seal species is greater than commonly acknowledged. Much
of our basic understanding of the natural history of ice-associated
seals stems from information imparted by indigenous Arctic hunters and
observers to the authors who first documented the biology of the
species in the scientific literature. NMFS recognizes that Alaska
Native subsistence hunting communities hold much more information that
is potentially relevant and useful for assessing the conservation
status of ice seals. Productive exchanges of TEK and scientific
knowledge between the agency and Alaska Native communities can take
many forms. Collaborative research projects, for example, provide
opportunities for scientists and hunters to bring together the most
effective ideas and techniques from both approaches to gather new
information and resolve conservation issues. NMFS supports efforts to
expand reciprocal knowledge-sharing, which can be facilitated through
our co-management agreements. These efforts require time to build
networks of relationships with community members, and the ESA does not
allow us to defer a listing decision in order to collect additional
information.
Comment 29: Four peer reviewers expressed the view that while the
best scientific data available was evaluated in assessing the status of
the Arctic ringed seal, this information does not provide an adequate
basis to support the listing proposal for this subspecies. Two of these
reviewers noted that Arctic ringed seals number in the millions, are
widely distributed across a vast area and variety of habitats, and have
a high degree of genetic diversity. They expressed the view that they
are thus unlikely to be at high risk of major declines due to
environmental perturbations including catastrophic events, and as such,
they are not at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future,
and should not be listed as threatened. In addition, these reviewers
pointed out that the climate model projections suggest there will be
sufficient snow and ice to support survival and reproduction of Arctic
ringed seals through mid-century, and they appear to have healthy
abundant populations across their range. One of these reviewers
suggested that this was the case for the other subspecies as well, and
noted that there is therefore still
[[Page 76728]]
time to monitor the status of these populations and their responses to
changes in ice and snow conditions before any of the demographic
characteristics considered could be expected to be at any elevated risk
level.
In opposing the proposed listing of Arctic ringed seals, several
related public comments, including from the State of Alaska, Canada's
DFO, Nunavut's Department of Conservation, and Greenland's DFHA,
similarly noted that Arctic ringed seals appear to have healthy
abundant populations across their range. Several commenters suggested
that the ESA is not intended to list currently healthy abundant species
that occupy their entire historical ranges. Some of these commenters
expressed the opinion that if NMFS lists healthy abundant species under
the ESA based on assessments that consider the potential biological
consequences of multi-decadal climate forecasts, virtually every
species could be considered threatened. A few commenters also stated
that a conclusion that the Arctic ringed seal subspecies will decline
from millions of seals to being threatened with extinction should be
accompanied with some level of quantification regarding what
constitutes being in danger of extinction. Finally, the State of Alaska
commented that although the monitoring could be enhanced, ADFG's Arctic
Marine Mammal Program is adequate to detect landscape population level
patterns and problems, should they arise in the future.
Response: The ESA defines a threatened species as one that ``is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Whether a species is healthy at the time of listing or
beginning to decline is not the deciding factor. The inquiry requires
NMFS to consider the status of the species both in the present and
through the foreseeable future. Having received a petition and
subsequently having found that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing ringed seals may be warranted (73
FR 51615; September 4, 2008), we are required to use the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether ringed
seals satisfy the definition of an endangered or threatened species
because of any of the five factors identified under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA. These data were compiled in the status review report of the
ringed seal (Kelly et al., 2010a) and summarized in the preamble to the
proposed rule.
We agree that Arctic ringed seals are currently thought to be
distributed throughout their range and number in the millions, are
widely distributed and genetically diverse, and are not presently in
danger of extinction. However, these characteristics do not protect
them from becoming at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future as a
consequence of widespread habitat loss. Based on the best available
scientific data, we have concluded that the persistence of Arctic
ringed seals likely will be challenged as decreases in ice and,
especially, snow cover lead to increased juvenile mortality from
premature weaning, hypothermia, and predation. Initially impacts may be
somewhat ameliorated as the subspecies' range retracts northward with
sea ice habitat. By the end of this century, however, average snow
depths are projected to be less than the minimum depths needed for
successful formation and maintenance of birth lairs throughout a
substantial portion of the subspecies' range. Thus, within the
foreseeable future it is likely that the number of Arctic ringed seals
will decline substantially, and they will no longer persist in
substantial portions of their range.
Data were not available to make statistically rigorous inferences
how Arctic ringed seals will respond to habitat loss over time. We note
that we currently have no mechanism to detect even major changes in
ringed seal population size (Taylor et al., 2007). However, the BRT's
assessment of the severity of the demographic risks posed to the
persistence of each of the ringed seal subspecies was formalized using
a numerical scoring system. The BRT judged the risks to Arctic ringed
seal persistence to be moderate to high within the foreseeable future
(Table 10; Kelly et al., 2010a). After considering these risks as well
as the remaining factors from section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we concluded
that the Arctic ringed seal is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), primarily due to the projected loss of
sea ice habitat, in particular snow cover.
Comment 30: A peer reviewer commented that although Baltic and
Ladoga ringed seals are the most at risk due to their lower abundances
and limited habitat, there do not appear to be sufficient data
available to evaluate the risks to their persistence. Similarly,
several commenters expressed the view that there are insufficient data,
including on abundance and population trends, to proceed with the
listing of Arctic ringed seals at this time. Some commenters stated
that we should defer the listing decision for the Arctic ringed seal in
particular until more information becomes available. Two commenters
specifically noted that NMFS has announced that it is conducting large-
scale ice seal aerial surveys, and they requested that NMFS delay the
listing determination until the results of these surveys become
available.
Response: Under the ESA, we must base each listing decision on the
best available scientific and commercial data available after
conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into
account any efforts being made by states or foreign governments to
protect the species, and we have done so in assessing the status of
Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals. These data were
summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule and are discussed in
detail in the status review report (see Kelly et al., 2010a). The
existing body of literature concerning ringed seal population status
and trends is limited, and additional studies are needed to better
understand many aspects of ringed seal population dynamics and habitat
relationships. However, the ESA does not allow us to defer listing
decisions until additional information becomes available. In reaching a
final listing determination we have considered the best scientific and
commercial data available, including the information provided in the
status review report as well as information received via the peer
review process and public comment. These data are sufficient to
conclude that Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic ringed seals are likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened) and Ladoga
ringed seals are in danger of extinction (endangered).
Comments on the Climate Model Projections and the Identification and
Consideration of Related Habitat Threats
Comment 31: A commenter noted that studies indicate the risks from
climate change are substantially greater than those assessed in the
IPCC's AR4, raising concern that the IPCC climate change projections
used in the status review report likely underestimate climate change
risks to ringed seals.
