[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77496-77515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30931]



[[Page 77496]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 101126591-0588-01]
RIN 0648-XZ58


Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened and Not 
Warranted Status for Subspecies and Distinct Population Segments of the 
Bearded Seal

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; status review; 
request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of the 
bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) and announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the bearded 
seal as a threatened or endangered species. The bearded seal exists as 
two subspecies: Erignathus barbatus nauticus and Erignathus barbatus 
barbatus. Based on the findings from the status review report and 
consideration of the factors affecting these subspecies, we conclude 
that E. b. nauticus consists of two distinct population segments 
(DPSs), the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS. Moreover, based on 
consideration of information presented in the status review report, an 
assessment of the factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and efforts 
being made to protect the species, we have determined the Beringia DPS 
and the Okhotsk DPS are likely to become endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of their ranges in the foreseeable future. We have 
also determined that E. b. barbatus is not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we are now issuing a 
proposed rule to list the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the 
bearded seal as threatened species. No listing action is proposed for 
E. b. barbatus. We solicit comments on this proposed action. At this 
time, we do not propose to designate critical habitat for the Beringia 
DPS because it is not currently determinable. In order to complete the 
critical habitat designation process, we solicit information on the 
essential physical and biological features of bearded seal habitat for 
the Beringia DPS.

DATES: Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be 
received by close of business on February 8, 2011. Requests for public 
hearings must be made in writing and received by January 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XZ58, 
by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Fax: (907) 586-7557.
     Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
    All comments received are a part of the public record. No comments 
will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov for public viewing until 
after the comment period has closed. Comments will generally be posted 
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    We will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required 
fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    The proposed rule, maps, status review report and other materials 
relating to this proposal can be found on the Alaska Region Web site 
at: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 
(907) 271-5006; Kaja Brix, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7235; or Marta 
Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD, (301) 713-
1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2008, we initiated status 
reviews of bearded, ringed (Phoca hispida), and spotted seals (Phoca 
largha) under the ESA (73 FR 16617). On May 28, 2008, we received a 
petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list these three 
species of seals as threatened or endangered under the ESA, primarily 
due to concerns about threats to their habitat from climate warming and 
loss of sea ice. The Petitioner also requested that critical habitat be 
designated for these species concurrent with listing under the ESA. 
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) requires that when a petition to revise the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is found to present substantial 
scientific and commercial information, we make a finding on whether the 
petitioned action is (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted 
but precluded from immediate proposal by other pending proposals of 
higher priority. This finding is to be made within 1 year of the date 
the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly 
in the Federal Register.
    After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition, 
and other literature and information available in our files, we found 
(73 FR 51615; September 4, 2008) that the petition met the requirements 
of the regulations under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), and we determined that 
the petition presented substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, we proceeded with the 
status reviews of bearded, ringed, and spotted seals and solicited 
information pertaining to them.
    On September 8, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
alleging that we failed to make the requisite 12-month finding on its 
petition to list the three seal species. Subsequently, the Court 
entered a consent decree under which we agreed to finalize the status 
review of the bearded seal (and the ringed seal) and submit this 12-
month finding to the Office of the Federal Register by December 3, 
2010. Our 12-month petition finding for ringed seals is published as a 
separate notice concurrently with this finding. Spotted seals were also 
addressed in a separate Federal Register notice (75 FR 65239; October 
22, 2010; see also, 74 FR 53683, October 20, 2009).
    The status review report of the bearded seal is a compilation of 
the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status 
of the species, including the past, present, and future threats to this 
species. The Biological Review Team (BRT) that prepared this report was 
composed of eight marine mammal biologists, a fishery biologist, a 
marine chemist, and a climate scientist from NMFS' Alaska and Northeast 
Fisheries Science Centers, NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, and 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The status review report 
underwent independent peer review by five scientists with expertise in 
bearded

[[Page 77497]]

seal biology, Arctic sea ice, climate change, and ocean acidification.

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions

    There are two key tasks associated with conducting an ESA status 
review. The first is to delineate the taxonomic group under 
consideration; and the second is to conduct an extinction risk 
assessment to determine whether the petitioned species is threatened or 
endangered.
    To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms 
must constitute a ``species,'' which section 3(16) of the ESA defines 
as ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' 
(DPS) is not commonly used in scientific discourse, so the USFWS and 
NMFS developed the ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' to 
provide a consistent interpretation of this term for the purposes of 
listing, delisting, and reclassifying vertebrates under the ESA (61 FR 
4722; February 7, 1996). We describe and use this policy below to guide 
our determination of whether any population segments of this species 
meet the DPS criteria of the DPS policy.
    The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as 
``any species which is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The foreseeability of a species' future status is case 
specific and depends upon both the foreseeability of threats to the 
species and foreseeability of the species' response to those threats. 
When a species is exposed to a variety of threats, each threat may be 
foreseeable in a different timeframe. For example, threats stemming 
from well-established, observed trends in a global physical process may 
be foreseeable on a much longer time horizon than a threat stemming 
from a potential, though unpredictable, episodic process such as an 
outbreak of disease that may never have been observed to occur in the 
species.
    In the 2008 status review of the ribbon seal (Boveng et al., 2008; 
see also 73 FR 79822, December 30, 2008), NMFS scientists used the same 
climate projections used in our risk assessment here, but terminated 
the analysis of threats to ribbon seals at 2050. One reason for that 
approach was the difficulty of incorporating the increased divergence 
and uncertainty in climate scenarios beyond that time. Other reasons 
included the lack of data for threats other than those related to 
climate change beyond 2050, and the fact that the uncertainty embedded 
in the assessment of the ribbon seal's response to threats increased as 
the analysis extended farther into the future.
    Since that time, NMFS scientists have revised their analytical 
approach to the foreseeability of threats and responses to those 
threats, adopting a more threat-specific approach based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available for each respective threat. 
For example, because the climate projections in the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Fourth Assessment Report extend 
through the end of the century (and we note the IPCC's Fifth Assessment 
Report, due in 2014, will extend even farther into the future), we used 
those models to assess impacts from climate change through the end of 
the century. We continue to recognize that the farther into the future 
the analysis extends, the greater the inherent uncertainty, and we 
incorporated that limitation into our assessment of the threats and the 
species' response. For other threats, where the best scientific and 
commercial data does not extend as far into the future, such as for 
occurrences and projections of disease or parasitic outbreaks, we 
limited our analysis to the extent of such data. We believe this 
approach creates a more robust analysis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.

Species Information

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
bearded seal is presented in the status review report (Cameron et al., 
2010; available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/). The bearded seal 
is the largest of the northern ice-associated seals, with typical adult 
body sizes of 2.1-2.4 m in length and weight up to 360 kg. Bearded 
seals have several distinctive physical features including a wide 
girth; a small head in proportion to body size; long whiskers; and 
square-shaped fore flippers. The life span of bearded seals is about 
20-25 years.
    Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution south of 85[deg] N. 
latitude, extending south into the southern Bering Sea in the Pacific 
and into Hudson Bay and southern Labrador in the Atlantic. Bearded 
seals also occur in the Sea of Okhotsk south to the northern Sea of 
Japan (Figure 1). Two subspecies of bearded seals are widely 
recognized: Erignathus barbatus nauticus inhabiting the Pacific sector, 
and Erignathus barbatus barbatus often described as inhabiting the 
Atlantic sector (Rice, 1998). The geographic distributions of these 
subspecies are not separated by conspicuous gaps. There are regions of 
intergrading generally described as somewhere along the northern 
Russian and central Canadian coasts (Burns, 1981; Rice, 1998).
    Although the validity of the division into subspecies has been 
questioned (Kosygin and Potelov, 1971), the BRT concluded, and we 
concur, that the evidence discussed in the status review report for 
retaining the two subspecies is stronger than any evidence for 
combining them. The BRT defined geographic boundaries for the divisions 
between the two subspecies, subject to the strong caveat that distinct 
boundaries do not appear to exist in the actual populations; and 
therefore, there is considerable uncertainty about the best locations 
for the boundaries. The BRT defined 112[deg] W. longitude (i.e., the 
midpoint between the Beaufort Sea and Pelly Bay) as the North American 
delineation between the two subspecies (Figure 1). Following Heptner et 
al. (1976), who suggested an east-west dividing line at Novosibirskiye, 
the BRT defined 145[deg] E. longitude as the Eurasian delineation 
between the two subspecies in the Arctic (Figure 1).

Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements

    Bearded seals primarily feed on benthic organisms that are more 
numerous in shallow water where light can reach the sea floor. As such, 
the bearded seal's effective range is generally restricted to areas 
where seasonal sea ice occurs over relatively shallow waters, typically 
less than 200 m in depth (see additional discussion below).
    Bearded seals are closely associated with sea ice, particularly 
during the critical life history periods related to reproduction and 
molting, and they can be found in a broad range of different ice types. 
Sea ice provides the bearded seal and its young some protection from 
predators during the critical life history periods of whelping and 
nursing. It also allows molting bearded seals a dry platform to raise 
skin temperature and facilitate epidermal growth, and is important 
throughout the year as a platform for resting and perhaps 
thermoregulation. Of the ice-associated seals in the Arctic, bearded 
seals seem to be the least particular about the type and quality of ice 
on which they are observed. Bearded seals generally prefer

