[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51968-51978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24638]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 222 and 227
[Docket No. 950919232-5232-01; I.D. 041995B]
RIN 0648-XX27
Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Change in Listing Status of Steller
Sea Lions Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to reclassify the Steller sea lion,
Eumetopias jubatus. This species currently is listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as threatened throughout its
range, which extends from California and associated waters to Alaska,
including the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and then into the
Bering Sea and North Pacific and into Russian waters and territory.
Based on biological information collected since the species was
listed as threatened in 1990, NMFS now proposes to re-classify Steller
sea lions as two distinct population segments under the ESA. NMFS
proposes to classify the Steller sea lion population segment west of
144 deg. W. long. (a line near Cape Suckling, AK) as endangered, and to
maintain the ESA threatened listing for the remainder of the U.S.
population. NMFS is requesting public comments on this proposed action.
[DATES: Comments and information must be received by January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and information should be addressed to Chief,
Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources (F/PR), NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Copies of the Steller
sea lion status review document, the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team
(Recovery Team) meeting summary and recommendations regarding
reclassification, and a Population Viability Analyses of Steller sea
lions in Alaska may be obtained from Susan Mello, Protected Resources
Management Division, Alaska Regional Office, NMFS, P.O.Box 21668,
Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Mello, 907-586-7235 or Michael
Payne, F/PR, NMFS, 301-713-2322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
NMFS determined that the Steller sea lion was a threatened species
under the ESA (55 FR 49294, November 26, 1990; see also, 55 FR 50005,
December 4, 1990). The species was listed throughout its range because
of a precipitous decline in abundance. This decline was concentrated
primarily in areas near the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands.
The final rule imposed protective regulations to reduce direct
causes of Steller sea lion mortality, to restrict opportunities for
intentional and unintentional harassment of Steller sea lions, and to
minimize disturbance and interference with Steller sea lion behavior
including disruption of foraging behavior, especially at pupping and
breeding sites.
As a result of ESA section 7 consultations on the effects of the
North Pacific federally-managed groundfish fisheries, NMFS implemented
additional protective measures in 1991, 1992, and 1993 to reduce the
effects of certain commercial groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lion
foraging (see 56 FR 28112, June 19, 1991; 57 FR 2683, January 23, 1992;
and 58 FR 13561, March 12, 1993; current protections are codified at 50
CFR 672.24(e) and 675.24(f) (1994)). NMFS has also published a Steller
Sea Lion Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) (58 FR 3008, January 7, 1993),
and has designated critical habitat for the species (58 FR 45269,
August 27, 1993). NMFS and other agencies are implementing the Recovery
Plan.
Since 1990, NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)
have conducted monitoring surveys that indicate that the decline of
Steller sea
[[Page 51969]]
lions has continued throughout most of Alaska. Because of this
continued decline, on November 1, 1993, NMFS initiated a formal
population status review under the ESA to determine whether a change in
its listing status as a threatened species is warranted (58 FR 58318,
November 1, 1993).
II. Comments and Responses on Status Review Notice
NMFS received sixteen comments in response to the status review
notice. Comments pertinent to the proposed listings and regulations are
discussed below.
Separate Population Listings
Some comments noted that Steller sea lions have not declined in
some portions of the species' geographic range, and suggested that NMFS
consider treating the species as two separate populations for the
purposes of listing under the ESA.
Under the ESA, only a ``species'' may be listed as threatened or
endangered. The term ``species'' includes any subspecies of fish or
wildlife and any distinct population segment of any species of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature. At the time Steller sea lions
were listed as threatened, NMFS determined that there was insufficient
information available to consider animals in different geographic
regions as separate populations. However, additional data collected,
particularly on population genetics, now indicate that Steller sea
lions should be listed as two distinct population segments under the
ESA. Supporting data and information for this proposed determination
are detailed below.
Listing Classification
The majority of the comments did not express a preference for
either a threatened or endangered listing status for Steller sea lions.
Some comments indicated the belief that there is sufficient information
to support a change in listing status to endangered. Other comments
stated that the current listing of the species as threatened provides
NMFS sufficient regulatory authority to protect Steller sea lions and,
therefore, a change in listing status to endangered is not necessary.
Some of these same commenters also suggested that an endangered listing
should not be considered at this time, since it would result in greater
economic effects to fishing communities and the fishing industry. Some
commenters believe that no change in listing status should be
considered while the reasons for the decline remain unclear.
The ESA is explicit that listing and reclassification decisions are
to be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the species' population status (section
4(b)(1)(A)). Economic effects are not to be considered in making a
listing determination for a species under the ESA. Likewise, the lack
of knowledge regarding causes of the Steller sea lion decline does not
affect a species' status. Each of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA that must be considered in making a listing status
determination are discussed below. The adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is one of these factors.
Population Viability Analysis
Some commenters expressed concern regarding the weight that would
be given to the results of the Steller sea lion Population Viability
Analysis (PVA) (PVA at Merrick and York, 1994). They noted the
difficulties in predicting future population trends with confidence
when causal relationships are not understood, and suggested that NMFS
use the PVA results with caution in the listing status determination.
One commenter indicated that the PVA should be peer reviewed by
independent experts.
The PVA provides an estimate of extinction risk if current
population trends continue. NMFS believes that the PVA provides the
best estimate of extinction risk possible with existing data and
scientific methods, and has submitted the PVA for review by outside,
independent experts. However, NMFS recognizes the limitations of
population modeling to accurately predict future trends for this
population. Thus, although the PVA results have been considered in the
status determination, these have not been given greater weight than
objective population trend data and the scientific opinion of experts,
both within and outside NMFS.
Protective Measures
Several commenters raised issues relative to the protective
measures that have been implemented to aid recovery of Steller sea
lions. Some commenters felt that additional regulations were needed to
better protect Steller sea lions from the effects of commercial
fisheries, and oil and gas exploration and development. Other
commenters questioned the rationale for existing protections,
particularly fishery closure areas.
NMFS has implemented various protective measures for Steller sea
lions under the ESA and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act). These measures are intended to reduce
intentional and unintentional mortality and harassment, disturbance of
breeding areas and reproduction, and the possible effects of commercial
fishing on the availability of Steller sea lion prey.
NMFS is reevaluating existing management measures for Steller sea
lions. NMFS expects to consider regulatory changes that may be needed
to ensure that regulations provide the greatest potential to benefit
Steller sea lions without unnecessarily restricting human activities.
However, NMFS will involve state and Federal agencies, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Alaska Native organizations,
fishing and environmental groups, and other affected members of the
public in the early stages of the decision-making process for any
changes in management regulations. NMFS is reinitiating consultation
under section 7 of the ESA on Federally-managed groundfish fisheries
off Alaska to consider new information and to evaluate whether existing
protective regulations are adequate to ensure that agency actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. NMFS
has not reached any definitive conclusions concerning the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. This issue is discussed in more detail
below.
Research Program
Several commenters recommended an expansion of existing research
efforts, and offered specific recommendations for areas of research.