Response: Although recent observations of annual minimum ice extent
in the Arctic Ocean have been outside (i.e., below) the majority of
model runs projected from the most commonly used scenarios, a few
models exhibit anomalies of a similar magnitude early in the 21st
century. Nonetheless, the observed sea ice retreat has been faster than
the consensus projection, which may have occurred either because: (1)
climate models do
[[Page 76729]]
not have sufficient sea ice sensitivity to the rise in GHG forcing, or
(2) there is an unusually large contribution in observations from
natural variability. Many of the same recent years have been
characterized by near record high ice extents in regions such as the
Bering Sea, for example. While we recognize the possibility that
consensus projections may underestimate the future risks to ringed
seals, the likelihood of that does not seem to be sufficiently
established to warrant abandonment of the IPCC AR4 as the best
available scientific basis for projection of future conditions.
Comment 32: The State of Alaska noted that predicting climate
change is made more difficult and uncertain by decades long shifts in
temperature that occur due to such variables as the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO).
Response: Climate models account for PDO variability but the PDO is
chaotic--the future points at which it will shift between its warm and
cool phases cannot currently be predicted. In this sense, a specific
PDO is not predictable in the future. To address this unpredictable
variability, NMFS used the average from an ensemble of models and model
runs. The average of the ensemble indicates the expected response
forced by rising GHGs and aerosol changes. The individual model runs
that compose the ensemble vary substantially, often trending above or
below the average, or bouncing back and forth across it. The
variability among the model runs in the ensemble reflects the
unpredictability of the PDO and many other factors. We used the range
of this variability in our projections of future ice conditions, for
example, to characterize the minimum, mean, and maximum ice
concentrations in future decades.
Comment 33: The State of Alaska and another commenter noted that it
is assumed Arctic ringed seals cannot survive without year-round ice.
However, they suggested that the current status of the other ringed
seal subspecies indicates ringed seals can survive without multi-year
ice.
Response: Our risk assessment for Arctic ringed seals was not based
on an assumption that they require sea ice year-round. The threats that
were scored by the BRT as moderate to high significance were a decrease
in sea ice habitat suitable for whelping and nursing, and increased
hypothermia due to insufficient depth or duration of snow cover (Table
5; Kelly et al., 2010a). Both of these threats are relevant to the
period of whelping and pup rearing, about mid-March to mid-June for
Arctic ringed seals. We discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule
that the projected decreases in sea ice, and especially snow cover, are
expected to lead to increased pup mortality from premature weaning,
hypothermia, and predation.
Comment 34: A commenter expressed the view that sea ice in the
Arctic has been in decline for a number of years without observed
detrimental effects on ringed seals, thus calling into question NMFS's
assumption that future declines in sea ice will inevitably result in
impacts to ringed seals.
Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and
discussed in detail in the status review report, our present ability to
detect changes in the Arctic and Okhotsk ringed seal populations is
limited. There are no population estimates sufficiently precise for use
as a reference in judging trends. Indices of condition, such as those
recently reported by ADFG (Quakenbush et al, 2011), are available for
only a limited portion of the Arctic ringed seal's range and would not
be expected to detect certain types of detrimental effects, such as an
increase in pup mortality by predation. Therefore, while NMFS is not
aware of unequivocal evidence that Arctic or Okhotsk ringed seals have
declined, the converse is equally true: there is no firm evidence that
these populations are stable or increasing. Our decision to list these
subspecies is based primarily on our conclusion for ESA listing Factor
A that ongoing and projected changes in sea ice habitat pose
significant threats to the persistence of all of the ringed seal
subspecies.
The primary concern about future ringed seal habitat stems from
projections of inadequate snow depths for birth lair formation and
maintenance later in the 21st century. Although the model projections
considered in the status review report indicate a decline in snow depth
on sea ice has been underway for some years, the average predicted
depth remains at least slightly greater than the 20 cm minimum for
lairs. Thus, these projections are consistent with a scenario in which
little or no impact from climate disruption has yet been felt by Arctic
ringed seals. The anticipated impacts likely will begin to appear in
the near future as average snow depth on ice declines.
Comment 35: The State of Alaska and another commenter suggested
that the record high winter ice in the Bering Sea from 2007-2010 casts
some doubt on the determination of the threat of extinction to ringed
seals. They noted that the climate model projections make it clear that
winter ice will continue to occur, and that the length of open water
and changes in snow accumulation are the primary issues. These
commenters expressed the view that changes in the distribution and
numbers of ringed seals may occur, but the continued occurrence of
winter ice, and particularly years where its record extent coincides
with low summer ice, indicate that a more thorough assessment of seal
habitat and population responses is needed before the threat of
extinction can be assessed with any level of certainty.
Response: The above average ice cover in winter in the Bering Sea
in 4 of the last 5 years is consistent with natural variability of the
past 33 years and does not represent a statistically significant
increase. In any case, as the reviewer notes, the length of the open
water season and snow depths are the primary issues. Furthermore it is
the trend, forced from rising GHGs, in the sea ice cover in fall (and
hence open water) that causes snow depth to decline in the model
projections.
Comment 36: A commenter noted that NMFS's current MMPA stock
assessment report and proposed draft update state that there are
insufficient data to predict the effects of Arctic climate change on
the Alaska ringed seal stock, suggesting that predicting future
population declines based upon climate change effects is speculative.
Response: NMFS's MMPA stock assessments for ice-associated seals
need to be updated, which NMFS is in the process of doing to reflect
new data and recent analyses from ESA status reviews.
Comment 37: A commenter noted that elders and hunters interviewed
in 2011 for a Kawerak research project on TEK of ice seals and walruses
reported changes in ice and weather that complicated hunter access, but
they also explained that walrus, bearded, and ringed seals were as
healthy as ever. The commenter also noted that multiple hunters in
these interviews also reported that marine mammals have shifted their
migrations to match the timing of earlier ice break-ups. Individual
observations regarding ice seal ecology, health, abundance, behavior,
and habitat were also provided by a number of coastal Alaska residents,
primarily Native hunters. Many of these comments, including those from
the ISC, indicated that although the effects of a warming Arctic have
been observed for a number of years, ringed seals appear healthy and
abundant, and any significant decline does not appear to be
sufficiently imminent to warrant listing Arctic
[[Page 76730]]
ringed seals as threatened under the ESA at this time.
Response: TEK provides a relevant and important source of
information on the ecology of Arctic ringed seals, and we have
carefully reviewed the comments submitted from individuals with TEK on
ringed seals and climate change. We do not find that these observations
conflict with our conclusions. As we have noted in response to other
related comments, Arctic ringed seals are not presently in danger of
extinction, but are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future.
Comment 38: Greenland's DFHA commented that the most pessimistic
scenarios for consequences of sea ice loss on polar bears estimate a
reduction in the polar bear population to one-third of its present size
by 2099, and that if the densities of polar bears and Arctic ringed
seals continue to stay correlated in the ratio of 1:200, this implies
that there would still be more than 2 million ringed seals.