[[Page 77498]]

ice habitat that is in constant motion and produces natural openings 
and areas of open water, such as leads, fractures, and polynyas for 
breathing, hauling out on the ice, and access to water for foraging. 
They usually avoid areas of continuous, thick, shorefast ice and are 
rarely seen in the vicinity of unbroken, heavy, drifting ice or large 
areas of multi-year ice. Although bearded seals prefer sea ice with 
natural access to the water, observations indicate that bearded seals 
are able to make breathing holes in thinner ice.
    Being so closely associated with sea ice, particularly pack ice, 
the seasonal movements and distribution of bearded seals are linked to 
seasonal changes in ice conditions. To remain associated with their 
preferred ice habitat, bearded seals generally move north in late-
spring and summer as the ice melts and retreats, and then move south in 
the fall as sea ice forms.
    The region that includes the Bering and Chukchi Seas is the largest 
area of continuous habitat for bearded seals. The Bering-Chukchi 
Platform is a shallow intercontinental shelf that encompasses about 
half of the Bering Sea, spans the Bering Strait, and covers nearly all 
of the Chukchi Sea. Bearded seals can reach the bottom everywhere along 
the shallow shelf, and so it provides them favorable foraging habitat. 
The Bering and Chukchi Seas are generally covered by sea ice in late 
winter and spring, and are mostly ice free in late summer and fall. As 
the ice retreats in the spring most adult bearded seals in the Bering 
Sea are thought to move north through the Bering Strait, where they 
spend the summer and early fall at the southern edge of the Chukchi and 
Beaufort Sea pack ice and at the wide, fragmented margin of multi-year 
ice. A smaller number of bearded seals, mostly juveniles, remain near 
the coasts of the Bering and Chukchi Seas for the summer and early 
fall. As the ice forms again in the fall and winter, most seals move 
south with the advancing ice edge through Bering Strait and into the 
Bering Sea where they spend the winter.
    There are fewer accounts of the seasonal movements of bearded seals 
in other areas. Compared to the dramatic long range seasonal movements 
of bearded seals in the Chukchi and Bering Seas, bearded seals are 
considered to be relatively sedentary over much of the rest of their 
range, undertaking more local movements in response to ice conditions. 
These differences may simply be the result of the general persistence 
of ice over shallow waters in the High Arctic. In the Sea of Okhotsk, 
bearded seals remain in broken ice as the sea ice expands and retreats, 
inhabiting the southern pack ice edge beyond the fast ice in winter and 
moving north toward shore in spring and summer. In the White, Barents, 
and Kara Seas, bearded seals also conduct seasonal migrations following 
the ice edge, as may bearded seals in Baffin Bay. Excluded by shorefast 
ice from much of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago during winter, bearded 
seals are scattered throughout many of the inlets and fjords of this 
region from July to October, though at least in some years, a portion 
of the population is known to overwinter in a few isolated open water 
areas north of Baffin Bay.
    Throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are seldom 
found on land. However, some adults in the Sea of Okhotsk, and more 
rarely in a few other regions, use haul-out sites ashore in late summer 
and early autumn until ice floes begin to appear at the coast. This is 
most common in the western Sea of Okhotsk and along the coasts of 
western Kamchatka where bearded seals form numerous shore rookeries 
that can have tens to hundreds of individuals each.

Reproduction

    In general, female and male bearded seals attain sexual maturity 
around ages 5-6 and 6-7, respectively. Adult female bearded seals 
ovulate after lactation, and are presumably then receptive to males. 
Mating is believed to usually take place at the surface of the water, 
but it is unknown if it also occurs underwater or on land or ice, as 
observed in some other phocids. The social dynamics of mating in 
bearded seals are not well known; however, theories regarding their 
mating system have centered around serial monogamy and promiscuity, and 
on the nature of competition among breeding males to attract and gain 
access to females. Bearded seals vocalize during the breeding season, 
with a peak in calling during and after pup rearing. Male vocalizations 
are believed to advertise mate quality to females, signal competing 
males of a claim on a female, or proclaim a territory.
    During the winter and spring, as sea ice begins to break up, 
perinatal females find broken pack ice over shallow areas on which to 
whelp, nurse young, and molt. A suitable ice platform is likely a 
prerequisite to whelping, nursing, and rearing young (Heptner et al., 
1976; Burns, 1981; Reeves et al., 1992; Lydersen and Kovacs, 1999; 
Kovacs, 2002). Because bearded seals whelp on ice, populations have 
likely adapted their phenology to the ice regimes of the regions that 
they inhabit. Wide-ranging observations of pups generally indicate 
whelping occurs from March to May with a peak in April, but there are 
considerable geographical differences in reported timing, which may 
reflect real variation, but that may also result from inconsistent 
sighting efforts across years and locations. Details on the spatial 
distribution of whelping can be found in section 2.5.1 of the status 
review report.
    Females bear a single pup that averages 33.6 kg in mass and 131.3 
cm in length. Pups begin shedding their natal (lanugo) coats in utero, 
and they are born with a layer of subcutaneous fat. These 
characteristics are thought to be adaptations to entering the water 
soon after birth as a means of avoiding predation.
    Females with pups are generally solitary, tending not to aggregate. 
Pups enter the water immediately after or within hours of birth. Pups 
nurse on the ice, and by the time they are a few days old they spend 
half their time in the water. Recent studies using recorders and 
telemetry on pups have reported a lactation period of about 24 days, a 
transition to diving and more efficient swimming, mother-guided 
movements of greater than 10 km, and foraging while still under 
maternal care.
    Detailed studies on bearded seal mothers show they forage 
extensively, diving shallowly (less than 10 m), and spending only about 
10 percent of their time hauled out with pups and the remainder nearby 
at the surface or diving. Despite the relative independence of mothers 
and pups, their bond is described as strong, with females being 
unusually tolerant of threats in order to remain or reunite with pups. 
A mixture of crustaceans and milk in the stomachs of pups indicates 
that independent foraging occurs prior to weaning, at least in some 
areas.

Molting

    Adult and juvenile bearded seals molt annually, a process that in 
mature phocid seals typically begins shortly after mating. Bearded 
seals haul out of the water more frequently during molting, a behavior 
that facilitates higher skin temperatures and may accelerate shedding 
and regrowth of hair and epidermis. Though not studied in bearded 
seals, molting has been described as diffuse, with individuals 
potentially shedding hair throughout the year but with a pulse in the 
spring and summer. This is reflected in the wide range of estimates for 
the timing of molting, though these estimates are also based on 
irregular observations.
    The need for a platform on which to haul out and molt from late 
spring to mid-summer, when sea ice is rapidly melting and retreating, 
may necessitate movement for bearded seals between

[[Page 77499]]

habitats for breeding and molting. In the Sea of Okhotsk, the spatial 
distribution of bearded seals is similar between whelping and molting 
seasons so only short movements occur. In contrast, bearded seals that 
whelp and mate in the Bering Sea migrate long distances to summering 
grounds at the ice edge in the Chukchi Sea, a period of movement that 
coincides with the observed timing of molting. Similar migrations prior 
to and during the molting period have been presumed for bearded seals 
in the White and southeastern Barents Seas to more easterly and 
northern areas of the Barents Sea, where ice persists through the 
summer. Also during the interval between breeding and molting, passive 
movements on ice over large distances have been postulated between the 
White and Barents Seas, and from there further east to the Kara Sea. A 
post-breeding migration of bearded seals to molting grounds has also 
been postulated to occur from the southern Laptev Sea westward into the 
eastern Kara Sea. In some locations where bearded seals use terrestrial 
haul-out sites seasonally, the molting period overlaps with this use. 
However, the molting phenology of bearded seals on shore is unknown.

Food Habits

    Bearded seals are considered to be foraging generalists because 
they have a diverse diet with a large variety of prey items throughout 
their circumpolar range. Bearded seals feed primarily on a variety of 
invertebrates and some fishes found on or near the sea bottom. They are 
also able to switch their diet to include schooling pelagic fishes when 
advantageous. The bulk of the diet appears to consist of relatively few 
prey types, primarily bivalve mollusks and crustaceans like crabs and 
shrimps. However, fishes like sculpins, Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida), 
polar cod (Arctogadus glacialis), or saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis) 
can also be a significant component. There is conflicting evidence 
regarding the importance of fish in the bearded seal diet throughout 
its range. Several studies have found high frequencies of fishes in the 
diet, but it is not known whether major consumption of fish is related 
to the availability of prey resources or the preferential selection of 
prey. Seasonal changes in diet composition have been observed 
throughout the year. For example, clams and fishes have been reported 
as more important in spring and summer months than in fall and winter.

Species Delineation

    The BRT reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available 
on the bearded seal's taxonomy and concluded that there are two widely 
recognized subspecies of bearded seals: Erignathus barbatus barbatus, 
often described as inhabiting the Atlantic sector of the seal's range; 
and Erignathus barbatus nauticus, inhabiting the Pacific sector of the 
range. Distribution maps published by Burns (1981) and Kovacs (2002) 
provide the known northern and southern extents of the distribution. As 
discussed above, the BRT defined geographic boundaries for the 
divisions between the two subspecies (Figure 1), subject to the strong 
caveat that distinct boundaries do not appear to exist in the actual 
populations. Our DPS analysis follows.
    Under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) two elements 
are considered when evaluating whether a population segment qualifies 
as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment 
in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it 
belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
species or subspecies to which it belongs.
    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It 
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
    If a population segment is considered to be discrete under one or 
both of the above conditions, its biological and ecological 
significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated in light of 
the ESA's legislative history indicating that the authority to list 
DPSs be used ``sparingly,'' while encouraging the conservation of 
genetic diversity (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). 
This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 
discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment 
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be 
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its 
historic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment 
differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.
    If a population segment is discrete and significant (i.e., it is a 
DPS) its evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based 
on the ESA's definitions of those terms and a review of the factors 
enumerated in section 4(a)(1).

Evaluation of Discreteness

    The range of the bearded seal occurs in cold, seasonally or 
annually ice-covered Arctic and subarctic waters, without persistent 
intrusions of warm water or other conditions that would pose potential 
physiological barriers. Furthermore, the seasonal timings of 
reproduction and molting vary little throughout the bearded seal's 
distribution, suggesting that there are no obvious ecological 
separation factors.
    The underwater vocalizations of males during the breeding season 
recorded in Alaskan, Canadian, and Norwegian waters are often more 
similar between adjacent geographical regions than between more distant 
sites, suggesting that bearded seals may have strong fidelity to 
specific breeding sites. However, these observed differences in 
vocalizations may be due to other factors such as ecological influences 
or sexual selection, and not to distance or geographic barriers. 
Bearded seals are known to make seasonal movements of greater than 
1,000 km, and so only very large geographical barriers would have the 
potential by themselves to maintain discreteness between breeding 
concentrations. As primarily benthic feeders, bearded seals may be 
constrained to relatively shallow waters and so expanses of deep water 
may also pose barriers to movement.
    Erignathus barbatus nauticus: Given the bearded seal's circumpolar 
distribution and their ability to travel long distances, it is 
difficult to imagine that land masses pose a significant barrier to the 
movement of this subspecies, with one exception: The great southerly 
extent of the Kamchatka Peninsula. The seasonal ice does not extend 
south to the tip of that peninsula, and the continental shelf is very 
narrow along its eastern Bering Sea coast. The seals' affinity for ice 
and shallow waters may help to confine bearded seals to their 
respective sea basins in the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Heptner et al. 
(1976) and Krylov et al. (1964) described a typical annual pattern of 
bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk to be one of staying near the ice 
edge when ice is present, and then moving north and closer to shore as 
the