The Recovery Plan research program is a federally-funded effort,
implemented jointly by NMFS and ADFG. Research priorities are defined
in the Recovery Plan, and are limited by available funds. As described
below, the Recovery Team has begun the process of synthesizing research
program accomplishments with the intention of revising the Recovery
Plan, as needed.
III. Recommendations of the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team
The Recovery Team was appointed by NMFS in 1990 to draft a recovery
plan for the species and to serve as an advisory body to NMFS on
Steller sea lion research and management issues. On November 29-30,
1994, NMFS convened the Recovery Team specifically to consider the
appropriate ESA listing status for the species and to evaluate the
adequacy of ongoing research and management programs. In the course of
that meeting, and in subsequent letters to the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, NOAA
[[Page 51970]]
(AA), the Recovery Team made the following recommendations to NMFS:
(1) Listing Status under the ESA: The Recovery Team recommended
that NMFS list the Steller sea lion as two separate population
segments, split to the east and west of 144 deg. W long. (a line near
Cape Suckling, AK). The Recovery Team recommended that the western
population segment be listed as endangered and that the eastern
population segment be listed as threatened.
(2) Commercial fisheries: A change in food availability is the
leading hypothesis for the cause of the Steller sea lion decline.
Reduced juvenile recruitment appears to be the proximate cause of the
decline and juvenile Steller sea lions appear to feed primarily in
areas near rookeries and haulouts. The Recovery Team recommended that
NMFS evaluate the need to close or otherwise regulate any or all
nearshore fisheries around Steller sea lion rookeries and major
haulouts west of 144 deg. W long. in order to enhance food
availability.
(3) Research: The Recovery Team recommended that the individual
research projects being undertaken under the Recovery Plan be peer
reviewed to assess the need for changes in research direction and
priorities. In-depth research program reviews will be accomplished over
the next few years and will include review by outside experts, as
necessary. The four major components of the research program to be
individually evaluated are: (1) Population monitoring (Peer review of
the population monitoring program was completed in 1992 (Rosenberg
1992)); (2) satellite telemetry studies; (3) physiology/health studies;
and (4) food habits and foraging ecology studies. Results of this peer
review process are expected to be used to revise the Recovery Plan.
The Recovery Team also recommended that NMFS direct additional
effort, and seek additional funding, to better assess Steller sea lion
prey resources in the North Pacific.
(4) Subsistence harvest: The Recovery Team recommended that NMFS
work with the newly formed Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion Commission
toward the goals of developing self-management and monitoring of
subsistence harvests, establishing biologically acceptable harvest
levels, and reducing struck and lost rates.
The Recovery Team recommendations relative to reclassification of
the species have been considered in this proposed determination.
Management recommendations also are being considered and will be
evaluated in more detail during the review of existing regulations and
through the consultation process.
IV. Proposed Population Determinations
As described above, only a ``species'' may be listed as threatened
or endangered under the ESA, and this term is defined to include any
subspecies of fish or wildlife and any distinct population segment of
any species of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. On
December 21, 1994, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed
a policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase ``distinct
population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying species under the ESA (59 FR 65884, December 21, 1994).
Although this is only a proposed policy at this time, it represents the
best available guidance for interpreting the term ``distinct population
segment.'' NMFS proposes to use the criteria announced in the December
21, 1994 proposed policy to assess the presence of distinct populations
of Steller sea lions.
The proposed policy outlines three elements that should be
considered in any decision regarding the status of a possible distinct
population segment: Discreteness of the population segment in relation
to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; the significance
of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the ESA's
standards for listing. The first two elements are discussed below, and
conservation status is discussed separately for each proposed
population segment in the following section and within the context of
the five factors that are evaluated below.
(1) Discreteness: Under the proposed policy a population segment of
a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it is either
markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence); or delimited by international
governmental boundaries that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. The former criterion is particularly relevant
for Steller sea lions.
Genetic studies provide the strongest evidence that discrete
populations of Steller sea lions exist. Bickham et al. (in press)
collected genetic samples from 224 Steller sea lion pups on rookeries
in Russia, the Aleutian Islands, the western and central Gulf of
Alaska, southeastern Alaska, and Oregon. Mitochondrial DNA analyses of
these samples identified a total of 52 haplotypes (sets of alleles of
closely linked genes that tend to be inherited together, uniquely
identifying a chromosome) that could be further grouped together into
eight lineages. Bickham et al. found a distinct break in haplotype
distribution between the four western localities and the two eastern
localities. Cluster analysis indicated that the eight lineages could be
subdivided into two genetically differentiated populations, with the
division at about Prince William Sound. Ono (1993) conducted similar
analyses on samples obtained from 11 Steller sea lions on Ano Nuevo
Island, CA, and found seven haplotypes. Six of these were identical to
those identified from southeastern Alaska and Oregon by Bickham et al.,
and one was unique to Ano Nuevo Island.
Tagging and branding studies provide evidence that the breeding
behavior of Steller sea lions probably reduces opportunities for
genetic mixing among rookeries although Steller sea lions have been
documented to travel large distances during the non-breeding season.
The majority of females marked as pups, then later resighted as adults,
have returned to their rookery of birth to breed (Calkins and Pitcher,
1982; NMFS, 1995). The few resighted females observed breeding at
rookeries other than their natal site were all at rookeries near their
birth rookery. This apparent natal site fidelity not only reduces
genetic mixing among rookeries, but it also makes it less likely that
declining rookeries will be bolstered by recruitment from other
rookeries.
Satellite telemetry studies also provide evidence of ``homing''
behavior in Steller sea lions. Generally, tracked sea lions forage from
a central place (either a rookery or nearby haulout) and return to that
place at the end of a foraging trip that may vary in duration from
hours to months (Merrick et al., 1994).
Population trend data provide further evidence of separation among
these two population segments. The Steller sea lion population east of
Cape Suckling (with the exception of the portion in southern
California) has remained stable since the 1970s, whereas the population
to the west has declined dramatically. It is also worth noting that the
only break in the distribution of Steller sea lions along the Alaskan
coast occurs in the Yakutat area, near the proposed longitudinal border
that would delineate the western and eastern populations.
[[Page 51971]]
Loughlin (1994) used the phylogeographic approach proposed by Dizon
et al. (1992) to discern population discreteness in Steller sea lions.
Loughlin concluded, based on an evaluation of distribution, population
response, phenotypic, and genotypic data, that Steller sea lions should
be managed as two discrete populations, with the separation point at
about 144 deg. W. long.
The above information supports the conclusion that the western and
eastern population segments of Steller sea lions are discrete.
(2) Significance: The proposed policy recommends that if population
segments are determined to be discrete, then the biological and
ecological significance of a population segment should be considered in
light of the guidance in S. Rep. No. 151, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979)
that the authority to list distinct population segments be used
sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such
action is warranted. The underlying question of significance depends on
the relationship of a proposed population segment to the species as a
whole.
In the case of Steller sea lions, the two population segments under
consideration make up the entire range of the species. Extinction of
either population segment would represent a substantial loss to the
ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole.
