[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26167-26176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11285]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No 990910253-0118-02; ID No. 041300C]
RIN 0648-AM90
Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Status for
White Abalone
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of the white
abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Based on the findings from the status review and a review of the
factors affecting the species, NMFS has concluded that white abalone is
in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
Accordingly, NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list white abalone
as an endangered species. NMFS is not proposing to designate critical
habitat for white abalone at this time, but is requesting public
comments on the issues pertaining to this proposed rule.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Pacific daylight
time, on July 5, 2000.
Requests for public hearings must be received by June 19, 2000. If
NMFS receives a request for public hearings, it will announce the dates
and locations of the public hearings in a later Federal Register
notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule and requests for public
hearings or reference materials should be sent to the Assistant
Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest
Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 562-980-4027, but they
will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irma Lagomarsino, 562-980-4020; or
Marta Nammack/Terri Jordan, 301-713-1401, or send a request via
electronic mail to whiteab.info@noaa.gov">whiteab.info@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Based on information indicating a major decline in abundance, NMFS
designated the white abalone, a marine invertebrate, as a candidate
species under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on
July 14, 1997 (62 FR 37560). In August 1998, NMFS contracted with
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) to conduct a review of the
biological status of white abalone, including the current and
historical impacts to the species. NMFS received the draft status
review on April 21, 1999, from SIO. In order to obtain an independent
peer-review, NMFS requested that three non-federal scientists review
and report on the scientific merits of the status review. By August
1999, NMFS received these anonymous reviews; NMFS scientists also
reviewed the document. Subsequently, SIO incorporated all of these
comments into the status review, and submitted the revised final status
review document to NMFS on March 20, 2000.
NMFS received a petition on April 29, 1999, from the Center for
Biological Diversity and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
to list white abalone as an endangered species on an emergency basis
and designate critical habitat under the ESA. On May 17, 1999, NMFS
received a second petition to list white abalone as an endangered
species throughout its range and designate critical habitat under the
ESA from the following organizations: the Marine Conservation Biology
Institute, Abalone and Marine Resources Council, Sonoma County Abalone
Network, Asociacion Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente,
Channnel Islands
[[Page 26168]]
Marine Resource Institute, Proteus SeaFarms International, and the
Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. NMFS
considers this second request as supplemental information to the first
petition.
On September 24, 1999, NMFS published its 90-day finding regarding
the April 29, 1999, petition to list white abalone as an endangered
species (64 FR 51725). It concluded that the April 29, 1999, petition
presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that a listing may be warranted, based on criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2). However, NMFS did not find that the petition presented
substantial evidence to warrant listing of white abalone on an
emergency basis. To ensure that the ongoing white abalone status review
was complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial
data, NMFS's 90-day finding also solicited information and comments on
(1) whether white abalone is endangered or threatened; (2) factors that
have contributed to the decline of white abalone; and (3) any efforts
being made to protect the species throughout its range. The comment
period ended on November 23, 1999.
On November 23, 1999, NMFS received a letter from the Center for
Marine Conservation (CMC) strongly recommending that NMFS list white
abalone as an endangered species on an emergency basis under section
4(b) of the ESA and immediately implement recovery measures. Based on
conclusions reported in Davis et al. (1996 and 1998), CMC stated that
white abalone has not been able to recover from overharvesting and
faces inevitable extinction in the near future unless measures are
taken to recover the species. CMC believes that an emergency listing
will benefit white abalone because NMFS could then initiate the
recovery planning process. Similar to the conclusion in the 90-day
finding notice (64 FR 51725, September 24, 1999), NMFS believes that
there is insufficient information to warrant listing white abalone on
an emergency basis under the ESA at this time and that the normal
rulemaking procedures are sufficient and appropriate for the protection
of white abalone. Based on its review of the petition and on other
available information, NMFS believes the decline of white abalone in
California is primarily the result of over-harvesting in the early
1970s. By March 1996, the State of California closed commercial and
recreational fishing for white abalone. Also, the best available
information indicates that white abalone habitat is not currently at
risk from destruction or modification. Thus, NMFS concludes that no
emergency exists to pose a significant risk to the well-being of the
species and that an emergency listing is not warranted at this time.
Abalone Life History and Ecology
Abalone are marine gastropods belonging to the family Haliotidae
and genus Haliotis and are characterized by a flattened spiral shell
(Haaker, 1986; Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Abalone have separate sexes
and are broadcast spawners, releasing millions of eggs or sperm during
a spawning event. Fertilized eggs hatch and develop into free-swimming
larvae, spending from 5 to 14 days as non-feeding zooplankton before
development (i.e., metamorphosis) into the adult form. After
metamorphosis, they settle onto hard substrates in intertidal and
subtidal areas. Abalone grow slowly and have relatively long lifespans
of 30 years or more. Young abalone (referred to as ``cryptic abalone'')
seek cover in rocky crevices, under rocks, and deep crevices, feeding
on benthic diatoms, bacterial films, and single-celled algae found on
coralline algal substrate (Cox, 1962). As abalone grow and become less
vulnerable to predation at about 75-100 mm (2.9-3.9 inches) in length,
they emerge from secluded habitat to more open, visible locations where
their principal food source, attached or drifting algae, is more
available (Cox 1962). In dive surveys, these animals are classified as
``emergent'' abalone. Abalone lead a relatively sedentary lifestyle.
Although juveniles may move tens of meters per day, adult abalone have
extremely limited movements as they increase in size (Cox, 1962;
Tutschulte, 1976; Shephard, 1973).