[[Page 77500]]

ice recedes in summer. Unlike other researchers describing tendencies 
of the species as a whole, Krylov et al. (1964) described the bearded 
seal as more or less sedentary, based primarily on observations of 
seals in the Sea of Okhotsk. Indeed, published maps indicate that the 
southeastern coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula is the only location 
where the distribution of the bearded seal is not contiguous (Burns, 
1981; Kovacs, 2002; Blix, 2005), and there are no known records of 
bearded seals moving between the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea.
    Kosygin and Potelov (1971) conducted a study of craniometric and 
morphological differences between bearded seals in the White, Barents, 
and Kara Seas, and bearded seals in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. 
They reported differences in measurements between the three regions, 
although they suggested that the differences were not significant 
enough to justify dividing the population into subspecies. Fedoseev 
(1973, 2000) also suggested that differences in the numbers of lip 
vibrissae as well as length and weight indicate population structure 
between the Bering and Okhotsk Seas. Thus, under the first factor for 
determining discreteness, the BRT concluded, and we concur, that the 
available evidence indicates the discreteness of two population 
segments: (1) The Sea of Okhotsk, and (2) the remainder of the range of 
E. b. nauticus, hereafter referred to as the Beringia population 
segment. Considerations of cross-boundary management do not outweigh or 
contradict the division proposed above based on biological grounds. In 
all countries in the range of the Beringia segment (Russia, United 
States, and Canada) annual harvest rates are considered small relative 
to the local populations and harvest is assumed to have little impact 
on abundance. In addition, if the Kamchatka Peninsula serves as a 
geographic barrier, the entire population of bearded seals in the Sea 
of Okhotsk may lie entirely within Russian jurisdiction.
    Erignathus barbatus barbatus: The Greenland and Norwegian Seas, 
which separate northern Europe and Russia from Greenland, form a very 
deep basin that could potentially act as a type of physical barrier to 
a primarily benthic feeder. Risch et al. (2007) described distinct 
differences in male vocalizations at breeding sites in Svalbard and 
Canada; however, they also suggested that ecological influences or 
sexual selection, and not a geographical feature restricting gene flow, 
could be the cause of these differences. Gjertz et al. (2000) described 
at least one pup known to travel from Svalbard nearly to the Greenland 
coast across Fram Strait, and Davis et al. (2008) failed to find a 
significant difference between populations on either side of the 
Greenland Sea. Both of these studies suggest that the expanse of deep 
water is apparently not a geographic barrier to bearded seals. However, 
it should be noted that not all of the DNA samples used in the study by 
Davis et al. (2008) were collected during the time of breeding, and so 
might not reflect the potential for additional genetic discreteness if 
discrete breeding groups disperse and mix during the non-breeding 
period. When considered altogether, the BRT concluded, and we concur, 
that subdividing E. b. barbatus into two or more DPSs is not warranted 
because the best scientific and commercial data available does not 
indicate that the populations are discrete.
    The core range of the bearded seal includes the waters of five 
countries (Russia, United States, Canada, Greenland, and Norway) with 
management regimes sufficiently similar that considerations of cross-
boundary management and regulatory mechanisms do not support a positive 
discreteness determination. In addition, in all countries in the range 
of E. b. barbatus, annual harvest rates are considered small relative 
to the local populations and harvest is assumed to have little impact 
on abundance. Since we conclude that the E. b. barbatus populations are 
not discrete, we do not address whether they would be considered 
significant.

Evaluation of Significance

    Having concluded that E. b. nauticus is composed of two discrete 
segments, here we review information that the BRT found informative for 
evaluating the biological and ecological significance of these 
segments.
    Throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are rarely 
found on land (Kovacs, 2002). However, some adults in the Sea of 
Okhotsk, and more rarely in Hudson Bay (COSEWIC, 2007), the White, 
Laptev, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (Heptner et al., 1976; 
Burns, 1981; Nelson, 1981; Smith, 1981), and Svalbard (Kovacs and 
Lydersen, 2008) use haul-out sites ashore in late summer and early 
autumn. In these locations, sea ice either melts completely or recedes 
beyond the limits of shallow waters where seals are able to feed (Burns 
and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981). By far the largest and most numerous and 
predictable of these terrestrial haul-out sites are in the Sea of 
Okhotsk, where they are distributed continuously throughout the bearded 
seal range, and may comprise tens to more than a thousand individuals 
(Scheffer, 1958; Tikhomorov, 1961; Krylov et al., 1964; Chugunkov, 
1970; Tavrovskii, 1971; Heptner et al., 1976; Burns, 1981). Indeed, the 
Sea of Okhotsk is the only portion of the range of E. b. nauticus 
reported to have any such aggregation of adult haul-out sites (Fay, 
1974; Burns and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981; Nelson, 1981). Although it is 
not clear for how long bearded seals have exhibited this haul-out 
behavior, its commonness is unique to the Sea of Okhotsk, possibly 
reflecting responses or adaptations to changing conditions at the range 
extremes. This difference in haul-out behavior may also provide 
insights about the resilience of the species to the effects of climate 
warming in other regions.
    The Sea of Okhotsk covers a vast area and is home to many thousands 
of bearded seals. Similarly, the range of the Beringia population 
segment includes a vast area that provides habitat for many thousands 
of bearded seals. Loss of either segment of the subspecies' range would 
result in a substantially large gap in the overall range of the 
subspecies.
    The existence of bearded seals in the unusual or unique ecological 
setting found in the Sea of Okhotsk, as well as the fact that loss of 
either the Okhotsk or Beringia segment would result in a significant 
gap in the range of the taxon, support our conclusion that the Beringia 
and Okhotsk population segments of E. b. nauticus are each significant 
to the subspecies as a whole.

DPS Conclusions

    In summary, the Beringia and Okhotsk population segments of E. b. 
nauticus are discrete because they are markedly separated from other 
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors. They are significant 
because the loss of either of the two DPSs would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the Okhotsk DPS exists 
in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We 
therefore conclude that these two population segments meet both the 
discreteness and significance criteria of the DPS policy. We consider 
these two population segments to be DPSs (the Beringia DPS and the 
Okhotsk DPS) (Figure 1).

[[Page 77501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE10.090

Abundance and Trends

    No accurate worldwide abundance estimates exist for bearded seals. 
Several factors make it difficult to accurately assess the bearded 
seal's abundance and trends. The remoteness and dynamic nature of their 
sea ice habitat, time spent below the surface and their broad 
distribution and seasonal movements make surveying bearded seals 
expensive and logistically challenging. Additionally, the species' 
range crosses political boundaries, and there has been limited 
international cooperation to conduct range-wide surveys. Details of 
survey methods and data are often limited or have not been published, 
making it difficult to judge the reliability of the reported numbers. 
Logistical challenges also make it difficult to collect the necessary 
behavioral data to make proper adjustments to seal counts. Until very 
recently, no suitable behavioral data have been available to correct 
for the proportion of seals in the water at the time of surveys. 
Research is just beginning to address these limitations, and so current 
and accurate abundance estimates are not yet available. We make 
estimates based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
combining recent and historical data.

Beringia DPS

    Data analyzed from aerial surveys conducted in April and May 2007 
produced an abundance estimate of 63,200 bearded seals in an area of 
81,600 sq km in the eastern Bering Sea (Ver Hoef et al., 2010). This is 
a partial estimate for bearded seals in the U.S. waters of the Bering 
Sea because the survey area did not include some known bearded seal 
habitat in the eastern Bering Sea and north of St. Lawrence Island. The 
estimate is similar in magnitude to the western Bering Sea estimates 
reported by Fedoseev (2000) from surveys in 1974-1987, which ranged 
from 57,000 to 87,000. The BRT considers the current total Bering Sea 
bearded seal population to be about double the partial estimate 
reported by Ver Hoef et al. (2010) for U.S. waters, or approximately 
125,000 individuals.

[[Page 77502]]

    Aerial surveys flown along the coast from Shishmaref to Barrow 
during May-June 1999 and 2000 provided average annual bearded seal 
density estimates. A crude abundance estimate based on these densities, 
and without any correction for seals in the water, is 13,600 bearded 
seals. These surveys covered only a portion (U.S. coastal) of the 
Chukchi Sea. Assuming that the waters along the Chukchi Peninsula on 
the Russian side of the Chukchi Sea contain similar numbers of bearded 
seals, the combined total would be about 27,000 individuals.
    Aerial surveys of the eastern Beaufort Sea conducted in June during 
1974-1979, provided estimates that averaged 2,100 bearded seals, 
uncorrected for seals in the water. The ice-covered continental shelf 
of the western Beaufort Sea is roughly half the area surveyed, 
suggesting a crude estimate for the entire Beaufort Sea in June of 
about 3,150, uncorrected for seals in the water. For such a large area 
in which the subsistence use of bearded seals is important to Alaska 
Native and Inuvialuit communities, this number is likely to be a 
substantial underestimate. A possible explanation is that many of the 
subsistence harvests of bearded seals in this region may occur after a 
rapid seasonal influx of seals from the Bering and Chukchi Seas in the 
early summer, later than the period in which the surveys were flown.
    In the East Siberian Sea, Obukhov (1974) described bearded seals as 
rare, but present during July-September, based on year-round 
observations (1959-1965) of a region extending about 350 km east from 
the mouth of the Kolyma River. Typically, one bearded seal was seen 
during 200-250 km of travel. Geller (1957) described the zone between 
the Kola Peninsula and Chukotka as comparatively poor in marine mammals 
relative to the more western and eastern portions of the northern 
Russian coasts. We are not aware of any other information about bearded 
seal abundance in the East Siberian Sea.
    Although the present population size of the Beringia DPS is very 
uncertain, based on these reported abundance estimates, the current 
population size is estimated at 155,000 individuals.

Okhotsk DPS

    Fedoseev (2000) presented multiple years of unpublished seal survey 
data from 1968 to 1990; however, specific methodologies were not 
provided for any of the surveys or analyses. Most of these surveys were 
designed primarily for ringed and ribbon seals, as they were more 
abundant and of higher commercial value. Recognizing the sparse 
documentation of the survey methods and data, as well as the 20 years 
or more that have elapsed since the last survey, the BRT recommends 
considering the 1990 estimate of 95,000 individuals to be the current 
estimated population size of the Okhotsk DPS.