The importance of each of the population segments indicates that
the significance criterion of the proposed policy would be satisfied.
V. Current Status
Status of the Western Steller Sea Lion Population Segment
Population monitoring data: The western Steller sea lion population
segment had suffered substantial declines prior to the 1990 ESA
listing. Loughlin et al. (1992) estimate a 70 percent decrease in the
number of adult and juvenile sea lions in this area between the 1960's
and 1989. Since the 1990 listing, Steller sea lion trend counts for the
western population segment have shown a continued decline. The number
of adult and juvenile animals counted at trend sites during aerial
surveys has dropped from 30,525 in 1990 to 24,104 in 1994 (a 21 percent
decrease) (NMFS, 1995).
Regionally, decline rates differ: The western and eastern Gulf of
Alaska (a 38 percent and a 36 percent decline, respectively) and the
central and western Aleutian Islands (a 28 percent and a 13 percent
decline, respectively) have shown the largest declines in adult/
juvenile numbers since 1990. Counts of the eastern Aleutian Islands
area and western Gulf of Alaska area have been relatively stable since
1990, while the Bering Sea region has shown an increase in adult/
juvenile counts since 1990. However, the eastern Aleutian Islands and
Bering Sea regions declined substantially prior to 1990, and
populations there remain only a fraction of what they were 20 years
ago.
Pup production has also decreased since the 1990 listing. Overall,
a decline of about 28 percent has been observed between pup counts made
in 1989-90 as compared to 1993-94 (excluding the western Aleutian
Islands and Bering Sea where comparative counts are not available).
Regional differences in the rate of change in pup production also are
apparent. Pup production in the central Gulf of Alaska declined by 49
percent between 1989-90 and 1993-94. The central and eastern Aleutian
Islands also had large decreases in pup production (a 19 percent and a
16 percent decline, respectively), while pup production in the eastern
and western Gulf of Alaska was relatively stable over the time period.
Population Viability Analysis: Steller sea lion abundance trends
within the decline area were modeled to provide an estimate of the
likelihood of extinction given the available population data (Merrick
and York, 1994). Two models were developed based on a stochastic model
of exponential growth that required only count data and count variance
to predict future trends (after Dennis et al., 1991), and using both
the 1985-94 and 1989-94 population trends. One model (an aggregate
Kenai-Kiska Island (trend sites) model) was based on the trajectory of
the sum of the rookery populations within the area. The second model
was based on a simulation of the population trajectories of individual
rookeries in the Kenai-Kiska area.
Both models predicted that the Kenai-Kiska population would be
reduced to low levels (<500 females) within 100 years from the present,
if either the 1985-94 or 1989-94 trend continues into the future. The
Kenai-Kiska regional model predicted a probability of extinction within
100 years of 100 percent from the 1985-94 trend data, and a probability
of extinction within 100 years of 65 percent if the 1989-94 trend data
are used.
The rookery model predicted longer times to extinction. Predicted
probabilities of extinction within 100 years were 100 percent using the
1985-94 trend, and 10 percent using the 1989-94 trend data. Modeling
results indicated that, if either trend persists, the next 20 years
would be crucial to the survival of the western Alaska population.
Under all modelling scenarios during the next 20 years, populations on
individual rookeries are predicted to be reduced to low levels (mean
size <100 adult females).
Criteria and considerations for endangered classification: The ESA
does not provide objective criteria or specific guidance for
determining when a population should be listed as endangered or
threatened. The ESA simply defines an ``endangered species'' as one
that is in danger of extinction and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future. Other guidance and criteria for assessing
population endangerment can be gleaned from scientific literature. This
is discussed below in relation to the current status of the western
population segment of Steller sea lions.
The Recovery Team recommended specific evaluation criteria for
Steller sea lions, and considered the current abundance in the Kenai
Peninsula to Kiska Island (trendsite) area in relation to a pre-decline
benchmark population size, as well as the rate of decline in adult/
juvenile animals counted within the trendsite area, the rate of decline
in pup production in the trendsite area, and population trends in other
geographic regions (NMFS, 1992). Application of the Recovery Team's
criteria at this time would result in a determination that the western
population segment should be listed as endangered. Indeed, the Recovery
Team specifically recommended to NMFS that the western population
segment be listed as endangered (Lowry, 1994).
Although a precise definition of ``endangered'' does not exist, a
population that is not endangered is one that is likely to persist into
the foreseeable future. Thus, the question of defining endangerment is
one of determining the threshold probability of extinction that is too
high to be acceptable to society (Goodman, 1994). Defining the
acceptable probability of persistence and the appropriate time frame of
reference that defines a minimum viable population (MVP) is a
subjective decision that has been much discussed in the conservation
biology literature. ``Acceptable'' persistence values in the scientific
literature for an MVP range from a ``greater than'' 80 to 90 percent
probability of persistence over 10 generations, to a ``greater than or
equal to'' 50, 90, 95, and 99 percent probability of persistence over
100 years or a ``greater than or equal to'' 99 percent likelihood of
persistence over
[[Page 51972]]
1000 years (Schaffer, 1981, 1987; Belovsky, 1987; Soule, 1987; Mace and
Lande, 1991; Mace et al., 1993; Thompson, 1991). Thompson (1991) notes
that although there are no clear theoretical grounds for a single
choice of persistence probability and time frame reference, the
relatively frequent use of a 95 percent probability of persistence over
100 years makes this a reasonable standard for an MVP, i.e., an
unendangered population. Considering the converse, an endangered
population may be defined as one with a greater than 5 percent chance
of extinction over the next 100 years. Evaluating the western Steller
sea lion population PVA results (at Merrick and York, 1994) in light of
this ``standard'' would lead to a determination that the western
population of Steller sea lions is endangered.
Various ``rules of thumb'' also have been proposed for the minimum
population size needed to ``ensure'' population persistence over time;
however, most authors caution against using such ``magic numbers''
offhandedly. For example, the 1994 estimate of adult/juvenile Steller
sea lions within the western population segment of 33,600 (NMFS, 1995)
is well above most of the MVP ``rules of thumb'' commonly cited (Soule,
1987; Belovsky, 1987; Thomas, 1990). A ``rule of thumb'' approach is
inadequate, however, for evaluating the status of Steller sea lions
under the ESA. A ``rule of thumb'' assessment may be useful in
assessing long-term viability of stable populations, but the severe,
continuous decline in the western Steller sea lion population trend
would be overlooked by such an approach. As noted by the Recovery Team
in their criteria, the rate of population decline, as well as the
magnitude and spatial extent of the decline, are critical factors in
determining endangerment for this population.
Mace and Lande (1991) and Mace et al. (1993) outline criteria for
classifying species considered by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which incorporate various types of
population data and analyses, e.g., population size, geographic range,
population decline rate, probability of persistence within a given time
frame from PVA. Consideration of all available data on a population
allows a more robust estimate of population status than ``rule of
thumb'' or PVA approaches alone. It should be emphasized that in both
IUCN proposals probabilistic criteria are considered in conjunction
with other data, thus, the most conservative classification derived by
considering all available data/analyses would be chosen.