Successful abalone recruitment has been related to the interaction
between spawning density, spawning period and length, and fecundity
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). At low adult densities, fertilization
success is much reduced. When males and females are greatly separated,
fertilization success may be negligible and recruitment failure will
likely occur (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
White Abalone
Eight species of Haliotis occur along the west coast of North
America. Historically, white abalone ranged from Point Conception,
California, U.S.A., to Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico.
Although studies have recognized possible population structure in other
Haliotis species, no studies have identified distinct populations of
white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). As its name suggests, the
shell of Haliotis sorenseni is white--the adult body is characterized
by a mottled orange tan epipodium. Tutschulte (1976) reported that
white abalone are not as cryptic as other California abalone species.
White abalone is the deepest-living of the west coast Haliotis
species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000), usually reported at subtidal depths
of between 20-60 m (66-197 ft) and historically most ``abundant''
between 25-30 m (80-100 ft) (Cox, 1960; Tutschulte, 1976). At these
depths, white abalone are found in open low relief rock or boulder
habitat surrounded by sand (Tutschulte, 1976; Davis et al., 1996).
White abalone may be limited to depths where algae grow, a function
of light levels and substrate availability, because they are reported
to feed less on drift algae and more on attached brown algae
(Tutschulte, 1976; Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). The upper and lower
limits of white abalone depth distribution could also be influenced by
temperature effects on larvae and juvenile survival. Leighton (1972)
found that white abalone larval survival is reduced at lower
temperatures. Tutschulte (1976) speculated that white abalone may have
been restricted to depths below 25 m (82 ft) by predation from sea
otters when sea otter and white abalone latitudinal ranges overlapped
or from competition with pink abalone and predation by octopuses.
Maximum shell length recorded for white abalone in California and
Mexico is 20-25 cm (7.8-9.8 inches) and 17 cm (6.6 inches),
respectively. However, ``average'' observed size is about 13-20 cm (5-8
inches), and animals that are less than 10 cm (4 inches) are rare (Cox,
1960). White abalone reach sexual maturity at a size of between 88 and
134 mm (3.4-5.2 inches) in approximately 4 to 6 years and spawn in the
winter, between February and April (Tutschutle, 1976; Tutschutle and
Connell, 1981). Compared to two other California species, white abalone
have a high degree of spawning synchronicity wherein most males and
females spawn in a relatively short time period. Based on a peak in 5-
year old animals prior to the peak of the white abalone fishery,
Tutschulte (1976) suggested that white abalone have irregular
recruitment. Tutschulte (1976) estimated that maximum lifespan of white
abalone is 35 to 40 years.
In the laboratory, settlement of white abalone larvae occurred
after 9 to 10 days at 15 oC (59oF) (Leighton,
1972). This larval period is longer than periods reported for other
California abalone species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Drift tube
studies have found that larval
[[Page 26169]]
periods of most abalone species would not usually be long enough for
regular dispersal of abalone between islands and mainland areas (Tegner
and Butler, 1985b). Since they have a relatively long larval period,
potential dispersal distances may be greater for white abalone than
those other of abalone species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
Status of White Abalone
Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as any
species that 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 an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' NMFS identified a number of factors that should be considered
in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species, including (1)
current abundance in relation to historical abundance; (2) trends in
abundance; (3) spatial and temporal distribution and effective
population size, and (4) natural and human influences. NMFS has
evaluated these factors to aid in determining the status of white
abalone.
1. Current Abundance in Relation to Historical Abundance
a. Historical Abundance. Estimates of pre-exploitation abundance of
white abalone may be made from both fishery-independent and fishery-
dependent data and by using an estimate of the total area of white
abalone habitat within the species range. Based on a historical range
between Point Conception and Punta Eugenia and on the assumption that 3
percent of the area within depth contours of 25 to 65 m (82-213 ft) is
rocky reef habitat, Davis et al. (1998) estimate total area of white
abalone habitat throughout the species' range to be 966 hectares (ha).
Using Tutschulte's (1976) density estimate of 0.23 white abalone/
m2, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) estimated a pre-exploitation
abundance of 2,221,800 animals. Alternatively, Hobday and Tegner
(2000a) calculated another pre-exploitation population abundance
estimate for white abalone using data from Mexico. Using fishery-
independent data from abalone surveys conducted by Guzman and Proo et
al. (1976) between 1968 and 1970 along the west coast of Baja
California, Mexico, within the depth contours between 0 to 27 m (0-89
ft), Hobday and Tegner (2000a) estimated that the pre-exploitation
population size in Mexico was 2.12 million individuals. Hobday and
Tegner (2000a) then doubled this estimate to account for white abalone
in California and calculated a pre-exploitation estimate of white
abalone abundance of 4.24 million animals throughout the range of the
species. This estimate incorrectly assumes that white abalone were
found throughout the area surveyed (i.e., in southern Baja, California)
and, thus, this calculation may overestimate white abalone abundance.
Hobday and Tegner (2000a) also calculated a pre-exploitation
abundance of white abalone using fishery-dependent data. Between the
peak years of white abalone exploitation in California, approximately
605,807 lb (274,792 kg) of white abalone were landed. (Assuming 1.67
lbs (.76 kg)/animal, 362,759 animals were harvested). Since it would
have taken 10 years for white abalone to reach California's legal size
limit, and the fishery collapsed after only 10 years of exploitation,
Hobday and Tegner (2000a) assume that all legal-sized adults were
harvested every year. If total catch in the 10-year period represents
the total accumulated virgin stock and there was no recruitment, Hobday
and Tegner (2000a) estimate the former California population size
equals the total catch between 1969 and 1978, namely 362,759 animals.