Erignathus barbatus barbatus

    Cleator (1996) suggested that a minimum of 190,000 bearded seals 
inhabit Canadian waters based on summing the different available 
indices for bearded seal abundance. The BRT recommends considering the 
current bearded seal population in Hudson Bay, the Canadian 
Archipelago, and western Baffin Bay to be 188,000 individuals. This 
value was chosen based on the estimate for Canadian waters of 190,000, 
minus 2,000 to account for the average number estimated to occur in the 
Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea (which is part of the E. b. 
nauticus subspecies). There are few estimates of abundance available 
for other parts of the range of E. b. barbatus, and there is sparse 
documentation of the methods used to produce these estimates. 
Consequently, the BRT considered all regional estimates for E. b. 
barbatus to be unreliable, except for those in Canadian waters. The 
population size of E. b. barbatus is therefore very uncertain, but NMFS 
experts estimate it to be 188,000 individuals.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Bearded Seal

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth procedures for listing species. We must determine, 
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or 
threatened because of any one or a combination of the following 
factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or (5) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued 
existence. These factors are discussed below, with the Beringia DPS, 
the Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. barbatus considered under each factor. The 
reader is also directed to section 4.2 of the status review report for 
a more detailed discussion of the factors affecting bearded seals (see 
ADDRESSES). As discussed above, data on bearded seal abundance and 
trends of most populations are unavailable or imprecise, and there is 
little basis for quantitatively linking projected environmental 
conditions or other factors to bearded seal survival or reproduction. 
Our risk assessment therefore primarily evaluated important habitat 
features and was based upon the best available scientific and 
commercial data and the expert opinion of the BRT members.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

    The main concern about the conservation status of bearded seals 
stems from the likelihood that their sea ice habitat has been modified 
by the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus 
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the 
foreseeable future. A second concern, related by the common driver of 
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, is the modification of 
habitat by ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and 
other important aspects of the marine ecosystem. A reliable assessment 
of the future conservation status of bearded seals therefore requires a 
focus on observed and projected changes in sea ice, ocean temperature, 
ocean pH (acidity), and associated changes in bearded seal prey 
species.
    The threats (analyzed below) associated with impacts of the warming 
climate on the habitat of bearded seals, to the extent that they may 
pose risks to these seals, are expected to manifest throughout the 
current breeding and molting range (for sea ice related threats) or 
throughout the entire range (for ocean warming and acidification) of 
each of the population units, since the spatial resolution of data 
pertaining to these threats is currently limited.
Overview of Global Climate Change and Effects on the Annual Formation 
of the Bearded Seal's Sea Ice Habitat
    Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere can be divided into first-year 
sea ice that formed in the most recent autumn-winter period, and multi-
year sea ice that has survived at least one summer melt season. The 
Arctic Ocean is covered by a mix of multi-year sea ice. More southerly 
regions, such as the Bering Sea, Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, 
and the Sea of Okhotsk are known as seasonal ice zones, where first 
year sea ice is renewed every winter. Both the observed and the 
projected effects of a warming global climate are most extreme in 
northern high-latitude regions, in large part due to the ice-albedo 
feedback mechanism in which melting of snow and sea ice lowers 
reflectivity and thereby further increases surface warming by 
absorption of solar radiation.

[[Page 77503]]

    Sea ice extent at the end of summer (September) 2007 in the Arctic 
Ocean was a record low (4.3 million sq km), nearly 40 percent below the 
long-term average and 23 percent below the previous record set in 2005 
(5.6 million sq km) (Stroeve et al., 2008). Sea ice extent in September 
2010 was the third lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind 
2007 and 2008 (second lowest). Most of the loss of sea ice was on the 
Pacific side of the Arctic. Of even greater long-term significance was 
the loss of over 40 percent of Arctic multi-year sea ice over the last 
5 years (Kwok et al., 2009). While the annual minimum of sea ice extent 
is often taken as an index of the state of Arctic sea ice, the recent 
reductions of the area of multi-year sea ice and the reduction of sea 
ice thickness is of greater physical importance. It would take many 
years to restore the ice thickness through annual growth, and the loss 
of multi-year sea ice makes it unlikely that the Arctic will return to 
previous climatological conditions. Continued loss of sea ice will be a 
major driver of changes across the Arctic over the next decades, 
especially in late summer and autumn.
    Sea ice and other climatic conditions that influence bearded seal 
habitats are quite different between the Arctic and seasonal ice zones. 
In the Arctic, sea ice loss is a summer feature with a delay in freeze 
up occurring into the following fall. Sea ice persists in the Arctic 
from late fall through mid-summer due to cold and dark winter 
conditions. Sea ice variability is primarily determined by radiation 
and melting processes during the summer season. In contrast, the 
seasonal ice zones are free of sea ice during summer. The variability 
in extent, thickness, and other sea ice characteristics important to 
marine mammals is determined primarily by changes in the number, 
intensity, and track of winter and spring storms in the sub-Arctic. 
Although there are connections between sea ice conditions in the Arctic 
and the seasonal ice zones, the early loss of summer sea ice in the 
Arctic cannot be extrapolated to the seasonal ice zones, which are 
behaving differently than the Arctic. For example, the Bering Sea has 
had 4 years of colder than normal winter and spring conditions from 
2007 to 2010, with near record sea ice extents, rivaling the sea ice 
maximum in the mid-1970s, despite record retreats in summer.
IPCC Model Projections
    The analysis and synthesis of information presented by the IPCC in 
its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) represents the scientific consensus 
view on the causes and future of climate change. The IPCC AR4 used a 
range of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced under six 
``marker'' scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios 
(SRES) (IPCC, 2000) to project plausible outcomes under clearly-stated 
assumptions about socio-economic factors that will influence the 
emissions. Conditional on each scenario, the best estimate and likely 
range of emissions were projected through the end of the 21st century. 
It is important to note that the SRES scenarios do not contain explicit 
assumptions about implementation of agreements or protocols on emission 
limits beyond current mitigation policies and related sustainable 
development practices.
    Conditions such as surface air temperature and sea ice area are 
linked in the IPCC climate models to GHG emissions by the physics of 
radiation processes. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it 
has a long residence time and is only slowly removed by ocean 
absorption and other processes. Based on IPCC AR4 climate models, 
expected global warming--defined as the change in global mean surface 
air temperature (SAT)--by the year 2100 depends strongly on the assumed 
emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. By contrast, warming out to 
about 2040-2050 will be primarily due to emissions that have already 
occurred and those that will occur over the next decade. Thus, 
conditions projected to mid-century are less sensitive to assumed 
future emission scenarios. Uncertainty in the amount of warming out to 
mid-century is primarily a function of model-to-model differences in 
the way that the physical processes are incorporated, and this 
uncertainty can be addressed in predicting ecological responses by 
incorporating the range in projections from different models.
    Comprehensive Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) 
are the major objective tools that scientists use to understand the 
complex interaction of processes that determine future climate change. 
The IPCC used the simulations from about two dozen AOGCMs developed by 
17 international modeling centers as the basis for the AR4 (IPCC, 
2007). The AOGCM results are archived as part of the Coupled Model 
Intercomparison Project-Phase 3 (CMIP3) at the Program for Climate 
Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). The CMIP3 AOGCMs provide 
reliable projections, because they are built on well-known dynamical 
and physical principles, and they simulate quite well many large scale 
aspects of present-day conditions. However, the coarse resolution of 
most current climate models dictates careful application on small 
scales in heterogeneous regions.
    There are three main contributors to divergence in AOGCM climate 
projections: Large natural variations, the range in emissions 
scenarios, and across-model differences. The first of these, 
variability from natural variation, can be incorporated by averaging 
the projections over decades, or, preferably, by forming ensemble 
averages from several runs of the same model. The second source of 
variation arises from the range in plausible emissions scenarios. As 
discussed above, the impacts of the scenarios are rather similar before 
mid-21st century. For the second half of the 21st century, however, and 
especially by 2100, the choice of the emission scenario becomes the 
major source of variation among climate projections and dominates over 
natural variability and model-to-model differences (IPCC, 2007). 
Because the current consensus is to treat all SRES emissions scenarios 
as equally likely, one option for representing the full range of 
variability in potential outcomes would be to project from any model 
under all of the six ``marker'' scenarios. This can be impractical in 
many situations, so the typical procedure for projecting impacts is to 
use an intermediate scenario, such as A1B or B2 to predict trends, or 
one intermediate and one extreme scenario (e.g., A1B and A2) to 
represent a significant range of variability. The third primary source 
of variability results from differences among models in factors such as 
spatial resolution. This variation can be addressed and mitigated in 
part by using the ensemble means from multiple models.
    There is no universal method for combining AOGCMs for climate 
projections, and there is no one best model. The approach taken by the 
BRT for selecting the models used to project future sea ice conditions 
is summarized below.
Data and Analytical Methods
    NMFS scientists have recognized that the physical basis for some of 
the primary threats faced by the species had been projected, under 
certain assumptions, through the end of the 21st century, and that 
these projections currently form the most widely accepted version of 
the best available data about future conditions. In our risk assessment 
for bearded seals, we therefore considered the full 21st century 
projections to analyze the threats stemming from climate change.
    The CMIP3 (IPCC) model simulations used in the BRT analyses were 
obtained from PCMDI on-line (PCMDI, 2010). The

[[Page 77504]]