Response: The ratio between ringed seal and polar bear densities,
and the speculation that such a ratio would remain constant in the face
of extreme changes in the Arctic ecosystem, are interesting as a
conceptual exercise but cannot be considered the best scientific and
commercial information for the purpose of our ESA listing decision.
Comment 39: Greenland's DFHA suggested that if the projected
changes in sea ice cover are realized, ringed seal habitat will likely
shift northward of the range of Inuit hunters. They commented that in
recent years new ringed seal habitat has emerged in northern areas
where there is not hunting, which has actually created a new sanctuary
for ringed seals in what must be some of the most pristine habitats on
earth.
Response: The current levels of subsistence hunting do not threaten
ringed seal populations. If sanctuaries from human or other predation
were to emerge, as the commenter suggested, this could moderate, to
some extent, losses due to poor snow and ice conditions. However, given
the relatively small impact of hunting, and the potentially very large
impact from the loss of pupping habitat, such sanctuaries would have
limited benefit for the declining population status over time.
Comment 40: Some commenters argued that ocean acidification should
be determined to be a significant threat, in particular when considered
cumulatively with other climate change impacts. Another commenter
disagreed, and felt that NMFS more clearly discussed the uncertainties
associated with assessing the potential impacts of ocean acidification
in the previous ESA listing determinations for ribbon and spotted
seals.
Response: As we discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
impact of ocean acidification on ringed seals is expected to be
primarily through changes in community composition, but the nature and
timing of these changes is uncertain. The BRT members tended to rank
the threat from ocean acidification as relatively low, but also noted
the very low degree of certainty about the nature and magnitude of
potential effects on ringed seals (Tables 5-8; Kelly et al., 2010a).
However, the BRT did consider cumulative effects as part of the threats
assessment scoring procedure, as evidenced by the fact that the overall
score for each ESA section 4(a)(1) factor tended to be as high or
higher than the score assigned for individual threats within each
factor.
Comments on the Identification and Consideration of Other Threats
Comment 41: A commenter expressed the opinion that the listing of
ringed seals is related to the elevated number of sick or dead ringed
seals reported in 2011. This commenter noted, however, that testing has
not identified a cause for this apparent disease outbreak, and that the
significance of the mortalities to the population as a whole is
unclear.
Response: The proposed listing of Arctic ringed seals is not
related to the disease outbreak referred to by the commenter, which
began after the proposal was published. The elevated numbers of sick or
dead ringed seals in the Arctic and Bering Strait regions of Alaska
beginning in July 2011 led to the declaration of an unusual mortality
event (UME) by NMFS under the MMPA on December 20, 2011. The underlying
cause of this UME is unknown and remains under focused expert
investigation. We acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed rule
that abiotic and biotic changes to ringed seal habitat could lead to
exposure to new pathogens or new levels of virulence. However, based on
the best scientific and commercial data available, we continue to
consider the potential threats to ringed seals from disease to be low.
Comment 42: A few commenters expressed the opinion that existing
regulatory mechanisms in the United States and elsewhere are not
adequate to address the factors driving climate disruption (i.e.,
GHGs). One of these commenters suggested that U.S. agencies are either
failing to implement or only partially implementing laws for GHGs, and
that the continued failure of the U.S. Government and international
community to implement effective and comprehensive GHG reduction
measures places ringed seals at ever-increasing risk, where the worst-
case IPCC scenarios are becoming more likely.
Response: While some progress is being made in addressing
anthropogenic GHG emissions, we recognize in our analysis under ESA
listing Factor D that current mechanisms do not effectively regulate
the anthropogenic processes influencing global climate change and the
associated changes to ringed seal habitat, and that this is
contributing to the risks posed to ringed seals by these emissions.
Further, we note that our analysis considered future emissions
scenarios that did not involve dramatic and substantial reductions in
GHG emissions.
Comment 43: Some commenters suggested that NMFS should re-examine
its conclusion that fisheries do not threaten ringed seals because a
warming climate could lead to shifts in commercial fisheries that could
affect the seal's food base.
Response: The possible advent of new commercial fisheries, and the
nature and magnitude of ecosystem responses, are speculative. Although
there are possible risks, those should be mitigated through appropriate
management of new fisheries. In U.S. waters, the intent to conduct such
responsible management is evident in the Arctic Fishery Management Plan
(North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2009), which establishes a
framework for sustainably managing Arctic marine resources.
Comment 44: Some commenters stated that offshore oil and gas
development should be determined to be a threat to ringed seals in part
because there is no technology available to effectively contain or
recover spilled oil in ice covered waters, and a large oil spill could
be devastating to these seals. In addition one of these commenters
emphasized that extensive offshore oil developments are currently
underway within the range of Arctic ringed seals, and additional
drilling is proposed in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Other commenters
stated that offshore oil and gas development, as currently regulated,
does not pose a significant threat to Arctic ringed seals.
Response: Although a large oil spill could cause substantial
injury, mortality, and indirect impacts to seals in the area, the risks
posed to persistence of the ringed seal subspecies as a whole are low
and are possible to mitigate by preventive measures, at least relative
to the much more pervasive
[[Page 76731]]
risks from climate change and habitat loss.
Comments on the Status Determinations for the Ringed Seal Subspecies
Comment 45: The State of Alaska, Canada's DFO, Nunavut's Department
of Environment, and several other commenters expressed the opinion that
Arctic ringed seals should not be listed because there are no
scientific data demonstrating any observed past or present adverse
impacts on ringed seal populations resulting from sea ice recession or
other environmental changes attributed to climate change. The State of
Alaska also extended this comment to the other subspecies of ringed
seals proposed for listing. These commenters suggested that the
determinations rely on the results of predictive models and speculation
about future impacts, which they argued provide insufficient
justification. Some of these commenters noted that in contrast, the
polar bear ESA determination relied upon data for some populations that
suggested a link between observed population declines or other
population vital rates and climate change. Further, the State of Alaska
and another commenter suggested that climate model projections should
be considered as hypotheses to be tested with data collected over time.
Response: We have concluded that the best scientific and commercial
data available, which are discussed in detail in the status review
report and are summarized in this notice, provide sufficient evidence
that: (1) Ringed seals are strongly ice-associated and the pupping and
nursing seasons, in particular, are adapted to the phenology of ice and
snow; (2) reductions in sea ice and in particular the depth and
duration of snow cover on sea ice are very likely to occur within the
foreseeable future; (3) without the protection of lairs, ringed seals,
in particular newborn pups, are vulnerable to freezing and predation;
(4) the rates of environmental change will be rapid in the coming
centuries and may outpace possible adaptive responses; and (5) the
rapid changes in sea ice habitat are likely to decrease the ringed seal
populations to levels where they are in danger of extinction. Because
Arctic ringed seals stay with the ice as it annually advances and
retreats, the southern edge of this subspecies' range may initially
shift northward. However, whether Arctic ringed seals will continue to
move north with retreating ice over the deeper, less productive Arctic
Basin waters and whether species that they prey on will also move north
is uncertain. Land boundaries will limit the ability of Okhotsk,
Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals to shift their range northward in
response to deteriorating ice and snow conditions. Regarding the
climate model forecasts, the BRT analyses used simulations from six
CMIP Phase 3 (CMIP3) models prepared for the IPCC's AR4, which
represent the scientific consensus view on the causes and future of
climate change and constitute the best scientific and commercial data
available. Based on this information, and after considering the five
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, we have determined that the Arctic,
Okhotsk, and Baltic subspecies are likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout their ranges (i.e., threatened under
the ESA). Ladoga ringed seals are also faced with additional threats
and the population has been greatly reduced from historical numbers. We
have therefore determined that an endangered listing is appropriate for
this subspecies.