Conclusions concerning the western population: An analysis of the
conservation status of the western population segment of the Steller
sea lion in relationship to the standards for threatened and endangered
status indicates that this population segment would satisfy the third
criterion of the proposed population policy. In addition, the available
data and information concerning the status of this stock indicates that
the western population should be proposed for endangered status under
the ESA.
The western population is proposed to consist of Steller sea lions
from breeding colonies located west of 144 deg.W. long.
Status of the Eastern Steller Sea Lion Population Segment
Population monitoring data: The 1990 ESA listing of Steller sea
lions resulted primarily from the declines observed in the western
population area; in the eastern population, a decline has been noted
only in the California part of the range. Since the 1990 listing, trend
counts of the eastern population segment show about a 17 percent
increase overall in adult/juvenile numbers. Similar to the western
population, regional differences in trends within the eastern
population are evident.
California experienced a large decline in Steller sea lion numbers
prior to 1980; NMFS (1995) estimated a greater than 50 percent decline
between about 1950 and 1980. Some of the available data indicate that a
northward shift in the Steller sea lion range may be occurring, which
may exacerbate the decline at southern rookeries. Steller sea lion
counts in California have been relatively stable since 1980 (1980 count
was 982) although counts declined 19 percent from 1990-94 (from 1,123
animals to 915) (NMFS, 1995). The reasons for the historical decline in
Steller sea lion total abundance and the current decline at southern
locations in California is not known. Causal factors under
investigation include changes in prey base, possible effects of
anthropogenic contaminants and disease, disturbance, and competition
with other pinniped populations that are increasing in abundance in
California, e.g., California sea lions, elephant seals, northern fur
seals.
Steller sea lion adult/juvenile counts at Oregon trend sites show a
relatively large increase from 1990-94 (from 2,005 to 2,696) but this
may be, at least partially, due to improved counting techniques (NMFS,
1995). Steller sea lion adult/juvenile counts in Southeast Alaska
increased 15 percent from 1990 to 1994 (from 7,629 to 9,005), and pup
counts increased by about 10 percent (from a mean of 2,568 in 1989-90
to a mean of 3,701 in 1993-94).
The British Columbia portion of the eastern population has also
apparently been increasing slowly since the 1970s. Reports from aerial
surveys conducted by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
indicate that adult/juvenile counts at rookeries and haulouts in
British Columbia increased about 10 percent between 1992 and 1994 (from
7,376 to 8,091) (Olesiuk, pers. comm.).
Criteria and considerations for threatened status and conclusions
concerning the eastern population: The overall trend of the eastern
population segment of Steller sea lions since 1980 has been stable to
increasing although significant declines in the number of Steller sea
lions occurring within California prior to 1980 have been documented.
Population modeling of the number of sea lions at the rookeries to
assess the viability of the eastern population segment has not been
specifically conducted by NMFS. Since this population's trend has been
stable to increasing, modelling, such as that conducted for the western
population, would be expected to predict persistence of this population
segment for the foreseeable future (NMFS, 1995).
The estimated size of the eastern population of Steller sea lions
within U.S. boundaries in 1994 was 18,600 animals. About 10,000 more
animals of this population are estimated to occur within British
Columbia. The British Columbia estimate was derived by adjusting
Olesiuk's 1994 adult/juvenile count to account for animals at sea,
using the methods of Loughlin et al. (1992).
Comparison of this population size with the typical range of most
``rules of thumb'' for minimum viable population size (from 1000 to
10,000 individuals (Thompson, 1991)) provides an additional indication
that this population is not vulnerable to extinction in the foreseeable
future. Similarly, this population segment, when considered alone,
would not meet any of the draft IUCN vulnerability criteria discussed
in Mace and Lande (1991) and Mace et al. (1993).
Evaluating the population status of the eastern population segment
without a consideration of its place in the overall species population,
however, may be inappropriate. Prior to the decline, the proportion of
the U.S. population of Steller sea lions that resided within the
eastern population
[[Page 51973]]
area was less than 10 percent (NMFS, 1995). Because of the western
population's decline, the eastern population's numerical significance
has increased. NMFS (1995) estimates that the total U.S. population of
Steller sea lions has declined by 73 percent between the 1960s and 1994
(NMFS, 1995). The overall trend for the entire species is a continuing
decline. Also, between 1991 and 1994 pup numbers decreased in all
regions of Alaska. There was a 20.8 percent decrease in the number of
pups born in the area from southeastern Alaska to central Alaska. These
declines reverse the apparent stability in pup numbers in southeastern
Alaska.
Thus, although for listing purposes the western and eastern
population segments may be considered discrete, the substantial
population decline that has occurred in the eastern Gulf of Alaska
through the Aleutian Islands represents a threat to the continued
existence of the entire species, including the eastern population.
Therefore, the vulnerability of the eastern population remains a
serious concern as long as the cause of the decline of the western
population remains undetermined. These populations, while separate, are
not isolated, and factors causing the decline in Alaska could move
eastward and pose a threat to the continued existence of the eastern
population. The recent declines in pup production in the eastern
population are of serious concern. In addition, the decline numbers of
Steller sea lions in California, in the southern extremity of their
range, is also of concern.
The Recovery Team's population evaluation criteria focused on
population parameters within the western population segment, and thus,
offer no guidance for evaluating the status of the eastern population
segment. Recently, the Recovery Team recommended that the eastern
population segment remain listed as threatened because of concerns
regarding (1) the decline in Steller sea lions numbers in southern
California, (2) the potential that the decline in the western
population could spread east, (3) a slight decrease in pup counts in
Southeast Alaska and Oregon in 1994, and (4) a concern that since
animals in the western population may occur within the eastern
population's geographic range, animals from the western population
could be affected by a lack of protective management mechanisms (Lowry,
1994).
An analysis of the conservation status of the eastern population
segment of the Steller sea lion in relationship to the standards for
threatened status indicates that this population remains vulnerable,
but in a manner and to an extent that differs from the vulnerability of
the western population segment. This analysis indicates that the third
criterion of the proposed population policy is satisfied. Likewise, the
available data and information concerning the status of this stock
indicates that the eastern population should continue to be considered
threatened.
NMFS proposes a separate listing for the eastern population of the
Steller sea lion as a threatened species under the ESA. The eastern
population segment would consist of Steller sea lions from breeding
colonies located east of 144 deg.W. long.
Listing Procedures: Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one
or more of five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These
factors as they apply to the western and eastern Steller sea lions
population segments are discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Western Population Segment: Steller sea lions breed, pup, and seek
rest and refuge on relatively remote islands and points of land along
the Alaska coastline. There is no evidence that the availability of
rookery or haulout space is a limiting factor for this species. As the
number of animals in the western population segment continues to
decline, some rookeries and haulouts have been abandoned and the
availability of suitable terrestrial habitat is increasing. Terrestrial
habitat destruction and modification do not appear to be significant
issues for this population segment, or have a significant role in its
population decline.