If this figure is doubled to include Mexico, the historical abundance
estimate is 725,518 white abalone throughout its historical range.
However, the actual pre-exploitation abundance must have been greater
because some white abalone were harvested in subsequent years, some
animals were lost to natural mortality, and white abalone from the
recreational catch were not included in the estimate. Not all of the
pre-exploitation estimates account for cryptic white abalone.
b. Current Abundance. Using a research submersible vessel, the
first deep-reef surveys for white abalone were conducted near Santa
Barbara, Anacapa, and Santa Cruz Islands, and on Osborn Bank in 1996
and 1997 (Davis et al., 1998). After searching 77,070 m2
(829,601 ft2) of rocky reef between 27 and 67 m (89 and 220
ft) depth, only nine live white abalone were found. Assuming that
population densities of white abalone estimated from these surveys
(i.e., 0.000167 white abalone/m2, plus or minus 0.0001) were
representative of white abalone densities throughout their entire range
and that the total available habitat within the species range is 966 ha
(2,386 acres), Hobday and Tegner (2000a) estimate that the 1996/1997
population size throughout the entire range of the species was 1,613
white abalone. They conclude from these results that white abalone are
absent or at extremely low densities at all depths and areas surveyed.
Using these same data, Davis et al. (1998) estimated that fewer than
1,000 white abalone existed in 1996/1997 throughout the species range
and concluded that these submersible surveys both confirmed the
``critically low'' population density and demonstrated the lack of a de
facto refugia beyond normal scuba depths.
In October 1999, scientists conducted another deep-reef survey for
white abalone near Santa Cruz, Anacapa, Santa Barbara, San Clemente and
Santa Catalina Islands and on Osborn, Farnsworth, Tanner and Cortez
Banks using a submersible vessel (Haaker et al., 2000; Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b). In contrast to the 1996/1997 submersible surveys, the
areas selected for the October 1999 study were the areas where the
greatest amount of white abalone had been removed by the commercial and
recreational fisheries in the 1970s (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). This
survey covered approximately 57.5 ha (142 acres) (Haaker et al., 2000)
of suitable white abalone habitat, at a depth between 19 and 65 m (62
and 213 ft), and found 157 live white abalone (average density =
0.00027 white abalone/m2 or 2.7 white abalone per ha).
The 1996/1997 and 1999 submarine surveys for white abalone in
California covered approximately 6 percent of the estimated 966 ha
(2,386 acres) of suitable habitat throughout the species' range (Hobday
and Tegner, 2000b). Hobday and Tegner (2000b) combined data from these
surveys and calculated another estimate of current population
abundance. This estimate should be more representative of the
population because they used spatially-distinct white abalone densities
from the different areas surveyed. Based on the estimated potential
habitat (966 ha or 2,386 acres) and the area-specific white abalone
densities, Hobday and Tegner (2000b) calculated a revised current
population abundance of 2,540 individuals throughout the range of the
species.
All of these historical and current white abalone abundance
estimates are likely to be biased for several reasons. First, the total
amount of white abalone habitat may be more or less than the 3-percent
assumed area within the depth contours between 25 and 65 m (82-213 ft),
and the amount may vary among areas (Hobday and Tegner, 2000b). Second,
since the exact width of the submarine transect widths are not known,
the area actually surveyed may be larger or smaller. In addition, since
white abalone prefer low relief rocks covered with folise algae near
sand at depths between 40-60 m, observers
[[Page 26170]]
collecting data during surveys may preferentially search these areas.
Finally, in 1996 alone, 12,307 kg (27,132 lb) of white abalone were
reported in Mexican commercial abalone landings. Because the average
weight of white abalone is 1.67 lb (0.75 kg), represents approximately
32,000 white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). If the Mexican
landings data are correct, the current white abalone density estimates
based on fishery-independent data may be too low.
2. Trends in Abundance
a. Commercial Fishery Data - California. In 1967, at a time when
the total abalone landings in California began to decline, commercial
white abalone harvest began (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Within a 9-year
period between 1969 and 1977, over 95 percent of the commercial white
abalone landings took place. White abalone landings peaked at 144,000
lb (86,000 individuals) in 1972, only 3 years after intense harvest
began. The decline in white abalone landings was so dramatic by 1978
(less than 5,000 lb (2270 kg) landed), that the CDFG no longer required
white abalone to be reported separately on commercial landings
receipts. Between 1987 and 1992, only 11 white abalone were voluntarily
reported in commercial landings, and, since 1992, none have been
reported.
b. Recreational Fishery Data--California. Data on the recreational
catch of abalone in California comes from commercial passenger dive
boats (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Between 1971 and 1993, white abalone
comprised 1.29 percent of the total, and 2.89 percent of the
``identified,'' recreational abalone catch in California. Most of the
catch was harvested from Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands.
Recreational harvest of white abalone peaked at about 35,000 animals in
1975, then declined sharply. By 1986, white abalone were rarely
reported as landed by divers using commercial dive boats. Abalone catch
from recreational divers not using commercial dive boats has not been
quantified.
c. Commercial Fishery Data - Mexico. Data on abalone landings in
Mexico are limited because species-specific catch data are sparse.
Before 1984, Mexico did not require commercial abalone fishermen to
land abalone in the shell, the only identifying characteristic. Prior
to about 1990, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) found no data on the number or
weight of white abalone landed in Mexico. Often, available data were
temporally and spatially inconsistent and contradictory.