With regard to the comment that the climate model projections
should be considered as hypotheses, with data collected over time to
test the hypotheses, taking that approach in lieu of listing is not an
option under the ESA. If the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that a species satisfies the definition of
threatened or endangered, then NMFS must list it. In time, as new data
become available, NMFS may de-list a species, change its listing
status, or maintain its listing status. The determination here is based
on the best scientific and commercial data that is presently available.
Comment 46: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that before
listing the Arctic ringed seal subspecies, NMFS first determine whether
ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago might be recognized as
a discrete and significant population and excluded from the listing due
to limited change in physical and ecological conditions projected for
that area. A related comment from Canada's DFO expressed the view that
the subspecies-wide listing of Arctic ringed seals does not address the
variable spatial and temporal scales of threats that the different
populations of Arctic ringed seals face. This commenter noted, for
example, that while in the southern parts of its range certain Arctic
ringed seal populations might be compromised if warming trends
continue, in other Arctic regions ringed seal habitat could be expected
to remain.
Response: Under our ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996) two elements are considered when evaluating
whether a population segment qualifies as a distinct population segment
(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. 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).
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; 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.
As summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule and discussed in
detail in the status review report (p. 35-39), we found no evidence of
discrete segments within the Arctic ringed seal population, including
within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Therefore, we did not take the
next step of determining whether any population segment is significant
to the taxon to which it belongs.
Comment 47: A commenter suggested that if NMFS determines that any
of the ringed seal subspecies are threatened under the ESA, it should
adopt the approach used by FWS for species such as the walrus and
designate them as candidate species, or alternatively list them as
species of concern. This commenter expressed the opinion that listing
the species as candidate species or species of concern would avoid
unnecessary expenditure of resources while providing for the option to
take appropriate action under the ESA if it becomes necessary.
Response: Although NMFS and FWS define candidate species the same
way in their joint regulations, the two agencies have slightly
different interpretations of the term. FWS candidate species are those
species for which FWS has sufficient information to support an ESA
listing but for which issuance of a proposed rule is precluded due to
higher priority listings (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). Therefore,
[[Page 76732]]
FWS has already determined that its candidate species warrant listing
under the ESA. In contrast, NMFS uses the term ``candidate species'' to
refer to ``(1) species that are the subject of a petition to list and
for which NMFS has determined that listing may be warranted, pursuant
to section 4(b)(3)(A), and (2) species for which NMFS has determined,
following a status review, that listing is warranted (whether or not
they are the subject of a petition)'' (69 FR 19976; April 15, 2004).
Regardless, once a species has been proposed for listing, section
4(b)(6)(A) of the ESA does not allow us to issue a ``warranted but
precluded'' finding. Such a finding is only permissible at the time of
a 12-month finding (see section 4(b)(3)(B)), not a final rule. NMFS
defines a ``species of concern'' as a species that is not being
actively considered for listing under the ESA, but for which
significant concerns or uncertainties regarding its biological status
and/or threats exist (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). This is not the
case for Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, or Ladoga ringed seals.
Comment 48: A commenter noted that the Alaska stock of ringed seals
is not listed as depleted or strategic under the MMPA by NMFS, which
they suggested indicates the absence of scientific data or consensus
that these populations are currently threatened or in significant
decline.
Response: The absence of a depleted designation does not mean that
a species is not threatened under the ESA. Similarly, the absence of a
threatened designation does not mean a species or population stock is
not depleted under the MMPA. Under both the ESA and the MMPA, these
determinations are based on reviews of the best scientific and
commercial data available, which is the process NMFS is undertaking
here.
The criteria for depleted or strategic status under the MMPA also
differ from those for threatened or endangered species under the ESA. A
species or population stock is considered depleted under the MMPA if it
is determined through rulemaking to be below its optimum sustainable
population (OSP) or if it is listed as threatened or endangered under
the ESA. Section 3(9) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)) defines OSP as
``the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity
of the population or species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of
the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a
constituent element.'' Under the MMPA, the term ``strategic stock''
means a marine mammal stock: (1) for which the level of human-caused
mortality exceeds the maximum number of animals that may be removed
(not including natural mortalities) while allowing the stock to reach
or maintain its OSP; (2) based on the best available scientific
information, is declining and likely to be listed as threatened under
the ESA; or (3) is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
While we may consider MMPA stock assessment information, our
determination as to whether the Arctic ringed seal meets the definition
of a threatened or endangered species must be based on an assessment of
the threats according to section 4 of the ESA.
Comment 49: Several commenters, including Canada's DFO and
Nunavut's Department of Environment, expressed the view that listing
the ringed seal subspecies as threatened is inconsistent with the
IUCN's listing of ringed seals among species of ``least concern.''
Response: While we may review the assessment processes and
conclusions of other expert organizations such as the IUCN, our
determination as to whether the ringed seal subspecies meet the
definition of threatened or endangered must be an independent one based
on an assessment of the threats according to section 4 of the ESA.
After reviewing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
have determined that Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic, ringed seals are
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened)
and that Ladoga ringed seals are in danger of extinction (endangered).
Comment 50: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS re-
evaluate individual and cumulative threats to the Baltic and Ladoga
subspecies of ringed seals and consider listing these species as
endangered. The Commission noted that the Baltic and Ladoga subspecies
are greatly reduced from historical numbers and are subject to a range
of threats in addition to reduction in ice habitat, including mortality
in fishing gear, industrial pollution, and for Ladoga ringed seals,
disturbance of summer haul-out site areas, and likely increased risk of
predation as lair conditions deteriorate.
Response: With regard to Baltic ringed seals, we expressly
recognized the threats identified by the Commission in the preamble to
the propose rule. The BRT judged the risks posed by those threats to be
low to moderate at present. In weighing the immediacy and magnitude of
the threats posed to Baltic ringed seals, we continue to conclude that
Baltic ringed seals are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future, rather than that they are in danger of extinction.