There are indications that Steller sea lion declines may be related
to changes in the availability or quality of sea lion prey, as a result
of environmental changes or human activities (Alverson, 1991; Calkins
and Goodwin, 1988; Loughlin and Merrick, 1991; Merrick et al., 1987;
NMFS, 1992; NMFS, 1995). This issue is discussed in more detail below
in the section analyzing other factors affecting the species.
Eastern Population Segment: Modification or destruction of habitat,
including both terrestrial and aquatic habitat, does not appear to be a
significant factor affecting Steller sea lions in Southeast Alaska. In
Oregon, human disturbance of sea lions at Three Arch Rock and Orford
Reef was found to have a significant effect on the number of Steller
sea lions using these sites (R. Brown, pers. comm.; NMFS, 1992). State
regulations have been implemented, however, to restrict vessel traffic
and reduce human disturbance.
In California, the reason for the decline of Steller sea lions is
not known. Former rookery habitat has been abandoned (San Miguel
Island), and some other rookeries (Ano Nuevo Island, Farallon Islands)
are at lower than historical abundance levels. The availability of
suitable terrestrial habitat does not appear to be a factor in the sea
lion decline in parts of California. A redistribution of Steller sea
lions from disturbed to undisturbed habitats, however, has been
reported in the Farallon Islands (D. Ainley in NMFS, 1992), which may
be indicative of unreported disturbance limiting habitat use in other
areas. Similarly, with respect to aquatic habitat, changes in the
availability and quality of Steller sea lion prey resources due to
natural cycles, fisheries, and toxic substances may be a factor in
observed population trends in California.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Western and Eastern Population Segments: Steller sea lion pups were
harvested commercially in the past, with significant levels of harvest
occurring in eastern Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska during the
1960's and early 70's. Commercial harvest of Steller sea lions has not
occurred since 1972. In the past there have been reports of people
shooting at Steller sea lions at rookeries and haulout sites and in the
water near boats. Although illegal, shooting of sea lions probably
continues, but the magnitude and significance of this mortality source
is not known. In addition, in some cases, the animals may be disturbed
as a result of recreational activities. While the commercial harvest
and illegal shooting of Steller sea lions may have been significant
factors in past declines, especially with respect to the western
population, these harvests probably are not a major or substantial
cause of recent population changes.
Intentional lethal takings of small numbers of Steller sea lions
for scientific purposes have occurred in the past. Since the 1990 ESA
listing, however, scientists have relied on non-lethal sampling
techniques. Research often results in the temporary harassment and
occasionally results in the injury of Steller sea lions. Prior to 1990,
a small number of animals were taken from the wild for public display
[[Page 51974]]
purposes, but no such removals have been authorized since listing.
While occasionally the subject of observation and harassment,
especially in some areas, Steller sea lions usually are not utilized
for educational purposes in a manner that would have a significant
negative impact on the animals. It is unlikely that utilization of
Steller sea lions for scientific or educational purposes has been a
significant or contributing factor that has affected either population
segment.
C. Disease or Predation
Western and Eastern Population Segments: Sharks and killer whales
are known to prey on Steller sea lions, primarily pups. The magnitude
and significance of predator-related mortality, however, is not known.
Natural mortality from predation is not currently considered to be a
significant factor for either Steller sea lion population segment.
Nonetheless, should the western population segment continue to decline
and the amount of mortality resulting from natural predation by killer
whales remain unchanged, natural mortality could exacerbate the
decline, especially in some areas of the western population.
Studies to assess the significance of disease in the Steller sea
lion population are ongoing. To date, researchers have not found any
evidence that disease is a significant factor affecting either
population of Steller sea lions. Various pathogens have been isolated
from animals collected by researchers or carcasses found on the beach
but their significance to the overall population remains unclear. One
area of ongoing research is determining the role, if any, of pathogens
in the relatively high rate of abortions observed in Gulf of Alaska
Steller sea lions.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
NMFS has the authority to implement regulations necessary to
protect Steller sea lions under the ESA and the MMPA. Similarly, under
the Magnuson Act, NMFS has the authority to regulate fishing activities
that may be affecting sea lions, directly or indirectly. However, the
adequacy or inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and protective
regulations is difficult to evaluate because of the lack of a clear
cause and effect relationship between human activities and the decline
in the western population segment. Various regulations that have been
implemented, or that have been suggested or proposed for
implementation, are considered below.
Take prohibitions. Under the MMPA, it is unlawful for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a marine
mammal on the high seas or in waters or lands under U.S. jurisdiction.
``Take'' is defined as harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to
harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Certain exceptions
are provided.
Similarly, under the ESA, certain statutory prohibitions apply once
a species is listed as endangered. For example, under section 9 of the
ESA, no person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States may
take such a species within the U.S., the territorial sea of the U.S.,
or upon the high seas. ``Take'' is defined as harass, harm, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in such conduct. Certain exceptions are provided.
Often prohibitions similar to the section 9 prohibitions for
endangered species are implemented by regulation with respect to
species that are listed as threatened. Such action was not taken with
respect to Steller sea lions when the species originally was listed as
threatened in 1990, in part, because similar take prohibitions existed
under the MMPA, and in part, because of the difficulty of authorizing
incidental takings if such prohibitions had been implemented.
The regulatory mechanisms prohibiting the taking of Steller sea
lions generally have been effective.
Regulations prohibiting the discharge of firearms: Regulations
adopted with the original listing of Steller sea lions as threatened
prohibited the discharge of firearms at or near these animals. Although
intentional lethal taking of sea lions was prohibited at that time,
there had been reports that firearms were used to deter sea lions from
interfering with fishing operations.
In a separate action, NMFS has proposed regulations and guidelines
for deterring marine mammals as required under new section 101(a)(4) of
the MMPA (60 FR 22345, May 5, 1995). These deterrence measures would
prohibit the use of firearms for deterring marine mammals from
interacting with fishing gear or catch. In addition, new section
118(a)(5) of the MMPA prohibits intentional lethal taking of any marine
mammal during commercial fishing operations, except in defense of human
life (60 FR 6036, Feb. 1, 1995).
As noted above, illegal shooting of Steller sea lions may be
continuing, but the regulations adopted at the time of the original
listing of the species as threatened are viewed, in general, as
effective and adequate. NMFS proposes to continue these types of
protections for both the eastern and western population segments. The
proposed regulation in this action would expand the definition of
``firearm'' to make the definition consistent with the approach
proposed in the marine mammal deterrence measures.
No approach in buffer areas: Regulations adopted with the original
listing of Steller sea lions as threatened, prohibited any vessel from
approaching within three miles of specific Steller sea lion rookeries;
likewise, approach on non-private land within one-half mile of these
specific rookery sites was prohibited. A variety of exceptions were
provided. All of the specified rookery sites are within the range of
the western population segment.