Although white abalone are deep-living and most likely hard to
find, they were harvested in Mexico prior to 1931 because the tender
meat attracted a high price (Croker, 1931, p. 69). Historically, white
abalone comprised only a few percent of the total Baja, California,
abalone catch. However, in certain cooperatives, white abalone was
sometimes a significant portion of the abalone catch--in some months
representing over 50 percent of the total abalone catch (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000a). For instance, between 1992 and 1994, white abalone
represented about 65 percent of the catch of one Mexican fishing
cooperative. Since the total abalone catch for that cooperative was
57,983 lb (26,301 kg) of meat, that represents a large amount of white
abalone meat (i.e., 37,689 lb or 17,096 kg). Hobday and Tegner (2000a)
suggest that this harvest may represent overharvesting of newly located
reefs, because that harvest rate was not sustained in subsequent years.
Data from Zone 1 (the northernmost portion of species range in
Mexico) from 1990 to 1997 indicate that white abalone represented only
0.73 percent of the total abalone catch (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). In
this same zone, no catch trends are evident for any abalone species.
White abalone were not harvested south of Zone I in Baja, California,
from 1993 to 1998. Although the data are limited, it appears that in
those areas, catch-per-unit-effort of abalone declined from 205 to 18
kg/boat/day (452 to 40 lb) between 1958 and 1984, respectively (Guzman
del Proo, 1992, as cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Since 1981,
total abalone catch has remained near 800-1000 tons, with most abalone
harvested from Cedros Island. From 1993 to 1998, the price of abalone
in Mexico has remained constant and is an important source of income
for the region (Ponce-Diaz et al., 1998, cited in Hobday and Tegner,
2000a). Based on trends in landings, Mexico's white abalone populations
may be depleted (Guzman del Proo, 1992), though perhaps not as severely
as in the United States (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
d. Recreational Fishery-Dependent Data--Mexico. Although there is
no recreational abalone fishery in Mexico, the gathering of intertidal
abalone occurs at some level (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
e. Summary of Trends. Survey assessments for white abalone have
been limited in number and spatially separate (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a). Because of this and because relatively few white abalone were
observed, estimates of white abalone density, using fishery-independent
data collected during the surveys in the 1980's and 1990's are
imprecise. The current white abalone abundance calculations based on
these survey data may also be biased due to assumptions about the total
amount of white abalone habitat currently available (e.g., 3 percent)
and the amount of area actually surveyed. Nevertheless, data collected
from the white abalone surveys represent the best available scientific
information on the species.
Review of the results from the series of fishery-independent
abalone surveys in the early 1980s and 1990s indicates that white
abalone density may have declined by several orders of magnitude in
California since 1970 (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Over the last 30
years, white abalone abundance has declined from approximately 2.22 to
4.24 million animals (pre-exploitation) to approximately 1,613 to 2,540
animals throughout the species range. This decline represents a
decrease in white abalone abundance of over 99 percent since
exploitation began in the late 1960s. Review of the commercial landings
data also indicates a significant decline in white abalone abundance,
from a peak of 144,000 lbs (65,318 kg) in 1972 to less than 1,000 lbs
(454 kg) in 1979, after only a decade of commercial exploitation.
3. Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Effective Population size
In addition to the absolute number of individuals in a population
or species, their spatial and temporal distribution is critical for
successful fertilization, recruitment, and survival of local
populations. Reproductive failure will occur below a threshold
population density because surviving individuals are so few and so
scattered that they cannot find mates. This is commonly referred to as
the ``Allee Effect'' (Primack, 1993). Individuals that are close enough
to find mates may still not produce offspring due to other factors such
as age, poor health, sterility, malnutrition, and small body size
(Primack, 1993). As a result of these factors, the ``effective
population size'' of breeding individuals will be substantially smaller
than the actual population size.
Even with high adult densities, abalone recruitment is highly
variable and unpredictable (Davis et al., 1996). Based on results from
modeling and experiments with sea urchins, Pennington (1985)
demonstrated that successful fertilization for broadcast spawners
requires that males and females be close enough for free-swimming sperm
to contact eggs in sufficient densities. Juvenile abalone
[[Page 26171]]
recruitment severely declines, or ceases in abalone populations that
are depleted below approximately 50 percent of virgin stock levels
(Shepherd and Brown, 1993; Richards and Davis, 1993). Price et al.
(1988) found that, for the Australian abalone species, Haliotis rubra,
abundance of breeding animals determined recruitment. Thus, despite the
broadcasting of millions of sperm and eggs and a planktonic larval
phase, locally reduced adult abalone densities can result in lower
local recruitment. More recently, Babcock and Keesing (1999) found
that, for the Australian abalone species, Haliotis laevigata,
recruitment failure occurred when the mean nearest neighbor distances
were over 1-2 m (3.3-6.6 ft) or when densities fell below 0.3 animals/
m2. They also speculate that reductions in abalone densities
may further reduce reproductive success by limiting the ability to
synchronize reproductive behavior.
Because abalone are slow-moving bottom dwellers, their ability to
aggregate during spawning to overcome even relatively small separations
is extremely limited. If the current estimate of mean white abalone
density (e.g., 0.00027 white abalone/m2) is representative
throughout most of the range of the species, it is far below that
necessary to produce gamete concentrations high enough for effective
fertilization. Based on the current estimated average distance of
approximately 50 m (164 ft) between white abalone adults, the chance of
successful fertilization and regular production of viable cohorts of
juvenile white abalone is extremely low (Davis, 1998).
The density of white abalone observed during the 1999 submersible
survey varied from 0 to 9.76 abalone per ha (Hobday and Tegner, 2000b).