We have also considered the Commission's comments and information
regarding Ladoga ringed seals. After reanalyzing the factors affecting
Ladoga ringed seals, we agree that greater weight should be given to
the range of threats affecting these seals, and in particular the
severity of the threats posed by loss of ice and snow and mortality in
fishing gear. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, threats
such as drowning of seals in fishing gear and disturbance from human
activities are conservation concerns for Ladoga ringed seals that could
exacerbate the effects to these seals due to climate change and habitat
loss. There is evidence that seal-fisheries conflicts continue, and
that bycatch of seals in fishing nets is a significant source of
mortality (Verevkin et al., 2010). Medvedev and Sipil[auml] (2010) also
reported that in the north portion of Lake Ladoga there has been a
marked decrease in snow cover and thickness of snow drifts. They noted
that the importance of this northern part of the lake as breeding
habitat is likely to increase as ice cover decreases or disappears in
southern Lake Ladoga. We have therefore concluded in our analysis of
the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that the risks to Ladoga ringed
seals under listing Factor A (``The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range'') and to a lesser
extent Factor D (``Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms'') and
Factor E (``Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence'') are collectively significantly contributing to
the risk of extinction for this landlocked population. We note that
Kovacs et al. (2012) cited similar threats in classifying the Ladoga
ringed seal as endangered according to the IUCN Red List classification
criteria. After reconsidering the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors in light
of the Commission's comments and the new information discussed above,
and taking into consideration other relevant factors, including
conservation efforts and special designations for this population, we
have determined that Ladoga ringed seals are ``in danger of
extinction,'' and are now listing them as endangered in this final
rule.
Comments Related to Subsistence Harvest of Ringed Seals
Comment 51: Several comments received, including from the ISC,
expressed concern that Alaska Natives who harvest ice seals, and all of
the coastal communities, will likely be disproportionately affected by
the listing of Arctic ringed seals as
[[Page 76733]]
threatened; and that the listing could cause hardship in the form of
restrictions being placed on subsistence hunting of the seals, and
could also result in other restrictions that could impair economic
development. Some of these commenters expressed concern that the
listing could also result in additional unfunded mandates, such as
monitoring of the seal harvest.
Response: As discussed above, the MMPA and ESA exempt subsistence
takes by Alaska Natives from the marine mammal take prohibitions.
Subsistence harvest of ringed seals by Alaska Natives appears
sustainable and does not pose a threat to the populations. If the
current situation changes, we will work under the co-management
agreement with the ISC to find the best approach to ensure that
sustainable subsistence harvest of these seals by Alaska Natives
continues. Protection under the ESA does not automatically result in
specific data collection and reporting requirements for the species.
However, benefits of listing a species under the ESA can include
enhanced funding and research opportunities that might address aspects
of the harvest for a listed species. In addition, when a species is
listed under the ESA, additional protections apply that promote the
conservation of the species and therefore have the potential to benefit
subsistence harvests. For example, section 7 of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to ensure that the activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
action agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Comment 52: The ISC expressed the view that, should Arctic ringed
seals be listed under the ESA, the Alaska Native community should have
a strong role in determining the terms of subsequent management,
including (1) representation on the recovery team, (2) the
identification of critical habitat, (3) identification of criteria that
must be met before any changes could be required in the harvest of
ringed seals or trade in their parts, (4) identification of research
priorities, and (5) identification of a mechanism for distribution of
funds available for research and management. Some other commenters
similarly suggested that local Native subsistence users should be
involved directly and have primary roles in any subsistence-related
management or monitoring activities involving ringed seals.
Response: We recognize the importance of ringed seals to the Alaska
Native community, as well as the expertise and particular knowledge the
Alaska Native hunting communities possess regarding the species and its
habitats. We are committed to meaningful involvement of stakeholders,
including the Alaska Native Community, throughout any recovery planning
process. Critical habitat will be proposed in subsequent rulemaking. We
are soliciting comments on the identification of critical habitat (see
DATES, ADDRESSES, and Public Comments Solicited for additional
information). We encourage those with expertise and understanding of
those physical or biological features which are essential to the
conservation of the Arctic ringed seal and which may require special
management to submit written comments.
In the response to comment 26 above, we explained the criteria that
must be satisfied for any regulation of subsistence harvest of ringed
seals or trade in their parts to occur under the MMPA.
We appreciate the ISC's interest in identifying research priorities
and a mechanism to distribute funds for ice seal research and
management. The ISC's Ice Seal Management Plan identifies its
biological and subsistence research recommendations for ice seals. The
ISC has provided this management plan to NMFS and we are taking the
information into consideration in planning future research (the ISC has
also made a copy of this plan available at our web site; see
ADDRESSES).
Comments on the ESA Process and Related Legal and Policy Issues
Comment 53: NMFS received comments that we should consult directly
with all of the Alaska Native communities that could potentially be
affected by the proposed listings, hold public hearings in each of
these communities, and consult directly with the ISC on the listings.
The ISC stated that they protest the lack of consultation, request an
explanation from NMFS, and require a commitment to be involved in all
future aspects of the listing process prior to any future public
announcement. Some commenters, including the ISC, also expressed
concern that without holding hearings in more communities where a
majority of the ice seal hunters live, these communities were not able
to provide informed comments. In addition, one commenter stated there
is confusion and frustration in the Alaska Native community regarding
the listing process and harvest implications, and suggested that a
better process is needed to ensure that all stakeholders have an
opportunity to learn about and understand the proposed rules and their
implications. We received several comments expressing concern that
consultation with Alaska coastal communities and local leaders was
inadequate. One commenter asserted that the Inuit of Alaska, Canada,
Russia, and Greenland should all play a central consultative role in
any decision that could affect them in relation to wildlife food
sources and wildlife management regimes.
Response: NMFS has coordinated with Alaska Native communities
regarding management issues related to ice seals through co-management
organizations, particularly the ISC. NMFS discussed the listing
petitions with the ISC, and provided updates regarding the timeline for
the ringed seal status review. Following publication of the proposed
listing determination, we notified the ISC of the proposal and
requested comments on the proposed rule. NMFS remains committed to
working with Alaska Natives on conservation and subsistence use of
ringed seals.
We acknowledge the value of face-to-face meetings, and NMFS held
three public meetings in: (1) Anchorage, Alaska, on March 7, 2011; (2)
Barrow, Alaska, on March 22, 2011; and (3) Nome, Alaska, on April 5,
2011. The logistical difficulties with holding additional hearings in
other remote communities made it impractical to do so. We instead used
other methods to provide opportunities for the public to submit
comments both verbally and in writing. With assistance from the North
Slope and Northwest Arctic boroughs, we provided teleconferencing
access to the Barrow hearing from outlying communities in the North
Slope Borough and from Kotzebue. The public hearings in Anchorage and
Barrow were announced in the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9733), and the public hearing in Nome was announced in the Federal
Register on March 18, 2011 (76 FR 14882). The communities of Kaktovik,
Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass, and
Kotzebue participated in the Barrow hearing via teleconferencing. The
public hearings were attended by approximately 88 people. In response
to comments received during the public comment period that indicated
some tribes may wish to consult on the proposed rule, we also contacted
potentially affected tribes by mail and offered them the opportunity to
consult on the proposed action.