The purposes of the buffer areas were to restrict opportunities for
individuals to shoot at sea lions and to facilitate enforcement of this
restriction; to reduce interactions with sea lions, such as accidents
or incidental takings, in areas where concentrations of these animals
are expected to be high; to minimize disturbance and interference with
sea lion behavior including foraging behavior, especially at pupping
and breeding sites; and to avoid or minimize other human impacts and
related adverse effects. To date, these regulations generally are
viewed as effective.
NMFS is proposing to continue the existing regulatory buffer areas
in the western area. At this time, NMFS is not proposing additional
buffer areas in the western area or any buffer area protections for
rookery sites in the eastern area. Specific case-by-case buffer area or
related protections may be considered in the context of section 7
consultations. Comments are invited with respect to the need for
changes in buffer area protections.
Quotas on incidental takings: On April 30, 1994, the reauthorized
and amended MMPA established a new regime to govern the take of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations to replace the
interim exemption program that was established by the 1988 amendments
to the MMPA. Under the 1988 Interim Marine Mammal Exemption Program, up
to 1,350 Steller sea lions were authorized to be taken annually
incidental to commercial fisheries and emergency regulatory actions
were required if more than 1,350 animals were incidentally killed in
any year. The new MMPA management regime replaces the previous quota
system and focuses on reducing the incidental mortality and serious
injury of marine mammals from strategic stocks, i.e., those that are
listed as endangered or threatened under the
[[Page 51975]]
ESA, those that are listed as depleted under the MMPA, and those for
which human-caused mortality exceeds the estimated potential biological
removal (PBR) for the stock. Under this new regime, NMFS is required to
permit the take of endangered and threatened marine mammals incidental
to commercial fishing under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA, provided
that (1) the incidental mortality and serious injury would have a
negligible impact on the affected species or stock, (2) a recovery plan
for that species or stock has been developed or is being developed, and
(3) where required under section 118 of the MMPA, a monitoring program
has been established, vessels are registered, and a take reduction plan
has been developed or is being developed.
The 1994 Amendments to the MMPA defined PBR as the maximum level of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that can be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population. Stocks of marine mammals listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA are considered ``strategic
stocks'' under the MMPA, and NMFS is to develop and implement take
reduction plans for such stocks that have either frequent or occasional
interactions with commercial fisheries.
The goal of these plans is to reduce incidental mortality or
serious injury of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations
to less than the PBR level within 6 months of implementation and to
insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury
rate by April 30, 2001. NMFS is committed to convening take reduction
teams to develop take reduction plans for strategic stocks of marine
mammals, including both the western and eastern populations of Steller
sea lions.
In addition to take reduction plan implementation, section
101(a)(5) of the MMPA allows NMFS to authorize the take of threatened
and endangered marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing
operations only if, among other things, that take will have a
``negligible impact'' on the stock. NMFS issued an Incidental Take
Statement (on August 25, 1995) that authorizes, under section 7(b)(4)
of the ESA, the incidental mortality and serious injury in commercial
fisheries.
Subsistence harvests: Under section 10(e) of the ESA, prohibitions
on the taking of threatened and endangered species normally do not
apply to takings by native Alaskans if such taking is primarily for
subsistence purposes. To date, no action has been taken to regulate, or
otherwise manage, the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions by
Alaska native groups. If subsistence takings materially and negatively
affect the species, regulations or restrictions may be imposed only
after a hearing and decision on the record.
Section 119 of the MMPA allows the Secretary of Commerce to enter
into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to
conserve marine mammals and provide co-management of subsistence uses.
In 1994, an interim Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion Commission
consisting of representatives from Alaska communities that take Steller
sea lions for subsistence needs was formed to improve communication
among indigenous communities that use sea lions, to advocate for
conservation of Steller sea lions, to advocate for protection of
customary and traditional rights of indigenous peoples with regard to
access and use of sea lions, and to serve as the focal point for
development of co-management agreements with NMFS. Through co-
management agreements between NMFS and the Alaska Native Sea Lion
Commission or tribal entities, self-management and regulation of the
subsistence harvest by Alaska Native tribes, communities, or the
Commission will be developed. NMFS is not considering regulation of the
subsistence harvest at this time but hopes to work with Alaska Native
communities and representatives to ensure that subsistence harvest does
not adversely affect the Steller sea lion population.
Critical habitat: Currently, designated critical habitat for
Steller sea lions includes major rookeries in Alaska, Oregon and
California, major haulout areas in Alaska, and three special aquatic
foraging areas in waters off Alaska, the Shelikof Strait are, the
Bogoslof area, and the Seguam Pass area.
Critical habitat provides the public and other Federal agencies
with notice of particular areas and features that are essential to the
conservation of Steller sea lions. Consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA is required for any agency action that may affect critical
habitat. NMFS believes that the current designation of critical habitat
is adequate and is not proposing to revise that designation at this
time.
Restrictions on fishing activities: Although the relationship
between commercial fisheries and the ability of Steller sea lions to
obtain adequate food is not clear, a change in food availability,
especially for juvenile Steller sea lions, is a leading hypothesis of
the continuing decline in the western population segment. The Gulf of
Alaska (GOA)/Bering Sea and Aleutian Island management area (BSAI) is
the geographic region where Steller sea lions have experienced the
greatest population decline and is also an area where large commercial
fisheries have developed. As a result, NMFS has implemented protective
regulations to reduce the possible effects of certain commercial
groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions, especially the groundfish
fisheries of the GOA and the BSAI.
Many of the Steller sea lion's preferred prey species are harvested
by commercial fisheries in this region, and food availability to
Steller sea lions may be affected by fishing. Because of concerns that
commercial fisheries in these essential sea lion habitats could deplete
prey abundance, NMFS amended the BSAI and GOA groundfish fishery
management plans. Under the Magnuson Act, NMFS: (1) Prohibited trawling
year-round within 10 nm of listed GOA and BSAI Steller sea lion
rookeries; (2) prohibited trawling within 20 nm of the Akun, Akutan,
Sea Lion Rock, Agligadak, and Seguam rookeries during the BSAI winter
pollock roe fishery to mitigate concentrated fishing effort on the
southeastern Bering Sea shelf and in Seguam Pass; and (3) placed
spatial and temporal restrictions on the GOA pollock harvest to divert
some fishing effort away from sea lion foraging areas and to spread
effort over the calendar year.
NMFS also seasonally expanded the 10 nm no-trawl zone around Ugamak
Island in the eastern Aleutians to 20 nm (58 FR 13561, March 12, 1993).
The expanded seasonal ``buffer'' at Ugamak Island better encompassed
Steller sea lion winter habitats and juvenile foraging areas in the
eastern Aleutian Islands region during the BSAI winter pollock fishery.
Consultations under section 7 of the ESA have been conducted on
annual total allowable catch specifications for the GOA and BSAI
fisheries as well as all other changes in the fishery. However, NMFS is
concerned about the adequacy of these protective measures and believes
that reevaluation of the regulations is needed. Further, the Recovery
Team has recommended NMFS evaluate the need for additional measures in
order to enhance food availability near rookeries and haulouts in the
western area. Current regulations of the groundfish fisheries in the
GOA and BSAI were implemented under the Magnuson Act. NMFS anticipates
that additional protections or changes in these measures would also be
[[Page 51976]]
implemented under that Act. NMFS is not proposing such revisions at
this time although comments on this issue are invited.