six IPCC models previously identified by Wang and Overland (2009) as 
performing satisfactorily at reproducing the magnitude of the observed 
seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in the Arctic under the A1B 
(``medium'') and A2 (``high'') emissions scenarios were used to project 
monthly sea ice concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere in March-July 
for each of the decadal periods 2025-2035, 2045-2055, and 2085-2095.
    Climate models generally perform better on continental or larger 
scales, but because habitat changes are not uniform throughout the 
hemisphere, the six IPCC models used to project sea ice conditions in 
the Northern Hemisphere were further evaluated independently on their 
performance at reproducing the magnitude of the observed seasonal cycle 
of sea ice extent in 12 different regions throughout the bearded seal's 
range, including five regions for the Beringia DPS, one region for the 
Okhotsk DPS, and six regions for E. b. barbatus. Models that met the 
performance criteria were used to project sea ice extent for the months 
of November and April-July through 2100. For the Beringia DPS, in two 
regions (Chukchi and east Siberian Seas) six of the models simulated 
sea ice conditions in reasonable agreement with observations, in two 
regions (Beaufort and eastern Bering Seas) four models met the 
performance criteria, and in the western Bering Sea a single model met 
the performance criteria. For E. b. barbatus, none of the models 
performed satisfactorily in six of the seven regions (a single model 
was retained in the Barents Sea). The models also did not meet the 
performance criteria for the Sea of Okhotsk. Other less direct means of 
predicting regional ice cover, such as comparison of surface air 
temperature predictions with past climatology (Sea of Okhotsk), 
evaluation of other existing analyses (Hudson Bay) or results from the 
hemispheric predictions (the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay, 
Greenland Sea, and the Kara and Laptev Seas), were used for regions 
where ice projections could not be obtained. For Hudson Bay we referred 
to the analysis of Joly et al. (2010). They used a regional sea ice-
ocean model to investigate the response of sea ice and oceanic heat 
storage in the Hudson Bay system to a climate-warming scenario. These 
predicted regional sea ice conditions are summarized below in assessing 
the potential impacts of changes in sea ice on bearded seals.
    While our inferences about future regional ice conditions are based 
upon the best available scientific and commercial data, we recognize 
that there are uncertainties associated with predictions based on 
hemispheric projections or indirect means. We also note that judging 
the timing of onset of potential impacts to bearded seals is 
complicated by the coarse resolution of the IPCC models.
Northern Hemisphere Predictions
    Projections of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent for November 
indicate a major delay in fall freeze-up by 2050 north of Alaska and in 
the Barents Sea. By 2090, the average sea ice concentration is below 50 
percent in the Russian Arctic and some models show a nearly ice free 
Arctic, except for the region of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In 
March and April, winter type conditions persist out to 2090. There is 
some reduction of sea ice by 2050 in the outer portions of the seasonal 
ice zones, but the sea ice south of Bering Strait, eastern Barents Sea, 
Baffin Bay, and the Kara and Laptev Seas remains substantial. May shows 
diminishing sea ice cover at 2050 and 2090 in the Barents and Bering 
Seas and Sea of Okhotsk. The month of June begins to show substantial 
changes as the century progresses. Current conditions occasionally 
exhibit a lack of sea ice near the Bering Strait by June. By 2050, 
however, this sea ice loss becomes a major feature, with open water 
continuing along the northern Alaskan coast in most models. Open water 
in June spreads to the East Siberian Shelf by 2090. The eastern Barents 
Sea experiences a reduction in sea ice between 2030 and 2050. The 
models indicate that sea ice in Baffin Bay will be affected very little 
until the end of the century.
    In July, the Arctic Ocean shows a marked effect of global warming, 
with the sea ice retreating to a central core as the century 
progresses. The loss of multi-year sea ice over the last 5 years has 
provided independent evidence for this conclusion. By 2050, the 
continental shelves of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas 
are nearly ice free in July, with ice concentrations less than 20 
percent in the ensemble mean projections. The Kara and Laptev Seas also 
show a reduction of sea ice in coastal regions by mid-century in most 
but not all models. The Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the adjacent 
Arctic Ocean north of Canada and Greenland, however, are predicted to 
become a refuge for sea ice through the end of the century. This 
conclusion is supported by typical Arctic wind patterns, which tend to 
blow onshore in this region. Indeed, this refuge region is why sea ice 
scientists use the phrase: A nearly sea ice free summer Arctic by mid-
century.
Potential Impacts of Changes in Sea Ice on Bearded Seals
    In order to feed on the seafloor, bearded seals are known to nearly 
always occupy shallow waters (Fedoseev, 2000; Kovacs, 2002). The 
preferred depth range is often described as less than 200 m (Kosygin, 
1971; Heptner et al., 1976; Burns and Frost, 1979; Burns, 1981; 
Fedoseev, 1984; Nelson et al., 1984; Kingsley et al., 1985; Fedoseev, 
2000; Kovacs, 2002), though adults have been known to dive to around 
300 m (Kovacs, 2002; Cameron and Boveng, 2009), and six of seven pups 
instrumented near Svalbard have been recorded at depths greater than 
488 m (Kovacs, 2002). The BRT defined the core distribution of bearded 
seals (e.g., whelping, nursing, breeding, molting, and most feeding) as 
those areas of known extent that are in water less than 500 m deep.
    An assessment of the risks to bearded seals posed by climate change 
must consider the species' life-history functions, how they are linked 
with sea ice, and how altering that link will affect the vital rates of 
reproduction and survival. The main functions of sea ice relating to 
the species' life-history are: (1) A dry and stable platform for 
whelping and nursing of pups in April and May (Kovacs et al., 1996; 
Atkinson, 1997); (2) a rearing habitat that allows mothers to feed and 
replenish energy reserves lost while nursing; (3) a habitat that allows 
a pup to gain experience diving, swimming, and hunting with its mother, 
and that provides a platform for resting, relatively isolated from most 
terrestrial and marine predators; (4) a habitat for rutting males to 
hold territories and attract post-lactating females; and (5) a platform 
suitable for extended periods of hauling out during molting.
    Whelping and nursing: Pregnant females are considered to require 
sea ice as a dry birthing platform (Kovacs et al., 1996; Atkinson, 
1997). Similarly, pups are thought to nurse only while on ice. If 
suitable ice cover is absent from shallow feeding areas during whelping 
and nursing, bearded seals would be forced to seek either sea ice 
habitat over deeper water or coastal regions in the vicinity of haul-
out sites on shore. A shift to whelping and nursing on land would 
represent a major behavioral change that could compromise the ability 
of bearded seals, particularly pups, to escape predators, as this is a 
highly developed response on ice versus land. Further, predators abound 
on continental shorelines, in contrast with

[[Page 77505]]

sea ice habitat where predators are sparse; and small islands where 
predators are relatively absent offer limited areas for whelping and 
nursing as compared to the more extensive substrate currently provided 
by suitable sea ice.
    Bearded seal mothers feed throughout the lactation period, 
continuously replenishing fat reserves lost while nursing pups 
(Holsvik, 1998; Krafft et al., 2000). Therefore, the presence of a 
sufficient food resource near the nursing location is also important. 
Rearing young in poorer foraging grounds would require mothers to 
forage for longer periods and (or) compromise their own body condition, 
both of which could impact the transfer of energy to offspring and 
affect survival of pups, mothers, or both.
    Pup maturation: When not on the ice, there is a close association 
between mothers and pups, which travel together at the surface and 
during diving (Lydersen et al, 1994; Gjertz et al., 2000; Krafft et 
al., 2000). Pups develop diving, swimming, and foraging skills over the 
nursing period, and perhaps beyond (Watanabe et al., 2009). Learning to 
forage in a sub-optimal habitat could impair a pup's ability to learn 
effective foraging skills, potentially impacting its long-term 
survival. Further, hauling out reduces thermoregulatory demands which, 
in Arctic climates, may be critical for maintaining energy balance. 
Hauling out is especially important for growing pups, which have a 
disproportionately large skin surface and rate of heat loss in the 
water (Harding et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2010).
    Mating: Male bearded seals are believed to establish territories 
under the sea ice and exhibit complex acoustic and diving displays to 
attract females. Breeding behaviors are exhibited by males up to 
several weeks in advance of females' arrival at locations to give 
birth. Mating takes place soon after females wean their pups. The 
stability of ice cover is believed to have influenced the evolution of 
this mating system.
    Molting: There is a peak in the molt during May-June, when most 
bearded seals (except young of the year) tend to haul out on ice to 
warm their skin. Molting in the water during this period could incur 
energetic costs which might reduce survival rates.
    For any of these life history events, a greater tendency of bearded 
seals to aggregate while hauled out on land or in reduced ice could 
increase intra- and inter-specific competition for resources, the 
potential for disease transmission, and predation; all of which could 
affect annual survival rates. In particular, a reduction in suitable 
sea ice habitat would likely increase the overlap in the distribution 
of bearded seals and walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), another ice-associated 
benthic feeder with similar habitat preferences and diet. The walrus is 
also a predator of bearded seal, though seemingly infrequent. Hauling 
out closer to shore or on land could also increase the risks of 
predation from polar bears, terrestrial carnivores, and humans.
    For a long-lived and abundant animal with a large range, the 
mechanisms identified above (i.e., low ice extent or absence of sea ice 
over shallow feeding areas) are not likely to be significant to an 
entire population in any one year. Rather, the overall strength of the 
impacts is likely a function of the frequency of years in which they 
occur, and the proportion of the population's range over which they 
occur. The low ice years, which will occur more frequently than in the 
past, may have impacts on recruitment via reduced pup survival if, for 
example, pregnant females are ineffective or slow at adjusting their 
breeding locales for variability of the position of the sea ice front.
    Potential mechanisms for resilience on relatively short time scales 
include adjustments to the timing of breeding in response to shorter 
periods of ice cover, and adjustments of the breeding range in response 
to reduced ice extent. The extent to which bearded seals might adapt to 
more frequent years with early ice melt by shifting the timing of 
reproduction is uncertain. There are many examples of shifts in timing 
of reproduction by pinnipeds and terrestrial mammals in response to 
body condition and food availability. In most of these cases, sub-
optimal conditions led to reproduction later in the season, a response 
that would not likely be beneficial to bearded seals. A shift to an 
earlier melt date may, however, over the longer term provide selection 
pressure for an evolutionary response over many generations toward 
earlier reproduction.
    It is impossible to predict whether bearded seals would be more 
likely to occupy ice habitats over the deep waters of the Arctic Ocean 
basin or more terrestrial habitats if sea ice failed to extend over the 
shelf. Outside the critical life history periods related to 
reproduction and molting there is evidence that bearded seals might not 
require the presence of sea ice for hauling out, and instead remain in 
the water for weeks or months at a time. Even during the spring and 
summer bearded seals also appear to possess some plasticity in their 
ability to occupy different habitats at the extremes of their range. 
For example, throughout most of their range, adult bearded seals are 
seldom found on land; however, in the Sea of Okhotsk, bearded seals are 
known to use haul-out sites ashore regularly and predictably during the 
ice free periods in late summer and early autumn. Also, western and 
central Baffin Bay are unique among whelping areas as mothers with 
dependent pups have been observed on pack ice over deep water (greater 
than 500 m). These behaviors are extremely rare in the core 
distributions of bearded seals; therefore, the habitats that 
necessitate them should be considered sub-optimal. Consequently, 
predicted reductions in sea ice extent, particularly when such 
reductions separate ice from shallow water feeding habitats, can be 
reasonably used as a proxy for predicting years of reduced survival and 
recruitment, though not the magnitude of the impact. In addition, the 
frequency of predicted low ice years can serve as a useful tool for 
assessing the cumulative risks posed by climate change.
    Assessing the potential impacts of the predicted changes in sea ice 
cover and the frequency of low ice years on the conservation status of 
bearded seals requires knowledge or assumptions about the relationships 
between sea ice and bearded seal vital rates. Because no quantitative 
studies of these relationships have been conducted, we relied upon two 
studies in the Bering Sea that estimated bearded seal preference for 
ice concentrations based on aerial survey observations of seal 
densities. Simpkins et al. (2003) found that bearded seals near St. 
Lawrence Island in March preferred 70-90 percent ice coverage, as 
compared with 0-70 percent and 90-100 percent. Preliminary results from 
another study in the Bering Sea (Ver Hoef et al., In review) found 
substantially lower probability of bearded seal occurrence in areas of 
0-25 percent ice coverage during April-May. Lacking a more direct 
measure of the relationship between bearded seal vital rates and ice 
coverage, we considered areas within the current core distribution of 
bearded seals where the decadal averages and minimums of ice 
projections (centered on the years 2050 and 2090) were below 25 percent 
concentrations as inadequate for whelping and nursing. We also assumed 
that the sea ice requirements for molting in May-June are less 
stringent than those for whelping and rearing pups, and that 15 percent 
ice concentration in June would be minimally sufficient for molting.