We recognize the value of ringed seals to the Inuit of Canada,
Alaska, Russia, and Greenland, and we have considered
[[Page 76734]]
all of the comments received from interested parties in our final
determination. Further, we note that E.O. 13175 outlines specific
responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting the
interests of recognized tribes in the contiguous 48 states and in
Alaska. We have met those obligations in the development of this final
action.
Comment 54: The State of Alaska commented that NMFS did not involve
the State in a meaningful manner in either the development of the
status review report or the proposed listing rule.
Response: We sent a copy of the 90-day petition finding to ADFG and
considered all of the comments and information submitted in response to
this finding in the development of the status review report and the
proposed rule. We also provided funding to ADFG to analyze information
and samples collected from Alaska Native subsistence harvest of ringed
seals to make these data available for inclusion in the status review
report. Although reports on the results of this work were submitted
after the status review report was completed and the proposed rule was
published, we have considered this information in our final
determination. During the initial public comment period, we sent a copy
of the proposed rule to ADFG and the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR), and in those mailings noted the Internet availability
of the proposed rule, status review report, and other related
materials. In response to requests received, including from the State
of Alaska, we extended the public comment period 45 days to provide
additional time for submission of comments. We have thoroughly
considered the comments submitted by the State of Alaska, and these
comments are addressed in this final rule.
Comment 55: Some commenters expressed the opinion that the ESA is
not intended as a means to regulate potential impacts from climate
change, or that the primary potential threats to ringed seals
identified are the result of a global phenomenon that cannot be
effectively addressed through the ESA, and thus the proposed listings
will not provide a significant conservation benefit.
Response: First, this rulemaking does not regulate impacts from
climate change. Rather, it lists certain species as threatened or
endangered, thereby establishing certain protections for them under the
ESA. Second, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA states that the Secretary
shall make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of
the status of the species and taking into account efforts to protect
the species. Based on our review of the best available information on
the status of Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ringed seals, and
efforts currently being made to protect these subspecies, we conclude
that Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic ringed seals should be listed as
threatened and Ladoga ringed seals should be listed as endangered. Our
supporting analysis is provided in this final rule and is supplemented
by our responses to peer review and public comments. While listing does
not have a direct impact on the loss of sea ice or the reduction of
GHGs, it may indirectly enhance national and international cooperation
and coordination of conservation efforts; enhance research programs;
and encourage the development of mitigation measures that could help
slow population declines. In addition, the development of a recovery
plan will guide efforts intended to ensure the long-term survival and
eventual recovery of Arctic ringed seals.
Comment 56: Several commenters, including the State of Alaska and
the ISC, expressed the view that ringed seals and their habitat are
adequately protected by existing international agreements, conservation
programs, and laws such as the MMPA.
Response: We recognize that there are existing regulatory
mechanisms, such as the MMPA, that include protections for ringed
seals. However, declining to list a species under the ESA because it is
generally protected under other laws such as the MMPA would not be
consistent with the ESA, which requires us to list a species based on
specified factors and after considering conservation efforts being made
to protect the species. As discussed in our analysis under ESA listing
Factor A, a primary concern about the conservation status of the ringed
seal stems from the likelihood that its sea ice habitat has been
modified by the warming climate and that the scientific consensus
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming for the
foreseeable future. While we acknowledge that there is some progress
being made in addressing anthropogenic GHG emissions, we also recognize
under listing Factor D that current mechanisms do not effectively
regulate the anthropogenic factors that influence global climate change
and the associated changes to ringed seal habitat.
Comment 57: The State of Alaska commented that NMFS's proposed
listing of the Arctic ringed seal would interfere directly with
Alaska's management of ringed seals and their habitat and would
therefore harm Alaska's sovereign interests. The State also commented
that NMFS's listing determination impedes Alaska's ability to implement
its own laws by displacing State statutes and regulations addressing
Alaska's wildlife and natural resources generally, and ringed seals
specifically.
Response: The ESA does not preclude the State from managing ringed
seals or their habitat. We disagree that the listing of a species under
the ESA would displace a specific state law or otherwise impede the
State's ability to implement its own laws. We note that in 2009 NMFS
and ADFG entered into a cooperative agreement for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species pursuant to ESA section 6(c)(1).
Comment 58: The State of Alaska commented that NMFS's consideration
of the State's formal conservation measures designed to improve the
habitat and food supply of ringed seals is extremely limited, and
without any supporting analysis. Such limited consideration of the
State's conservation programs fails to comply with NMFS's affirmative
statutory obligation under ESA section 4(b) and NMFS's Policy for the
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts.
Response: The ESA provides that NMFS shall make listing
determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available and after conducting a review of the status
of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, of any
state or foreign nation to protect such species. NMFS has developed a
specific Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (68 FR 15100;
March 28, 2003) that identifies criteria for determining whether
formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to
show effectiveness contribute to making listing a species as threatened
or endangered unnecessary.
The State of Alaska asserts that it has implemented laws,
regulations, and mitigation measures that are generally aimed at
protecting ice seals and their prey. These ``measures'' (the most
relevant of which are summarized below), however, are not specifically
directed toward the conservation of ringed seals and their ice habitat.
For example, the mitigation measures referenced by the State aim to
minimize the impact of oil and gas operations, rather than proactively
or specifically to conserve the species. Moreover, the threats to
ringed seals stem principally from habitat loss associated with global
climate change, a threat the State could not single-handedly mitigate.
Under
[[Page 76735]]
NMFS's policy and the ESA, notwithstanding state conservation efforts,
``if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that
the species meets the definition of `endangered species' or `threatened
species' on the day of the listing decision, then we must proceed with
the appropriate rule-making activity under section 4 of the Act,''
i.e., list the species (68 FR 15115; March 28, 2003).
Finally, in the preamble to the proposed rule we described our
consideration of the effects of existing programs on the extinctions
risk of the four ringed seal subspecies proposed for listing. In
response to these comments from the State of Alaska, we add the
following details about the State of Alaska's regulatory programs.
Under the Submerged Lands Act, the State of Alaska has authority
over the submerged lands and resources therein, within an area
extending from the mean high tide line to 3 nautical miles offshore.