The highest densities were found at Tanner Bank, an offshore area where
distance, average sea conditions, and navigational challenges may have
reduced white abalone fishing effort. Of the 157 white abalone found in
the October 1999 submersible survey, nearly 80 percent were individuals
(i.e., the nearest neighbor was more than 2 m (6.6 ft) away (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b). Twenty percent of the white abalone observed were found
in ``groups'' of two, and one group of four was found. Although these
groups have the potential to produce offspring if at least one male and
one female occurs in each group, it is still likely that the effective
population size of the species is currently very small (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b).
The size and frequency of empty abalone shells observed during
surveys can also indicate local population structure and whether
habitat is suitable for survival. For example, about 20 percent of the
empty shells near stable red abalone populations, with regular juvenile
recruitment are juvenile-sized shells (Hines and Pearse, 1982, reported
in Davis et al., 1996). In contrast, the percentage of juvenile-sized
empty shells found near a red abalone population on the verge of
collapse at Santa Rosa Island dropped from 22 percent to 6 percent as
recruitment and adult densities declined (Tegner et al., 1989; Davis et
al., 1992, reported in Davis et al., 1996).
Davis et al. (1996) found that during the 1992-1993 scuba surveys
for white abalone, most of the empty shells and live individuals were
probably more than 25 years old (>140 mm or 5.5 inches). All of these
shells, except one, were adult size (>50 mm or 2 inches) and most were
between 131 and 180 mm (5 and 7 inches). During the 1996-1997
submersible white abalone surveys, over 300 empty shells were observed.
All of these shells appeared to be over 25 years old (Davis, G., pers.
comm., February 2000). These results indicate that the survey sites
were previously inhabited by white abalone. Davis et al. (1998)
concludes that these older abalone represent the last major cohort
recruited to the population. This cohort would have been spawned in the
late 1960s or early 1970s and survived because they would have been too
small to be legally harvested during the peak of the fishery in the
1970s.
Although the influence of age on white abalone fertility is
unknown, if individual age is a factor for reproductive success, the
effective population size of white abalone may be significantly lower
than the current estimate of white abalone abundance throughout its
range. Analysis of the 1999 survey video footage and photographs to
determine size frequencies of the white abalone observed (live
individuals and empty shells) has not yet been conducted (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b).
4. Other Natural and Human Influences. See (A), (C), and (E) in
Summary of Factors Affecting White Abalone.
Summary of Factors Affecting White Abalone
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth procedures for listing species. NMFS must determine,
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or
threatened based upon any one or a combination of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence. NMFS' contract with SIO included a review of current and
historical factors affecting white abalone. This review identifies
overutilization for commercial purposes as the primary reason for the
decline of white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). The following is a
discussion of the factors used to determine whether white abalone
should be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Loss or modification of habitat is not likely to have been a factor
in the decline of white abalone. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) conclude
that natural or anthropogenic white abalone habitat losses are unknown.
Due to the isolation of the offshore islands off southern California
and northern Baja, California, Mexico, and the depth range of the
species, anthropogenic impacts to white abalone habitat should be
limited near the islands. The California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) believe, that direct threats to white abalone are limited,
especially on the islands offshore of southern California, but mainland
habitat may have been affected to an ``unknown extent'' for a variety
of unspecified land-based human activities. On the other hand,
pollution affected shallow water abalone habitat (i.e., Macrocystis
kelp forests) along the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the 1950s, resulting
in a decline in certain shallow water abalone populations (Tegner,
1989; 1993). However, the source of the pollution has been controlled
and is no longer affecting habitat in that area.
Long-term or short-term changes in ocean conditions could affect
both larval and adult abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). For example,
periodic El Nino conditions increase surface water temperatures above
optimum larval survival levels. In addition, due to the periodicity of
these events, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest the warming events
would lead to recruitment failure. The influence of some diseases may
increase during periods of warm water conditions. Warm water has also
been associated with depleted nutrients in the ocean, declines in
Macrocystis,
[[Page 26172]]
and the availability of drifting algae material. The direct or indirect
impacts of increasing water temperatures within the depth range on
white abalone are unknown. Harvesting of Macrocystis pyrifera has been
shown to have little effect on shallow-living abalone species (Tegner,
1989) and could even benefit abalone by providing greater amounts of
drift algae (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). For these reasons, habitat loss
or modification are not likely to have been factors of decline of white
abalone.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
White abalone throughout its range have experienced declines in
abundance as a result of overutilization for commercial and
recreational purposes. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest that white
abalone in California were subject to ``serial depletion'' by the
commercial fishery during the early 1970s. Due to their life history
characteristics as slow-moving bottom dwellers with external
fertilization, abalone are particularly susceptible to local and
subsequent serial depletion. If female abalone are not within a few
meters of males when they both spawn, the sperm will be too diluted by
diffusion to fertilize the eggs (Davis et al., 1996). As local abalone
density declines, the probability of successful fertilization and
subsequent recruitment, correspondingly decreases. Serial depletion
occurs as fishermen shift from exploited to unexploited fishing areas
due to local depletion. Total landings may remain constant in the short
term. Eventually, however, if all areas are harvested at unsustainable
levels, recruitment failure occurs on a regionwide basis. The CDFG
believe that the most significant threat to white abalone is related to
the effects of low population abundance on continued white abalone
reproduction, survival and recovery.