Other regulatory mechanisms: The inadequacy of other regulatory
mechanisms has been suggested as a factor in the decline or
vulnerability of both Steller sea lion populations. As mentioned above
comments received on the status review notice included suggestions that
additional regulations were needed to protect Steller sea lions from
the effects of oil and gas exploration and development.
In most cases, other agencies, such as Minerals Management Services
and the Forest Service, are more involved in the direct regulation of
these types of activities. Of course, these agencies are expected to
consult with NMFS on actions they authorize, fund, or carry out to
ensure these actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Reinitiation of consultation is expected in most situations,
given recent information concerning the status of the Steller sea
lions. Comments received concerning the adequacy of regulations issued
by other agencies will be considered during the consultation process.
Conclusions regarding the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms: NMFS has not made a final determination with respect to the
adequacy or inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. NMFS
recognizes the need for further consideration of the need for, the
adequacy of, and the benefits of existing regulations. In some cases,
even after further study, it may be difficult or impossible to make
definite determinations about the adequacy of specific regulations
because of the lack of knowledge or understanding of the mechanisms
contributing to the decline or vulnerability of Steller sea lion
populations.
NMFS is in the process of reinitiating or requesting reinitiation
of consultation under section 7 of the ESA with respect to various
agency actions that may affect Steller sea lions. Reinitiation is
necessary because of new information about the status of Steller sea
lions and is expected to help NMFS assess the adequacy of certain
regulatory mechanisms.
In some cases, NMFS anticipates that regulations may be needed to
be revised to protect Steller sea lions or to aid population recovery.
Review and revision of Steller sea lion management regulations, to the
maximum extent practicable, will be undertaken in full consultation
with affected parties, Federal and state agencies, and public interest
groups. Except with respect to the regulatory measures proposed in this
action, NMFS anticipates that major regulatory revisions will be
implemented by rulemaking that is separate from any final ESA listing
reclassification.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Other factors also may affect either or both populations of Steller
sea lions. In particular, removals of Steller sea lions from the wild,
resulting from direct and incidental takings, may be a contributing
factor in past and continuing declines. Changes in food availability is
another factor that may be causing declines. Contaminants are also a
concern. These other factors are discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
Removals from the Western Population Segment: Steller sea lions
frequently interact with commercial fisheries, and many have been
reported incidentally taken in fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering
Sea, and Aleutian Islands area. Estimates of the total number of
Steller sea lions taken in commercial trawl fisheries in these waters
from 1966 through 1988 exceed 20,000 animals (NMFS, 1995). Incidental
catch appears to have been a contributing factor in the population
decline in some areas of the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska during
certain time periods. In recent years, the number of Steller sea lions
taken in Federally-managed commercial groundfish fisheries in the Gulf
of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands has been relatively low
(less than 30/year), and incidental take in these fisheries is no
longer thought to be a major factor affecting the western population.
Alaska Native subsistence hunters have been estimated to take about
500 Steller sea lions annually in recent years; virtually all of the
subsistence harvest in Alaska occurs within the range of the western
population segment (Wolfe and Mischler, 1993; 1994). These removals
have an impact on the population although the magnitude of estimates in
comparison to the reported declines indicate that subsistence harvest
has not been a significant factor in the decline. However, should the
western population segment continue to decline and the subsistence
harvest continue at the same level, it may become significant.
Removals from the Eastern Population Segment: Accurate data on
incidental takes of Steller sea lions in other fisheries in Southeast
Alaska, Oregon, and California are not available, but estimates from
available sources are low. Alaska Native takes of Steller sea lions
within the eastern population (Southeast Alaska) have been estimated at
less than 10 animals annually (Wolfe and Mischler, 1993; 1994).
The calculated PBR for the eastern population of Steller sea lion
is 706 animals, well above the current level of human-caused mortality.
Food availability for the western population segment: Steller sea
lions are opportunistic feeders, that feed primarily on schooling
demersal fish, such as walleye pollock, Atka mackerel, herring, and
capelin. Declines in sea lion abundance may be related to changes in
the availability of sea lion prey. Changes in the quantity or quality
of available prey could have a chronic negative influence on the health
and fitness of individual sea lions, resulting in reduced reproductive
potential, increased susceptibility to disease, or death (Loughlin and
Merrick, 1989). Calkins and Goodwin (1988) observed that Steller sea
lions collected in the Kodiak Island area in 1985-86 were significantly
smaller at age than animals collected from 1975-78, and hypothesized
that nutritional stress was the cause. Juvenile sea lions, which are
less adept foragers, may be most affected by changes in food
availability. Demographic studies at Ugamak and Marmot Island rookeries
suggest that juvenile survival has been greatly reduced over the last
20 years, and that this reduced juvenile survival may be the proximate
cause of the population decline (NMFS, 1995). The role of food
availability in the population decline remains unclear and is being
investigated by researchers.
The BSAI and GOA commercial groundfish fisheries target important
prey species of Steller sea lions, notably wallege pollock and Atka
mackerel. Whether these fisheries actually deplete food resources of
Steller sea lions is unclear. Analyses that have compared fishery
harvests with changes in Steller sea lion abundance have been
inconclusive, but the limitations of the available data may confound
results (Loughlin and Merrick, 1989; Ferrero and Fritz, 1994).
One working hypothesis is that where and how fisheries operate is
significant to Steller sea lions even if overall fishery removal levels
are conservative of fish stocks. Fisheries that harvest large
quantities of fish in relatively small geographic areas and short
periods of time may deplete the local abundance of fishery resources.
When such a fishery occurs in important Steller sea lion foraging
habitat and
[[Page 51977]]
targets, or has a significant bycatch of, Steller sea lion prey species
(as the pollock and Atka mackerel fisheries do), the fishery may make
it more difficult for sea lions to obtain food. This is likely to be
more important in the winter when alternate food resources are fewer
and sea lion metabolic costs higher, and to be more significant to
newly-weaned juveniles, which are less adept foragers. Based on these
hypotheses, NMFS established no groundfish trawl zones around listed
Steller sea lion rookeries in the GOA and BSAI (to reduce harvest in
important foraging habitats), and created geographic fishery allocation
areas in the GOA for pollock (to disperse fishing effort).
The hypothesized change in prey availability to Steller sea lions
could also be related to environmental change. Changes in the abundance
of several species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other marine mammals
in the BSAI and GOA have been documented over the last 20 years. In
particular, some important forage fish stocks, such as capelin and sand
lance, appeared to have declined in both the BSAI and GOA during the
1970's and 1980's. Some of these observed changes in the ecosystem can
be linked to human activities (e.g., fisheries, marine mammal harvests,
hatcheries) whereas others appear to be related to natural phenomena
(e.g., oceanic temperature changes).