The ADNR Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) develops mitigation measures and
lessee advisories as part of its best interest finding process for
area-wide oil and gas lease sales. The North Slope Area-wide and
Beaufort Sea Area-wide lease sales have the potential to affect ringed
seals. Mitigation measures and lessee advisories identified for these
lease sales include advisories that ESA-listed and candidate species
may occur in the lease sale area, that lessees shall comply with
recommended protection measures for these species, and that lessees
must also comply with MMPA provisions. Other provisions to protect
certain concentrations of resources and to protect subsistence harvest
could provide some incidental benefit to ringed seals.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's (ADEC)
mission involves the permitting and authorization of actions relating
to oil and gas development, oil spill prevention and response,
pollutant discharge, and other activities affecting Alaska's land and
waters in the Arctic. State of Alaska solid waste management, water
quality, wastewater, air quality, and vehicle emission standards are
found in the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 70,
18 AAC 72, 18 AAC 50, and 18 AAC 52, respectively. Oil spill
contingency plans are required under Alaska Statute AS 46.04.030 and at
18 AAC 75 for crude oil tankers, non-crude vessels and barges, oil and
gas exploration facilities, oil flow lines and gathering lines, and for
certain non-crude oil terminals and non-tank vessels. The ADEC
contaminated sites cleanup process is governed by Alaska Statutes at
Title 46 and regulations at 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78.
We acknowledge that the State of Alaska's regulatory regime may
provide some general benefits to ringed seals and their habitat.
However, these laws and regulations do not reduce or mitigate in any
material way the principal threats posed to Arctic ringed seals from
the projected changes in sea ice habitat. As a result, they do not
change our extinction risk assessment within this final listing
determination.
Comment 59: Several comments were received regarding the proposed
4(d) rules requesting additional analyses to support the conclusion
that they are necessary and advisable and petitioning NMFS to establish
certain limitations on the application of those rules, such as
excluding activities occurring outside the range of any of the
subspecies of ringed seals listed as threatened.
Response: For species listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA
requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as are deemed
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.
Such 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to
threatened species, some or all of the acts that section 9(a) of the
ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. Both the section 9(a)
prohibitions and section 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals,
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. On December
10, 2010 (75 FR 77476), we proposed to issue protective regulations for
ringed seals under section 4(d) of the ESA to include all of the
prohibitions in section 9(a)(1) based on a preliminary finding that
such regulations were necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the species. As explained above, in light of public comments and upon
further review, we have determined that such regulations are not
necessary at this time. The Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic subspecies
appear sufficiently abundant to withstand typical year-to-year
variation and natural episodic perturbations in the near term. The
principal threat to these subspecies of ringed seals is habitat
alteration stemming from climate change within the foreseeable future.
This is a long-term threat and the consequences for ringed seals will
manifest themselves over the next several decades. Finally, ringed
seals currently benefit from existing protections under the MMPA, and
activities that may take listed species and involve a Federal action
will still be subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
to ensure such actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. We therefore conclude that it is unlikely that the
proposed section 4(d) regulations would provide appreciable
conservation benefits. As a result, we have concluded that the 4(d)
regulations are not necessary at this time. Such regulations could be
promulgated at some future time if warranted by new information.
Comment 60: Comments were received that critical habitat is both
prudent and determinable; other comments were received that critical
habitat is not currently determinable and would require extensive
additional study.
Response: Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum
extent practicable and determinable, critical habitat be designated
concurrently with the listing of a species. Critical habitat is not
determinable when information sufficient to perform required analyses
of the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs
of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification
of an area as critical habitat. Existing data are lacking in several
areas necessary to support the designation of critical habitat,
including identification and description of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of Arctic ringed seals, and
economic data which would allow for consideration of the costs of
designation. We have therefore determined that designating critical
habitat for the Arctic ringed seal is prudent but not determinable at
this time. We will designate critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals
in a subsequent rulemaking as provided under the ESA, and we are
soliciting comments related to the designation (see DATES, ADDRESSES,
and Information Solicited).
Comment 61: Comments were received that it is unclear how future
recovery planning, including establishing accurate recovery and
delisting criteria, can occur given the apparent lack of abundance
data. Other comments were received expressing support for recovery
planning for ringed seals.
Response: Section 4(f) of the ESA requires that NMFS develop
recovery plans for ESA listed species, unless such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Section 4(f)(1)(A) of the ESA
also states that in developing and implementing recovery plans, the
Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ``give priority to
those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to
taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such
plans.'' The ranges of Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga
[[Page 76736]]
ringed seals occur entirely under the jurisdiction of other countries.
These subspecies would therefore qualify for exemption from the ESA
section 4(f) recovery planning process because the U.S. has little
authority to implement actions necessary to recover foreign species. A
recovery plan will be developed for Arctic ringed seals, provided that
the limitations in section 4(a)(1)(A) of the ESA do not apply. Future
recovery planning efforts for the Arctic ringed seal will incorporate
the best scientific and commercial data available regarding abundance
at that time, and would identify data gaps that warrant further
research.
Comment 62: A number of comments stressed that the determination
should be based on sound scientific data and analysis. Some comments
suggested inappropriate factors such as political pressure from the
climate change debate may have influenced our decision making.
Response: We were petitioned to evaluate the status of the ringed
seal under the ESA. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. Consistent with this requirement, in
reaching our final listing determination, we considered the status
review report prepared by the BRT, information received through public
and peer review comments, and efforts being made to protect the
species. This information is summarized in this final rule.
Comment 63: A commenter expressed the opinion that to provide a
meaningful process in which interested parties could review and comment
on the special peer review comments, NMFS should have made the original
comment letters available (rather than NMFS's ``summary interpretation
of those comments'') and opened more than a 30-day comment period.
Response: On April 6, 2012, we announced in the Federal Register
the availability of a peer review report that consolidated the comments
received from special peer review of the ringed seal status review
report (77 FR 20773). We issued a news release to ensure that the
public was made aware of this comment period. The comment period was
limited to 30 days in consideration of the statutory deadline requiring
a prompt final listing determination. We did not receive any specific
requests to extend the comment period. The peer review report simply
consolidated the comments received from the special peer reviewers to
facilitate public review--the report did not provide our interpretation
of those comments.
Comments on the Consequences of the Proposed Listing Rule
Comment 64: Several commenters, including the State of Alaska and
the ISC, expressed concern that the ultimate effect of the listings
will be additional regulatory burden and increased economic and other
human impacts without significant conservation benefit. Some of these
commenters noted that the proposed listing would affect an area of
national significance because of its importance for domestic oil and
gas development. The State of Alaska specifically expressed concern
that the proposed action will cause substantial injury to Alaska's
economic interests, including those of northern coastal municipal
governments. The State expressed the view, for example, that the
listing will deter or delay activities such as oil and gas exploration
and development, and shipping operations, which could reduce State
royalties and revenue. One commenter also expressed concern that the
listings could also potentially cause resources and efforts to be
distracted away from the conservation of populations at greater risk.
Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA states that the Secretary
shall make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific
and commercial data available, after conducting a status review of the
species and taking into account efforts to protect the species. The
regulations implementing the ESA at 50 CFR 424.11(b), consistent with
case law interpreting the ESA and its legislative history, state that
the listing determination will be made without reference to possible
economic or other impacts of such determination. Therefore, we cannot
consider such potential consequences in our final determination.