Because white abalone catch data from California were recorded by
blocks that can be aggregated into regions, data indicate that over 80
percent of the white abalone landings were taken from San Clemente
Island. The offshore Tanner Bank and Cortez Bank-Bishop Rock region
provided 13 percent of the total catch. Notably, between 1965 and 1975,
over 25 percent (average 43 percent) of the white abalone catch at each
location came from a single year (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). If harvest
was sustainable, the portion of catch harvested each year at each
location should have been more equitable over many years. In contrast,
at each location (e.g., island), large harvest was sustained for only a
few years after previously unexploited white abalone stocks were
depleted (see Table 8 in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). After only 3 years
of commercial exploitation, regionwide landings of white abalone peaked
at 144,000 lb (65,318 kg) in 1972, declining to less than 10,000 lb
(4,535 kg) in 1977. White abalone landings were so negligible by 1978
(1,000 lb or 454 kg), that CDFG no longer collected landings data for
the species.
Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest that the increasing value of
abalone may have contributed to increased fishing pressure. For
example, the price of white abalone increased from about $2.50 per
pound in 1981 to about $7 per pound in 1993. As the catch of all
abalone declined, the total and per-unit value of the harvest continued
to increase. White abalone was usually the most valuable species and by
1988, white abalone was worth twice the value of other abalone species
(Davis et al., 1996).
C. Disease or Predation
First detected in 1985, withering syndrome disease has
significantly affected west coast abalone species, especially the black
abalone. Withering syndrome also occurs in pink, red, and green abalone
(Alstatt et al., 1996, cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Withering
syndrome has recently been identified as a ricksettia bacterium that
affects the digestive glands of abalone. Surveys of black abalone
suffering from withering syndrome found large numbers of empty black
abalone shells. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest, that if white
abalone were significantly affected by withering syndrome, large
numbers of empty white abalone shells should have been detected during
the abalone surveys of the 1980s.
In 1990, 20 freshly dead white abalone, which could have been
killed by withering syndrome, with undamaged shells were collected from
Santa Catalina (Tegner et al., 1996). In 1993, two live white abalone
were collected from Santa Catalina Island and diagnosed with withering
syndrome. A white abalone in captivity recently died and showed
symptoms of withering syndrome. Although white abalone appear to be
susceptible to withering syndrome, it is not likely to have been a
major factor in the decline of white abalone.
Several abalone predators have been documented, including sea
stars, fish, crabs, octopuses, and sea otters (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a). Although increases in abundance of these predators could be
related to declines in white abalone abundance, no information is
available on the density of the invertebrate predators in white abalone
habitat. Due to the depth range and latitudinal distribution of white
abalone, predation by sea otters is not likely to have been a factor in
the decline of white abalone abundance. The CDFG believes that factors
such as disease or predation may have contributed to the decline of
white abalone but are not currently a major factor affecting the
species' continued existence.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Because white abalone throughout their range have experienced
declines in abundance as a result of overutilization for commercial
purposes, fishing regulations for white abalone during the major period
of its decline in the 1970s were inadequate to regulate harvest of
white abalone at sustainable levels.
The establishment of minimum size limits has been a strategy used
worldwide to manage the harvest of abalone on a sustainable basis
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Managers expected this restriction would
allow individual abalone a chance to reproduce and contribute to the
population before possible removal from the population by harvest. In
California, minimum size limits for abalone were greater than the size
of sexual maturity and could have allowed for several years of
reproduction before the animals reached legal harvest size. However,
successful reproduction does not necessarily occur each year. If
reproductive failure occurs for several years, abalone could reach
legal size and be removed by the fishery before they have successfully
reproduced and contributed offspring to the population. California also
prohibited abalone fishing during the spawning season. Other
regulations, such as bag limits for recreational fishermen, and limited
entry, were also instituted by California as abalone management
measures.
In 1970, California established a permit fee of $100 for both
divers and crew members (Burge et al., 1975; cited in Hobday and
Tegner, 2000a). The diver fee increased to $200 in 1975 and finally
reached $330 in 1991. Relative to permit fees charged by other
countries to harvest abalone which approach $1 million per permit
(e.g., Tasmania, South Australia), these relatively low fees did not
promote sustainable abalone fishing in California.
California's abalone management did not prevent serial depletion of
white abalone or promote sustainable harvest practices in the 1970s. In
1996, the California Fish and Game Commission closed the California
white abalone fishery to protect the surviving adults (Davis et al.,
1998). At this time, NMFS does not have documentation that
[[Page 26173]]
Mexico has closed its commercial white abalone fishery or limited white
abalone fishing.
Intentional capture of sub-legal abalone before they contributed
substantially to the population could have reduced the reproductive
potential of white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). However, since
the State of California has required all commercially caught abalone to
be landed in the shell, poaching is not likely to have been a major
factor for the decline of white abalone. In Mexico, during a survey in
1973, a substantial portion of the commercial white abalone catch was
found to be undersized. The impact of illegal white abalone harvesting
as a factor of the species' decline is difficult to evaluate in Mexico,
but was probably not a major factor in California. Because abalone has
no blood clotting ability, cut animals bleed to death (Cox, 1962, cited
in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Burge et al. (1975) found that accidental
cutting of sub-legal sized abalone is a significant cause of mortality
and could have further reduced white abalone abundance (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000a). For example, mortality due to cutting during collection
of sub-legal red abalone was estimated at 60 percent from small cuts in
the lab, and almost 100 percent in the field. Even undersized abalone
that are handled and replaced without being cut suffer a 2 to 10-
percent mortality in the field. Under-sized abalone may also be subject
to predation before they have a chance to reattach to the substrate.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
Competition from sea urchins and other abalone species for food and
space could have been a factor in the decline of white abalone. For
instance, increasing trends in abundance of sea urchins
(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus) could have limited
the amount of algae available for juvenile or adult white abalone
consumption (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Although these potential
ecological interactions have not been studied in the field, the
densities of these potential competitors are also currently low and are
no longer likely to limit white abalone abundance (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a).