Contaminants affecting both populations: Concern has been expressed
about the possible adverse effects of anthropogenic contaminants on the
health and productivity of Steller sea lions, particularly in the
western population and in California. Presently, the significance, if
any, of toxic substances in Steller sea lion population declines is not
known, and additional research is warranted.
Proposed Determinations
The best available information indicates that Steller sea lions
should be managed as two discrete population segments and NMFS proposes
separate listings of the eastern and the western population segments of
the Steller sea lion for the purposes of the ESA.
Available data on population trends indicate that the western
population of Steller sea lions is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant part of its range. This population had exhibited a
precipitous, large population decline at the time that the Steller sea
lion was listed as a threatened species in 1990, and has continued to
decline since the listing. Although the precise cause(s) of the decline
have not been determined, it is likely that the current condition is
caused by a combination of the factors specified under section 4(a)(1)
of the ESA.
Therefore, NMFS proposes that the western population of Steller sea
lions be listed as an endangered species under the ESA.
The eastern population segment was originally listed as a
threatened species in 1990 when the entire species was listed. The
eastern population has exhibited a stable to increasing population
trend for the last 15 years; however, NMFS believes that the large
decline within the overall U.S. population threatens the continued
existence of the entire species. This is particularly true since the
underlying causes of the decline remain unknown, and thus,
unpredictable.
Therefore, despite the apparent stability of the eastern population
segment, NMFS proposes to maintain a threatened listing for this
portion of the geographic range. This proposed determination allows a
differentiation between the two populations that acknowledges the
different individual population trends, but does not lose sight of the
overall trend for the species. NMFS, in conjunction with the Recovery
Team, will develop appropriate delisting criteria for the eastern
population segment.
NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, published a series of new 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).
Role of peer review: The intent of the peer review policy is to
ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Prior to a final listing, the Services will solicit the
expert opinions of three appropriate and independent specialists.
Further, independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic
and scientific community, Tribal and other native American groups,
Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.
Identification of those activities that would constitute a
violation of Section 9 of the ESA: Section 9 of the ESA prohibits
certain activities that directly or indirectly affect endangered and
threatened species. Under the ESA and regulations, it is illegal to
take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture or collect) or to attempt to take any endangered and most
threatened species. Activities considered by the Agency to constitute a
``take'' of an endangered or threatened Steller sea lion include:
1. Shooting at or near a Steller sea lion. An example would be an
individual who shoots at a Steller sea lion to deter or distract it
from taking fish off the individual's fishing gear; another example is
shooting a Steller sea lion with a paint ball gun;
2. Collecting Steller sea lion parts. The ESA prohibits the
collection of an endangered species or parts therefrom. Therefore, it
would be illegal to collect parts from a dead Steller sea lion that has
washed ashore;
3. Pursuing or harassing Steller sea lions. An example would be
pursuing a Steller sea lion in an attempt to watch its behavior or to
obtain a better view of it from a vessel. These illegal activities can
be committed by guided marine life tour operators as well as individual
recreational boaters. Persons who wish to view Steller sea lions would
be required to avoid any actions that harass the Steller sea lion or
actions that would constitute pursuit of Steller sea lions either in
the water or on land. Trying to get the perfect photograph may result
in actions that constitute harassment or pursuit of a Steller sea lion;
4. Approaching within three nautical miles of a listed Steller sea
lion rookery site. This includes, but is not limited to, transitting
through the rookery site in a vessel, anchoring within any rookery site
or fishing within any rookery site; and
5. The take of Steller sea lions for the production of authentic
native articles of handicrafts and clothing only. The ESA only provides
for the take of endangered species for subsistence purposes and the
take must not be done in a wasteful manner.
This list is not exhaustive. It is provided to give the reader some
examples of the types of activities that would be considered by the
Agency as constituting a ``take'' of an endangered or threatened
Steller sea lion under the ESA and regulations.
With regard to activities that may affect Steller sea lions or
their habitat, and whose likelihood of violation of section 9 is
uncertain, the NMFS/Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) should be
contacted to assist in determining whether a particular activity
constitutes a prohibited act under section 9.
[[Page 51978]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA restricts the information that may be
considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation
and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829
(6th Cir. 1981), listing actions under the ESA are excluded from the
normal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
As noted in the Conference report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA
(H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess 20. (1982)), economic
considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding the status
of species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act are not applicable to the listing process.
Dated: September 28, 1995.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 222
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 227
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine
mammals, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 227
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation for part 222 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. and 1531-1543.
2. In Sec. 222.23, in paragraph (a) after ``Saimaa seal (Phoca
hispida saimensis);'' insert ``Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus),
western population (the western population consists of Steller sea
lions from breeding colonies located west of 144 deg. W. long.);''.
* * * * *
3. Section 222.32 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 222.32 Special prohibitions relating to endangered Steller sea
lion protection.
General. Special rules relating to endangered Steller sea lions are
provided at part 227, subpart B.
PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE
4. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. and 1531-1543.
Sec. 227.12 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 227.12, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1),
(a)(2), (a)(4), and (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:
(a) General prohibitions. Except as provided under paragraph (b) of
this section, the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538)
relating to the western population of Steller sea lions identified at
part 222 also apply to the eastern population which consists of Steller
sea lions from breeding colonies located east of 144 deg. W. long.
(1) No discharge of firearms or similar devices. Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, no person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States may discharge a firearm or similar device at or
within 100 yards (91.4 meters) of a Steller sea lion. A firearm or
similar device includes any weapon capable of propelling an object
resulting in, or likely to result in, injury including, without
limitation, guns, crossbows, spearguns, bangsticks, archery gear,
harpoons and spears.
(2) No approach in buffer areas. Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section:
(i) No owner or operator of a vessel may allow the vessel to
approach within 3 nautical miles (5.5 kilometers) of a Steller sea lion
rookery site listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section;
(ii) No person may approach on land not privately owned within one-
half statutory miles (0.8 kilometers) or within sight of a Steller sea
lion rookery site listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, whichever
is greater, except on Marmot Island; and
(iii) No person may approach on land not privately owned within one
and one-half statutory miles (2.4 kilometers) or within sight of the
eastern shore of Marmot Island, including the Steller sea lion rookery
site listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, whichever is greater.
* * * * *
(4) Quota. The incidental mortality and serious injury of
endangered and threatened Steller sea lions in commercial fisheries can
be authorized in compliance with sections 101(a)(5) and 118 of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
(b) * * *
(2) Official activities. The taking of Steller sea lions should be
reported within 30 days to the Director, Alaska Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. Paragraph (a) of
this section does not prohibit or restrict a Federal, state or local
government official, or his or her designee, who is acting in the
course of official duties from:
(i) Taking a Steller sea lion in a humane manner, if the taking is
for the protection or welfare of the animal, the protection of the
public health and welfare, or the nonlethal removal of nuisance
animals; or
(ii) Entering the buffer areas to perform activities that are
necessary for national defense, or the performance of other legitimate
governmental activities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-24638 Filed 9-29-95; 1:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W