However, we will consider economic impacts when designating critical
habitat. We also note that such activities have been occurring despite
the presence of several ESA-listed whale species in the areas.
Comment 65: A few commenters, including Greenland's DFHA, expressed
concern that if the Arctic ringed seal is listed as threatened a
negative market perception toward use of seal products could, in turn,
impact trade and harm Inuit communities. These commenters suggested
that the proposed listing could also result in ringed seals being
listed under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), which would directly affect the trade of seal
products, a vital part of the Inuit subsistence lifestyle and economic
independence.
Response: As noted above, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA states that
the Secretary shall make listing determinations based solely on the
best scientific and commercial data available and the regulations
implementing the ESA state that the listing determination will be made
without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such
determinations. Therefore, we cannot consider such potential
consequences in our final determination. Regarding listing under CITES,
we note that the structure of CITES is similar to the ESA, in that
species are listed in CITES Appendices according to their conservation
status. However, listed CITES species must also meet the test that
trade is at least in part contributing to their decline. We did not
find this to be the case for ringed seals.
Additional Comments
Comment 66: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS
develop a research plan to address the major uncertainties and
information gaps identified in the status review report, and strengthen
collaborative efforts among range nations to facilitate research and
management to assess the status and trends of ringed seal populations
throughout the species' range, and identify protective measures where
necessary. Canada's DFO noted that they remain open to exploring
potential areas for cooperation for improving mutual understanding of
Arctic seal populations. The Commission and another commenter expressed
the view that NMFS also needs to prioritize funding to collect data on
ringed seal population size and trends and many other aspects of the
seal's biology, such as population structure of the Arctic subspecies,
which are currently poorly understood.
Response: We agree that additional research is needed to help
resolve areas of uncertainty and to add to the ecological knowledge of
this species. We look forward to working with our partners and
stakeholders in the conservation and recovery of ringed seals,
including obtaining needed research to fill in knowledge gaps.
Comment 67: The State of Alaska and another commenter pointed out
that the proposed rule referred to the ``long generation time'' of
ringed seals without stating what it is. These commenters suggested
this is an important parameter for population projections and
population genetics assessments.
Response: Based solely on the type of life history that ringed (and
other) seals have evolved, with high adult survival rates and low birth
rates, the species is expected to have a relatively long
[[Page 76737]]
generation time. The age at first reproduction and the birth rate would
be expected to vary somewhat between regions and years because these
typically depend upon foraging conditions. Palo et al. (2001) estimated
the generation time of ringed seals to be about 11 years, based on
vital statistics reported by Smith (1973) from seals sampled in the
Canadian Arctic during 1966-1970.
Comment 68: The State of Alaska and another commenter noted that
there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the ringed seal
subspecies identified that should be more explicitly acknowledged, and
they provided a number of references to support this comment.
Response: Although the concept of a subspecies as an identifiable
taxon has been questioned by some evolutionary biologists, and has been
applied inconsistently by taxonomists with respect to the nature and
amount of differentiation required for subspecies designation, the
concept remains in wide use and there is clearly no consensus to
abandon it. In the case of ringed seals, the five subspecies
designations have been in wide use for many years (for details see
Kelly et al., 2010a) and constitute the best scientific and commercial
data available. There is clearly no means of dispersal between the
landlocked subspecies in Lake Saimaa and Lake Ladoga, or between those
subspecies and the remaining three subspecies. The BRT presented and
considered reasonable evidence in the status review report that,
although there could be some exchange of individuals between Arctic
ringed seals and the subspecies in the Baltic Sea or Sea of Okhotsk,
there is no documented evidence of exchange rates that would be
sufficient to fuel a recovery of the latter populations if they were to
become severely depleted. Thus, all five of the widely-recognized
subspecies are appropriate for consideration of whether a listing is
warranted.
Comment 69: A commenter noted that the Society for Marine Mammalogy
Committee on Taxonomy currently assigns the ringed seal species and the
five subspecies to the genus Pusa rather than Phoca.
Response: The status review report presented and considered a
current lack of consensus on placement of ringed seals in the genus
Pusa or Phoca (perhaps in a subgenus Pusa). The proposal to list ringed
seals is not dependent on the nomenclature used.
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
Under the plain language of the ESA and 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.
NMFS has coordinated with Alaska Native communities regarding
management issues related to ice seals through co-management
organizations, particularly the ISC. NMFS discussed the listing
petition with the ISC and provided updates regarding the timeline for
the ringed seal status review. Following publication of the proposed
listing determination, we notified the ISC of the proposal and
requested comments on the proposed rule.
We fully considered all of the comments received from Alaska Native
organizations and tribes on the proposed rule and have addressed those
comments in this final rule. In response to comments received during
the public comment period that indicated some tribes may wish to
consult on the proposed rule, we contacted potentially affected tribes
by mail and offered them the opportunity to consult on the proposed
action and discuss any concerns they may have. No requests for
consultation were received in response to this mailing.
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
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 20, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224
are amended as follows:
[[Page 76738]]
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
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).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, in the table, add paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and
(a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for
---------------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing Citation(s) for critical
Common name Scientific name determination(s) habitat designation(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(4) Ringed seal, Arctic subspecies Phoca (=Pusa) hispida The Arctic subspecies of the ringed [INSERT FR CITATION & NA
hispida. seal includes all ringed seals from 12/28/12].
breeding populations in the Arctic
Ocean and adjacent seas except west of
157[deg] E. Long., or west of the
Kamchatka Peninsula, where breeding
populations of ringed seals of the
Okhotsk subspecies are listed as
threatened under Sec. 223.102(a)(5);
or in the Baltic Sea where breeding
populations of ringed seals are listed
as threatened under Sec.
223.102(a)(6).
(5) Ringed seal, Okhotsk Phoca (=Pusa) hispida The Okhotsk subspecies of the ringed [INSERT FR CITATION & NA
subspecies. ochotensis. seal includes all ringed seals from 12/28/12].
breeding populations west of 157[deg]
E. Long., or west of the Kamchatka
Peninsula, in the Pacific Ocean.
(6) Ringed seal, Baltic subspecies Phoca (=Pusa) hispida The Baltic subspecies of the ringed [INSERT FR CITATION & NA
botnica. seal includes all ringed seals from 12/28/12].
breeding populations within the Baltic
Sea.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement; see 61 FR4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement; see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Sec. 224.101 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 224.101, amend paragraph (b) by adding the phrase ``Ladoga
ringed seal (Phoca (=Pusa) hispida ladogensis);'' immediately after the
phrase '' Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Southern Resident distinct
population segment, which consists of whales from J, K and L pods,
wherever they are found in the wild, and not including Southern
Resident killer whales placed in captivity prior to listing or their
captive born progeny;''.
[FR Doc. 2012-31066 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P