[[Page 77506]]

    Beringia DPS: In the Bering Sea, early springtime sea ice habitat 
for bearded seal whelping should be sufficient in most years through 
2050 and out to the second half of the 21st century, when the average 
ice extent in April is forecasted to be approximately 50 percent of the 
present-day extent. The general trend in projections of sea ice for May 
(nursing, rearing and some molting) through June (molting) in the 
Bering Sea is toward a longer ice-free period resulting from more rapid 
spring melt. Until at least the middle of the 21st century, projections 
show some years with near-maximum ice extent; however, less ice is 
forecasted on average, manifested as more frequent years in which the 
spring retreat occurs earlier and the peak ice extent is lower. By the 
end of the 21st century, projections for the Bering Sea indicate that 
there will commonly be years with little or no ice in May, and that sea 
ice in June is expected to be non-existent in most years.
    Projections of sea ice concentration indicate that there will 
typically be 25 percent or greater ice concentration in April-May over 
a substantial portion of the shelf zone in the Bering Sea through 2055. 
By 2095 ice concentrations of 25 percent or greater are projected only 
in small zones of the Gulf of Anadyr and in the area between St. 
Lawrence Island and Bering Strait by May. In the minimal ice years the 
projections indicate there will be little or no ice of 25 percent or 
greater concentration over the shelf zone in the Bering Sea during 
April and May, perhaps commencing as early as the next decade. 
Conditions will be particularly poor for the molt in June when typical 
ice predictions suggest less than 15 percent ice by mid-century. 
Projections suggest that the spring and summer ice edge could retreat 
to deep waters of the Arctic Ocean basin, potentially separating sea 
ice suitable for pup maturation and molting from benthic feedings 
areas.
    In the East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, the average ice 
extents during April and May (i.e., the period of whelping, nursing, 
mating and some molting) are all predicted to be very close to 
historical averages out to the end of the 21st century. However, the 
annual variability of this extent is forecasted to continue to 
increase, and single model runs indicate the possibility of a few years 
in which April and May sea ice would cover only half (or in the case of 
the Chukchi Sea, none) of the Arctic shelf in these regions by the end 
of the century. In June, also a time of molting, the average sea ice 
extent is predicted to cover no more than half of the shelf in the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas by the end of the century. By the end of the 
century, the East Siberian Sea is not projected to experience losses in 
ice extent of these magnitudes until July.
    The projections indicate that there will typically be 25 percent or 
greater ice concentration in April-June over the entire shelf zones in 
the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian Seas through the end of the 
century. In the minimal ice years 25 percent or greater ice 
concentration is projected over the shelf zones in April and May in 
these regions through the end of the century, except in the eastern 
Chukchi and central Beaufort Seas. By June 2095, ice suitable for 
molting (i.e., 15 percent or more concentration) is projected to be 
mostly absent in these regions in minimal years, except in the western 
Chukchi Sea and northern East Siberian Sea.
    A reduction in spring and summer sea ice concentrations could 
conceivably result in the development of new areas containing suitable 
habitat or enhancement of existing suboptimal habitat. For example, the 
East Siberian Sea has been said to be relatively low in bearded seal 
numbers and has historically had very high ice concentrations and long 
seasonal ice coverage. Ice concentrations projected for May-June near 
the end of the century in this region include substantial areas with 
20-80 percent ice, potentially suitable for bearded seal reproduction, 
molting, and foraging. However, it is prudent to assume that the net 
difference between sea ice related habitat creation and loss will be 
negative, especially because other factors like ocean warming and 
acidification (discussed below) are likely to impact habitat.
    A substantial portion of the Beringia DPS currently whelps in the 
Bering Sea, where a longer ice-free period is forecasted in May and 
June. To adapt to this sea ice regime, bearded seals would likely have 
to shift their nursing, rearing, and molting areas to the ice covered 
seas north of the Bering Strait, potentially with poor access to food, 
or to coastal haul-out sites on shore, potentially with increased risks 
of disturbance, predation, and competition. Both of these scenarios 
would require bearded seals to adapt to novel (i.e., suboptimal) 
conditions, and to exploit habitats to which they may not be well 
adapted, likely compromising their reproduction and survival rates. 
Further, the spring and summer ice edge may retreat to deep waters of 
the Arctic Ocean basin, which could separate sea ice suitable for pup 
maturation and molting from benthic feeding areas. Accordingly, we 
conclude that the projected changes in sea ice habitat pose significant 
threats to the persistence of the Beringia DPS, and it is likely to 
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range.
    Okhotsk DPS: As noted above, none of the IPCC models performed 
satisfactorily at projecting sea ice for the Sea of Okhotsk, and so 
projected surface air temperatures were examined relative to current 
climate conditions as a proxy to predict sea ice extent and duration. 
The Sea of Okhotsk is located southwest of the Bering Sea, and thus can 
be expected to have earlier radiative heating in the spring. The region 
is dominated in winter and spring, however, by cold continental air 
masses and offshore flow. Sea ice is formed rapidly and is generally 
advected southward. As this region is dominated by cold air masses for 
much of the winter and spring, we would expect that the present 
seasonal cycle of first year sea ice will continue to dominate the 
future habitat of the Sea of Okhotsk.
    Based on the temperature proxies, a continuation of sea ice 
formation or presence is expected for March (some whelping and nursing) 
in the Sea of Okhotsk through the end of this century, though the ice 
may be limited to the northern region in most years after mid-century. 
However, little to no sea ice is expected in May by 2050, and in April 
by the end of the century, months critical for whelping, nursing, pup 
maturation, breeding, and molting. Hence, the most significant threats 
posed to the Okhotsk DPS were judged to be decreases in sea ice habitat 
suitable for these important life history events.
    Over the long term, bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk do not have 
the prospect of following a shift in the average position of the ice 
front northward. Therefore, the question of whether a future lack of 
sea ice will cause the Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals to go extinct 
depends in part on how successful the populations are at moving their 
reproductive activities from ice to haul-out sites on shore. Although 
some bearded seals in this area are known to use land for hauling out, 
this only occurs in late summer and early autumn. We are not aware of 
any occurrence of bearded seals whelping or nursing young on land, so 
this predicted loss of sea ice is expected to be significantly 
detrimental to the long term viability of the population. We conclude 
that the expected changes in sea ice habitat pose a significant threat 
to the Okhotsk DPS and it is likely to become an endangered species in 
the

[[Page 77507]]

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    E. b. barbatus: The models predict that ice in April-June will 
continue to persist in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago throughout this 
century. Even in the low ice years at the end of the century, the many 
channels throughout the archipelago are still expected to contain ice. 
Predictions for Baffin Bay were similar, showing April-June ice 
concentrations near historical levels out to 2050. Sea ice cover and 
extent is predicted to diminish somewhat during the last half of the 
century, but average conditions should still provide sufficient ice for 
the life history needs of bearded seals. At least until the end of the 
21st century, some ice is always predicted along eastern Greenland in 
April and May. In June, however, the low ice concentrations in minimum 
years will not be sufficient for molting.
    Joly et al. (2010) used a regional sea ice-ocean model and air 
temperature projections to predict sea ice conditions in Hudson Bay out 
to 2070. Compared to present averages, the extent of sea ice in April 
is expected to change very little by 2070, though reductions of 20 
percent in June ice and 60 percent in July ice are expected by 2070. 
The authors also predict that sea ice in Hudson Bay would become up to 
50 percent thinner over this time, though this would still likely 
provide enough buoyancy for bearded seals.
    Projections of sea ice extent for the Barents Sea indicate that ice 
in April will continue to decline in a relatively constant linear trend 
throughout the 21st century. The trend for May declines faster, 
predicting half as much ice by 2050, and less than a quarter as much 
ice by 2090. The White Sea (a southern inlet of the Barents Sea) is 
forecast to be ice-free in May by 2050. The trend in ice loss for June 
is faster still, predicting that ice will all but disappear in the 
Barents Sea region in the next few decades. Whelping is believed to 
occur in the drifting pack ice throughout the Barents Sea. 
Concentrations of mothers with pups have been observed in loose pack 
ice along several hundred kilometers of the seasonal ice edge from 
southern Svalbard to the north-central Barents Sea. Observations also 
suggest whelping occurs in the White Sea, with lower densities of pups 
reported in the central and southern White Sea and in the western Kara 
Sea. Bearded seals in the Barents Sea are believed to conduct seasonal 
migrations following the ice edge. The impacts of an ice-free Barents 
Sea would depend largely on the ability of bearded seals to relocate to 
more ice covered waters. However, there is little or no basis to 
determine the likelihood of this occurring.
    Although sea ice has covered the Kara and Laptev Seas throughout 
most of the year in the past, a west-to-east reduction in the 
concentration of springtime sea ice is predicted over the next century. 
By the end of the century, in some years half of the Kara Sea could be 
ice free in May, and in June by mid-century. In most years however, ice 
(albeit in low concentrations) is forecasted to cover the Kara Sea 
shelf. Similarly, out to the end of the century, the Laptev Sea is 
predicted to always have springtime ice. In July, by century's end, 
significant portions of both seas are predicted to be ice free in most 
years. Unlike most regions, the peak of molting in these seas is 
reportedly well into July (Chapskii, 1938; Heptner et al., 1976), so 
bearded seals in these areas would need to modify the location or 
timing of their molt to avoid the consequences of increased metabolism 
by molting in the water and/or incomplete molting. Bearded seals in the 
White and Laptev Seas are known to occasionally haul out on shore 
during late-summer and early-autumn (Heptner et al., 1976). This 
behavior could mitigate the impacts of an ice-free July.
    Bearded seals are considered rare in the Laptev Sea (Heptner et 
al., 1976), which currently has extremely high concentrations of ice 
throughout most of the year. As such, an effect of global warming may 
well be to increase suitable haul-out habitat for bearded seals in the 
Kara and Laptev Seas, potentially offsetting to some extent a decrease 
of habitat further west. It is prudent to assume, though, that the net 
difference between sea ice related habitat creation and loss will be 
negative, especially because other factors like ocean warming and 
acidification (discussed below) are likely to impact habitat and there 
is no information about the quality of feeding habitat that may 
underlie the haul-out habitat in the future.
    Given the projected reductions in spring and summer sea ice, the 
threat posed to E. b. barbatus by potential spatial separation of sea 
ice resting areas from benthic feeding habitat appears to be moderate 
to high (but lower than for the Beringia DPS). A decline in sea ice 
suitable for molting also appears to pose a moderate threat. If 
suitable sea ice is absent during molting, bearded seals would have to 
relocate to other ice-covered waters, potentially with poorer access to 
food, or to coastal regions in the vicinity of haul-out sites on shore. 
Further, these behavioral changes could increase the risks of 
disturbance, predation, and competition. Both scenarios would require 
bearded seals to adapt to novel (i.e., suboptimal) conditions, and to 
exploit habitats to which they may not be well adapted, likely 
compromising their survival rates.
    Nevertheless, conditions during April-June should still provide 
sufficient ice for the life history needs of bearded seals within major 
portions of the range of E. b. barbatus through the end of this 
century, including in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay, and 
Hudson Bay. The BRT estimated that 188,000 bearded seals occur in these 
areas. We therefore conclude the threats posed by the projected changes 
in sea ice habitat are not likely to place E. b. barbatus in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    We also analyzed whether E. b. barbatus is threatened or endangered 
within a significant portion of its range. To address this issue, we 
first considered whether the subspecies is threatened in any portion of 
its range and then whether that portion is significant. We find that 
the greatest threats posed by the projected changes in sea ice habitat 
are in the Barents, White, and Kara Seas. As discussed above, by 2090 
the Barents Sea is predicted to show a loss in sea ice of more than 75 
percent in May, and to be virtually ice-free in June and July. The 
White Sea, a southern inlet of the Barents Sea, is forecast to be ice-
free in May by 2050. In addition, half of the Kara Sea is expected to 
be ice-free in May by 2090, and in June by 2050. We noted above that 
the BRT considered all regional estimates of abundance for E. b. 
barbatus to be unreliable, except those in Canadian waters. We 
similarly have no information on the relative significance of these 
regions to bearded seals. We do not, however, have any information 
indicating that these areas are significant to the subspecies' biology, 
ecology, or general conservation needs. These areas do not appear to 
contain particularly high-quality habitat for bearded seals, or to have 
characteristics that would make bearded seals less susceptible to the 
threats posed by climate change (i.e., contribute significantly to the 
resilience of the subspecies). By contrast, the large habitat areas in 
Hudson Bay, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and Baffin Bay, which 
support an estimated 188,000 bearded seals, are expected to persist 
through the end of the century. Accordingly, we conclude that E. b. 
barbatus is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
in a significant portion of its range.