Hybridization of white abalone with other more abundant California
abalone species could potentially lower white abalone population size
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Natural hybridization between other
California abalone species and white abalone has been observed. Owen et
al. (1971) found that disturbance, high sea urchin frequency, and low
abundance of one parent species increased the frequency of abalone
hybrids. However, because large numbers of white abalone hybrids have
not been found in the field, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) conclude that
hybridization of white abalone with other abalone species is unlikely
to have led to a decline of the species.
Efforts Being Made to Protect White Abalone
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts
being made by any state or foreign nation to protect a species, by
predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or by other
conservation practices. In making this listing determination,
therefore, NMFS must consider white abalone status and the factors that
have lead to its decline, as well as state or foreign conservation
efforts that may ameliorate the risks faced by the white abalone.
In judging the efficacy of state or foreign conservation efforts,
NMFS considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty that
such efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of
monitoring provisions that determine effectiveness and that permit
adaptive management (NMFS, 1996b). In some cases, conservation efforts
may be relatively new and may not have had time to demonstrate their
biological benefit. In such cases, provisions for adequate monitoring
and funding of conservation efforts are essential to ensure intended
conservation benefits are realized.
State of California Conservation Measures for White Abalone
The CDFG has collected fishery-independent data on white abalone
for many years and has conducted and participated in the scuba and
submersible surveys conducted in 1980/1981, 1992/1993, 1996/1997, and
1999. The data and information gathered during these studies have
contributed to a better understanding of the decline of white abalone.
Because the State required that abalone fishermen submit landings data,
the precipitous decline of white abalone in the 1970s has been
documented. As mentioned previously, the State closed white abalone
fishing in 1996, thereby removing a significant factor for decline. The
closure of all abalone fisheries in southern California in 1997 has
also reduced the likelihood of accidental harvest or poaching of white
abalone in California. Despite these State conservation measures,
however, the species may not survive without human intervention because
most of the remaining individuals are too far apart to successfully
reproduce. To date, the State of California has not listed white
abalone under the State's Endangered Species Act.
Mexican Conservation Measures for White Abalone
At this time, NMFS does not know whether Mexico has closed its
white abalone fishery or instituted other conservation measures to
protect the species. NMFS contracted out the status review to SIO to
gather data on white abalone landings and status of white abalone in
Mexico, but conservation measures were not part of this contract. The
U.S. Government has not contacted Mexico yet with regard to
conservation measures. Under 50 CFR 424.16, insofar as practical and in
cooperation with the Secretary of State, NMFS must give notice of any
proposed regulation to list a species to each foreign nation in which
the species is believed to occur and invite the comment of such nation.
After NMFS solicits and receives comments from Mexico, it should have a
better understanding of the conservation measures Mexico has
implemented to protect white abalone.
Private-Public Partnerships
Due to concern over the depleted status of white abalone, a
consortium of scientists, fishermen, conservation organizations,
universities, Federal and state agencies, and mariculturists in private
enterprise have joined together to develop and execute a plan to
restore white abalone populations (Davis et al., 1998). The White
Abalone Restoration Consortium (Consortium) has developed the following
four-step restoration plan: (1) Locate surviving white abalone by
surveying historical habitat; (2) collect brood stock; (3) breed and
rear a new generation of brood stock; and (4) re-establish refugia of
self-sustaining brood stocks in the wild. The Consortium has also
initiated an outreach program to raise public awareness of the status
of white abalone and restoration efforts. Particularly challenging is
the ability to increase public awareness of a relatively small and
unknown marine invertebrate. Because nearly 25 years of artificially
producing and outplanting juvenile and younger red abalone in
California have failed to demonstrate effective population restoration,
the Consortium is advocating that captive-born white abalone be reared
until 4 years of age (>100 mm or 4 inches). Federal, state, and private
grants and
[[Page 26174]]
funds have recently supported white abalone submersible surveys and the
establishment of an aquaculture facility specifically designed to breed
white abalone in captivity and rear offspring to adulthood for
outplanting to the wild.
While NMFS recognizes that many of the existing conservation
measures are likely to protect the remaining white abalone survivors,
in the aggregate, they do not yet provide for white abalone
conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect and recover the
species. Due to the extremely low population abundance of white abalone
throughout its range, NMFS believes that the existing protective
measures alone will not be sufficient to reduce the risk of white
abalone extinction in the near future.
Proposed Determination
The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Section 4(b)(1) of
the ESA requires that the listing determination be based solely on the
best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation to protect
and conserve the species.
Review of white abalone landings data and analysis of fishery-
independent data indicate that over the last 30 years, white abalone
abundance has declined by over 99 percent and several orders of
magnitude. Most of the remaining survivors are old and so scattered
that they will not be able to find mates to spawn successfully and
regularly produce viable cohorts of juveniles. While NMFS recognizes
that many of the existing conservation measures are likely to protect
the remaining white abalone, in the aggregate, they do not yet provide
for white abalone conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect
and recover the species.
Based on results from the white abalone status review, information
received in the petition to list white abalone as an endangered
species, and other published and unpublished information, NMFS has
determined that white abalone are in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of their range. Therefore, NMFS proposes
to list white abalone as an endangered species.
During the period between publication of this proposed rule and
publication of a final rule, NMFS will continue to solicit information
regarding existing protective efforts including those by Mexico (see
Public Comments Solicited). NMFS will also work with Federal and state
fisheries managers to evaluate and enhance the efficacy of the various
white abalone conservation efforts.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures that may apply to listed species include
conservation measures implemented by tribes, states, foreign nations,
local governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal,
state, and foreign nations' recovery actions, Federal consultation
requirements, and prohibitions on taking constitute conservation
measures. In addition, recognition through Federal government or state
listing promotes public awareness and conservation actions by Federal,
state, tribal governments, foreign nations, private organizations, and
individuals.
Based on information presented in the proposed rule, general
protective and conservation measures that could be implemented to help
conserve white abalone are listed as follows. This list does not
constitute NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f)
of the ESA:
1. Continue the State prohibition on commercial and recreational
white abalone fishing in California.
2. Locate white abalone in California and Mexico by surveying
historic habitat.
3. Collect white abalone brood stock, spawn the brood stock, rear
the offspring to early adulthood, and outplant the next generation in
the wild.
4. Collect and aggregate adult white abalone in the wild to
facilitate successful reproduction in the field.
5. Establish protected zones to serve as refugia for captive-bred
offspring and aggregated adult white abalone.
6. Promote protection and conservation of white abalone in Mexico.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species.
Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to
consult with NMFS 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 NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions that may affect white abalone include
coastal development, oil and gas development, outfall construction and
operation, and power plant permitting.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide NMFS 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 white
abalone; collection of adult white abalone for artificial propagation
purposes and aggregation or relocation of white abalone to enhance the
potential of natural propagation in the wild.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take
listed species, as long as the taking is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. The types
of activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental
take permit include scientific research, not targeting white abalone,
that incidentally takes white abalone, and the operation of power
plants in a manner that incidentally takes white abalone.
NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (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.
Role of Peer Review
Before adopting the status review prepared under contract by SIO,
NMFS submitted the review for peer review. NMFS shares a joint policy
with FWS regarding the role of peer review of proposed listing
determinations. The intent of the peer review policy is to
[[Page 26175]]
ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert
opinions of at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the
public comment period. Independent peer reviewers will be selected from
the academic and scientific community, Federal and state agencies, and
the private sector.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994,
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'
range. If this rule is finalized, at that time NMFS will identify to
the extent known, specific activities that will not be considered
likely to result in violations of section 9, and activities that will
be considered likely to result in violations. NMFS believes, based on
the best available information, the following actions will not result
in a violation of section 9:
1. Possession of white abalone which are acquired lawfully by
permit issued by NMFS, pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the
terms of an incidental take statement, pursuant to section 7 of the
ESA.
2. Federally funded or approved projects for which section 7
consultation has been completed, and when activities are conducted in
accordance with any terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an
incidental take statement accompanying a biological opinion.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm white abalone,
and result in a violation of section 9 take prohibition include, but
are not limited to:
1. Coastal development that adversely affects white abalone (e.g.,
dredging, oil and gas development).
2. Destruction/alteration of white abalone habitat, such as the
harvesting of algae.
3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into areas supporting white abalone.
4. Interstate and foreign commerce of white abalone and import/
export of white abalone without a permit.
5. Collecting or handling of white abalone in the United States.
Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of
scientific research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species.
These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of white abalone under the
ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute a violation of the ESA section 9 take
prohibitions and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits
should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. While
NMFS has completed its initial analysis of the biological status of
white abalone, it has not performed the full analysis necessary for
proposing a designation of critical habitat at this time. NMFS intends
to develop a critical habitat proposal for white abalone within the
next year, as soon as the analysis can be completed.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS exercised its best professional judgement in developing this
proposal to list white abalone. To ensure that the final action
resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and effective as
possible, NMFS is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public,
other governmental agencies, the Government of Mexico, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties. NMFS is
interested in any additional information concerning (1) biological or
other relevant data concerning any threats to white abalone; (2) the
range, distribution, and abundance of white abalone; (3) current or
planned activities within the range of white abalone and their possible
impact on white abalone; and (4) efforts being made to protect white
abalone.
NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information
regarding the status of white abalone and will complete a final
determination within one year of publication of this proposed rule, as
required under the ESA. The availability of new information may cause
NMFS to reassess the status of white abalone.
Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary ``shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any
person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed
regulation to list ...or to designate or revise critical habitat.''
(see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). If a public hearing is requested, it would
provide an opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit an
exchange of information and opinion among interested parties. NMFS
encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters. Written
comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
References
A complete list of all cited references is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
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, 675 F. 2d825
(6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions
are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (See NOAA Administrative
Order 216-6.)
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing
process. In addition, this rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State
and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with the State of California
in the course of assessing the status of white abalone, and considered,
among other things, state and local conservation measures. California
has expressed support for the conservation of white abalone. The
content of this dialogue with the State of California as well as the
basis for this proposed action, is described in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. As the process continues, NMFS
intends to continue
[[Page 26176]]
engaging in informal and formal contacts with California, and other
affected local or regional entities, giving careful consideration to
all written and oral comments received. NMFS also intends to consult
with appropriate elected officials in the establishment of a final
rule.
Critical Habitat
At this time, NMFS is not proposing to designate critical habitat
for white abalone pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(2). Prior to proposing
to designate critical habitat for white abalone, NMFS will comply with
all relevant RFA requirements.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224
Endangered and threatened wildlife, Exports, Imports, Marine
Mammals, Transportation.
Dated: May 1, 2000.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation of part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(d) Marine invertebrates. White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni).
[FR Doc. 00-11285 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F