[[Page 77508]]

Impacts on Bearded Seals Related to Changes in Ocean Conditions
    Ocean acidification is an ongoing process whereby chemical 
reactions occur that reduce both seawater pH and the concentration of 
carbonate ions when CO2 is absorbed by seawater. Results 
from global ocean CO2 surveys over the past 2 decades have 
shown that ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising 
atmospheric CO2 levels. The process of ocean acidification 
has long been recognized, but the ecological implications of such 
chemical changes have only recently begun to be appreciated. The waters 
of the Arctic and adjacent seas are among the most vulnerable to ocean 
acidification. The most likely impact of ocean acidification on bearded 
seals will be through the loss of benthic calcifiers and lower trophic 
levels on which the species' prey depends. Cascading effects are likely 
both in the marine and freshwater environments. Our limited 
understanding of planktonic and benthic calcifiers in the Arctic (e.g., 
even their baseline geographical distributions) means that future 
changes will be difficult to detect and evaluate.
    Warming of the oceans is predicted to drive species ranges toward 
higher latitudes. Additionally, climate change can strongly influence 
fish distribution and abundance. What can be predicted with some 
certainty is that further shifts in spatial distribution and northward 
range extensions are inevitable, and that the species composition of 
the plankton and fish communities will continue to change under a 
warming climate.
    Bearded seals of different age classes are thought to feed at 
different trophic levels, so any ecosystem change could be expected to 
impact bearded seals in a variety of ways. Changes in bearded seal 
prey, anticipated in response to ocean warming and loss of sea ice and, 
potentially, ocean acidification, have the potential for negative 
impacts, but the possibilities are complex. These ecosystem responses 
may have very long lags as they propagate through trophic webs. Because 
of bearded seals' apparent dietary flexibility, these threats are of 
less concern than the direct effects of potential sea ice degradation.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Subsistence, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    Recreational, scientific, and educational utilization of bearded 
seals is currently at low levels and is not expected to increase to 
significant threat levels in the foreseeable future. The solitary 
nature of bearded seals has made them less suitable for commercial 
exploitation than many other seal species. Still, they may have been 
depleted by commercial harvests in some areas of the Sea of Okhotsk and 
the Bering, Barents, and White Seas during the mid-20th century. There 
is currently no significant commercial harvest of bearded seals and 
significant harvests seem unlikely in the foreseeable future.
    Bearded seals have been a very important species for subsistence of 
indigenous people in the Arctic for thousands of years. The current 
subsistence harvest is substantial in some areas, but there is little 
or no evidence that subsistence harvests have or are likely to pose 
serious risks to the species. Climate change is likely to alter 
patterns of subsistence harvest of marine mammals by changing their 
densities or distributions in relation to hunting communities. 
Predictions of the impacts of climate change on subsistence hunting 
pressure are constrained by the complexity of the interacting variables 
and imprecision of climate and sea models at small scales. Accurate 
information on both harvest levels and species' abundance and trends 
will be needed in order to assess the impacts of hunting as well as to 
respond appropriately to potential climate-induced changes in 
populations. We conclude that overutilization does not currently 
threaten the Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, or E. b. barbatus.

C. Diseases, Parasites, and Predation

    A variety of diseases and parasites have been documented to occur 
in bearded seals. The seals have likely co-evolved with many of these 
and the observed prevalence is typical and similar to other species of 
seals. The transmission of many known diseases of pinnipeds is often 
facilitated by animals crowding together and by the continuous or 
repeated occupation of a site. The pack ice habitat and the more 
solitary behavior of bearded seals may therefore limit disease 
transmission. Other than at shore-based haul-out sites in the Sea of 
Okhotsk in summer and fall, bearded seals do not crowd together and 
rarely share small ice floes with more than a few other seals, so 
conditions that would favor disease transmission do not exist for most 
of the year. Abiotic and biotic changes to bearded seal habitat 
potentially could lead to exposure to new pathogens or new levels of 
virulence, but we consider the potential threats to bearded seals as 
low.
    Polar bears are the primary predators of bearded seals. Other 
predators include brown bears (Ursus arctos), killer whales (Orcinus 
orca), sharks, and walruses. Predation under the future scenario of 
reduced sea ice is difficult to assess. Polar bear predation may 
decrease, but predation by killer whales, sharks, and walrus may 
increase. The range of plausible scenarios is large, making it 
impossible to predict the direction or magnitude of the net impact on 
bearded seal mortality.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    A primary concern about the conservation status of the bearded seal 
stems from the likelihood that its sea ice habitat has been modified by 
the warming climate and, more so, that the scientific consensus 
projections are for continued and perhaps accelerated warming in the 
foreseeable future. A second major concern, related by the common 
driver of CO2 emissions, is the modification of habitat by 
ocean acidification, which may alter prey populations and other 
important aspects of the marine ecosystem. There are currently no 
effective mechanisms to regulate GHG emissions, which are contributing 
to global climate change and associated modifications to bearded seal 
habitat. The risk posed to bearded seals due to the lack of mechanisms 
to regulate GHG emissions is directly correlated to the risk posed by 
the effects of these emissions. The projections we used to assess risks 
from GHG emissions were based on the assumption that no regulation will 
take place (the underlying IPPC emissions scenarios were all ``non-
mitigated'' scenarios). Therefore, the lack of mechanisms to regulate 
GHG emissions is already included in our risk assessment. We recognize 
that the lack of effective mechanisms to regulate global GHG emissions 
is contributing to the risks posed to bearded seals by these emissions.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

Pollution and Contaminants
    Research on contaminants and bearded seals is limited compared to 
the extensive information available for ringed seals. Pollutants such 
as organochlorine compounds (OC) and heavy metals have been found in 
most bearded seal populations. The variety, sources, and transport 
mechanisms of the contaminants vary across the bearded seal's range, 
but these compounds appear to be ubiquitous in the Arctic marine food 
chain. Statistical analysis of OCs in marine mammals has

[[Page 77509]]

shown that, for most OCs, the European Arctic is more contaminated than 
the Canadian and U.S. Arctic. Present and future impacts of 
contaminants on bearded seal populations should remain a high priority 
issue. Climate change has the potential to increase the transport of 
pollutants from lower latitudes to the Arctic, highlighting the 
importance of continued monitoring of bearded seal contaminant levels.
Oil and Gas Activities
    Extensive oil and gas reserves coupled with rising global demand 
make it very likely that oil and gas activity will increase throughout 
the U.S. Arctic and internationally in the future. Climate change is 
expected to enhance marine access to offshore oil and gas reserves by 
reducing sea ice extent, thickness, and seasonal duration, thereby 
improving ship access to these resources around the margins of the 
Arctic Basin. Oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
activities include, but are not limited to: seismic surveys; 
exploratory, delineation, and production drilling operations; 
construction of artificial islands, causeways, ice roads, shore-based 
facilities, and pipelines; and vessel and aircraft operations. These 
activities have the potential to impact bearded seals, primarily 
through noise, physical disturbance, and pollution, particularly in the 
event of a large oil spill or blowout.
    Within the range of the bearded seal, offshore oil and gas 
exploration and production activities are currently underway in the 
United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and Russia. In the United 
States, oil and gas activities have been conducted off the coast of 
Alaska since the 1970s, with most of the activity occurring in the 
Beaufort Sea. Although five exploratory wells have been drilled in the 
past, no oil fields have been developed or brought into production in 
the Chukchi Sea to date. In December 2009, an exploration plan was 
approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 
Enforcement (formerly the Minerals Management Service) for drilling at 
five potential sites within three prospects in the Chukchi Sea in 2010. 
These plans have been put on hold until at least 2011 pending further 
review following the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. 
There are no offshore oil or gas fields currently in development or 
production in the Bering Sea.
    Of all the oil and gas produced in the Arctic today, about 80 
percent of the oil and 99 percent of the gas comes from the Russian 
Arctic (AMAP, 2007). With over 75 percent of known Arctic oil, over 90 
percent of known Arctic gas, and vast estimates of undiscovered oil and 
gas reserves, Russia will continue to be the dominant producer of 
Arctic oil and gas in the future (AMAP, 2007). Oil and gas developments 
in the Kara and Barents Seas began in 1992, and large-scale production 
activities were initiated during 1998-2000. Oil and gas production 
activities are expected to grow in the western Siberian provinces and 
Kara and Barents Seas in the future. Recently there has also been 
renewed interest in the Russian Chukchi Sea, as new evidence emerges to 
support the notion that the region may contain world-class oil and gas 
reserves. In the Sea of Okhotsk, oil and natural gas operations are 
active off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, and future 
developments are planned in the western Kamchatka and Magadan regions.
    Large oil spills or blowouts are considered to be the greatest 
threat of oil and gas exploration activities in the marine environment. 
In contrast to spills on land, large spills at sea are difficult to 
contain and may spread over hundreds or thousands of kilometers. 
Responding to a spill in the Arctic environment would be particularly 
challenging. Reaching a spill site and responding effectively would be 
especially difficult, if not impossible, in winter when weather can be 
severe and daylight extremely limited. Oil spills under ice or in ice-
covered waters are the most challenging to deal with, simply because 
they cannot be contained or recovered effectively with current 
technology. The difficulties experienced in stopping and containing the 
oil blowout at the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico, where 
environmental conditions and response preparedness are comparatively 
good, point toward even greater challenges of attempting a similar feat 
in a much more environmentally severe and geographically remote 
location.
    Although planning, management, and use of best practices can help 
reduce risks and impacts, the history of oil and gas activities, 
including recent events, indicates that accidents cannot be eliminated. 
Tanker spills, pipeline leaks, and oil blowouts are likely to occur in 
the future, even under the most stringent regulatory and safety 
systems. In the Sea of Okhotsk, an accident at an oil production 
complex resulted in a large (3.5 ton) spill in 1999, and in winter 
2009, an unknown quantity of oil associated with a tanker fouled 3 km 
of coastline and hundreds of birds in Aniva Bay. To date, there have 
been no large spills in the Arctic marine environment from oil and gas 
activities.
    Researchers have suggested that pups of ice-associated seals may be 
particularly vulnerable to fouling of their dense lanugo coat. Though 
bearded seal pups exhibit some prenatal molting, they are generally not 
fully molted at birth, and thus would be particularly prone to physical 
impacts of contacting oil. Adults, juveniles, and weaned young of the 
year rely on blubber for insulation, so effects on their 
thermoregulation are expected to be minimal. Other acute effects of oil 
exposure which have been shown to reduce seal's health and possibly 
survival include skin irritation, disorientation, lethargy, 
conjunctivitis, corneal ulcers, and liver lesions. Direct ingestion of 
oil, ingestion of contaminated prey, or inhalation of hydrocarbon 
vapors can cause serious health effects including death.
    It is important to evaluate the effects of anthropogenic 
perturbations, such as oil spills, in the context of historical data. 
Without historical data on distribution and abundance, it is difficult 
to predict the impacts of an oil spill on bearded seals. Population 
monitoring studies implemented in areas where significant industrial 
activities are likely to occur would allow for comparison of future 
impacts with historical patterns, and thus to determine the magnitude 
of potential effects.
    In summary, the threats to bearded seals from oil and gas 
activities are greatest where these activities converge with breeding 
aggregations or in migration corridors such as in the Bering Strait. In 
particular, bearded seals in ice-covered remote regions are most 
vulnerable to oil and gas activities, primarily due to potential oil 
spill impacts.
Commercial Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch
    Commercial fisheries may impact bearded seals through direct 
interactions (i.e., incidental take or bycatch) and indirectly through 
competition for prey resources and other impacts on prey populations. 
Estimates of bearded seal bycatch could only be found for commercial 
fisheries that operate in Alaska waters. Based on data from 2002-2006, 
there has been an annual average of 1.0 mortalities of bearded seals 
incidental to commercial fishing operations. Although no information 
could be found regarding bearded seal bycatch in the Sea of Okhotsk, 
given the intensive levels of commercial fishing that occur in this

[[Page 77510]]

sea, bycatch of bearded seals likely occurs there as well.
    For indirect impacts, we note that commercial fisheries target a 
number of known bearded seal prey species, such as walleye pollock 
(Theragra chalcogramma) and cod. These fisheries may affect bearded 
seals indirectly through reduction in prey biomass and through other 
fishing mediated changes in their prey species. Bottom trawl fisheries 
also have the potential to indirectly affect bearded seals through 
destruction or modification of benthic prey and/or their habitat.
Shipping
    The extraordinary reduction in Arctic sea ice that has occurred in 
recent years has renewed interest in using the Arctic Ocean as a 
potential waterway for coastal, regional, and trans-Arctic marine 
operations. Climate models predict that the warming trend in the Arctic 
will accelerate, causing the ice to begin melting earlier in the spring 
and resume freezing later in the fall, resulting in an expansion of 
potential shipping routes and lengthening the potential navigation 
season.
    The most significant risk posed by shipping activities to bearded 
seals in the Arctic is the accidental or illegal discharge of oil or 
other toxic substances carried by ships, due to their immediate and 
potentially long-term effects on individual animals, populations, food 
webs, and the environment. Shipping activities can also affect bearded 
seals directly through noise and physical disturbance (e.g., 
icebreaking vessels), as well as indirectly through ship emissions and 
possible effects of introduction of exotic species on the lower trophic 
levels of bearded seal food webs.
    Current and future shipping activities in the Arctic pose varying 
levels of threats to bearded seals depending on the type and intensity 
of the shipping activity and its degree of spatial and temporal overlap 
with bearded seal habitats. These factors are inherently difficult to 
know or predict, making threat assessment highly uncertain. Most ships 
in the Arctic purposefully avoid areas of ice and thus prefer periods 
and areas which minimize the chance of encountering ice. This 
necessarily mitigates many of the risks of shipping to populations of 
bearded seals, since they are closely associated with ice throughout 
the year. Icebreakers pose special risks to bearded seals because they 
are capable of operating year-round in all but the heaviest ice 
conditions and are often used to escort other types of vessels (e.g., 
tankers and bulk carriers) through ice-covered areas. If icebreaking 
activities increase in the Arctic in the future as expected, the 
likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., oil spills, pollution, noise, 
disturbance, and habitat alteration) occurring in ice-covered areas 
where bearded seals occur will likely also increase.
    The potential threats and general threat assessment in the Sea of 
Okhotsk are largely the same as they are in the Arctic, though with 
less detail available regarding the spatial and temporal correspondence 
of ships and bearded seals, save one notable exception. Though noise 
and oil pollution from vessels are expected to have the same general 
relevance in the Sea of Okhotsk, oil and gas activities near Sakhalin 
Island are currently at high levels and poised for another major 
expansion of the offshore oil fields that would require an increasing 
number of tankers. About 25 percent of the Okhotsk bearded seal 
population uses this area during whelping and molting, and as a 
migration corridor (Fedoseev, 2000).
    The main aggregations of bearded seals in the northern Sea of 
Okhotsk are likely within the commercial shipping routes, but vessel 
frequency and timing relative to periods when seals are hauled out on 
ice are presently unknown. Some ports are kept open year-round by 
icebreakers, largely to support year-round fishing, so there is greater 
probability here of spatial and temporal overlaps with bearded seals 
hauled out on ice. In a year with reduced ice, bearded seals were more 
concentrated close to shore (Fedoseev, 2000), suggesting that seals 
could become increasingly prone to shipping impacts as ice diminishes.
    As is the case with the Arctic, a quantitative assessment of actual 
threats and impacts in the Sea of Okhotsk is unrealistic due to a 
general lack of published information on shipping patterns. 
Modifications to shipping routes, and possible choke points (where 
increases in vessel traffic are focused at sensitive places and times 
for bearded seals) due to diminishing ice are likely, but there is 
little data on which to base even qualitative predictions. However, the 
predictions regarding shipping impacts in the Arctic are generally 
applicable, and because of significant increases in predicted shipping, 
it appears that bearded seals inhabiting the Sea of Okhotsk, in 
particular the shelf area off central and northern Sakhalin Island, are 
at increased risk of impacts. Winter shipping activities in the 
southern Sea of Okhotsk are expected to increase considerably as oil 
and gas production pushes the development and use of new classes of 
icebreaking ships, thereby increasing the potential for shipping 
accidents and oil spills in the ice-covered regions of this sea.
Summary for Factor E
    We find that the threats posed by pollutants, oil and gas industry 
activities, fisheries, and shipping do not individually or cumulatively 
raise concern about them placing bearded seals at risk of becoming 
endangered. We recognize, however, that the significance of these 
threats would increase for populations diminished by the effects of 
climate change or other threats. This is of particular note for bearded 
seals in the Sea of Okhotsk, where oil and gas related activities are 
expected to increase, and are judged to pose a moderate threat.

Analysis of Demographic Risks

    Threats to a species' long-term persistence are manifested 
demographically as risks to its abundance; productivity; spatial 
structure and connectivity; and genetic and ecological diversity. These 
demographic risks provide the most direct indices or proxies of 
extinction risk. A species at very low levels of abundance and with few 
populations will be less tolerant to environmental variation, 
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity, 
ecological interactions, and other processes. A rate of productivity 
that is unstable or declining over a long period of time can indicate 
poor resiliency to future environmental change. A species that is not 
widely distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats is at 
increased risk of extinction due to environmental perturbations, 
including catastrophic events. A species that has lost locally adapted 
genetic and ecological diversity may lack the raw resources necessary 
to exploit a wide array of environments and endure short- and long-term 
environmental changes.
    The degree of risk posed by the threats associated with the impacts 
of global climate change on bearded seal habitat is uncertain due to a 
lack of quantitative information linking environmental conditions to 
bearded seal vital rates, and a lack of information about how resilient 
bearded seals will be to these changes. The BRT considered the current 
risks (in terms of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity) to the persistence of the Beringia DPS, the Okhotsk DPS, and 
E. b. barbatus as low or very low. The BRT judged the risks to the 
persistence of the Beringia DPS within the foreseeable future to be 
moderate (abundance and diversity) to

[[Page 77511]]

high (productivity and spatial structure), and to the Okhotsk DPS to be 
high for abundance, productivity, and spatial structure, and moderate 
for diversity. The risks to persistence of E. b. barbatus within the 
foreseeable future were judged to be moderate.

Conservation Efforts

    When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the ESA requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation, 
or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the 
species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes 
and organizations, local governments, and private organizations. Also, 
Federal, tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 
1533(f)), and Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536) 
constitute conservation measures. In addition to identifying these 
efforts, under the ESA and our Policy on the Evaluation of Conservation 
Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), we must evaluate the 
certainty of implementing the conservation efforts and the certainty 
that the conservation efforts will be effective on the basis of whether 
the effort or plan establishes specific conservation objectives, 
identifies the necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for 
decline, includes quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring 
of compliance and effectiveness, incorporates the principles of 
adaptive management, and is likely to improve the species' viability at 
the time of the listing determination.

International Agreements

    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (IUCN) Red List identifies and documents those species 
believed by its reviewers to be most in need of conservation attention 
if global extinction rates are to be reduced, and is widely recognized 
as the most comprehensive, apolitical global approach for evaluating 
the conservation status of plant and animal species. In order to 
produce Red Lists of threatened species worldwide, the IUCN Species 
Survival Commission draws on a network of scientists and partner 
organizations, which uses a standardized assessment process to 
determine species' risks of extinction. However, it should be noted 
that the IUCN Red List assessment criteria differ from the listing 
criteria provided by the ESA. The bearded seal is currently classified 
as a species of ``Least Concern'' on the IUCN Red List. These listings 
highlight the conservation status of listed species and can inform 
conservation planning and prioritization.
    The Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation, and 
Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic (North Atlantic 
Marine Mammal Commission [NAMMCO]) was established in 1992 by a 
regional agreement among the governments of Greenland, Iceland, Norway, 
and the Faroe Islands to cooperatively conserve and manage marine 
mammals in the North Atlantic. NAMMCO has provided a forum for the 
exchange of information and coordination among member countries on 
bearded seal research and management.
    There are no known regulatory mechanisms that effectively address 
the factors believed to be contributing to reductions in bearded seal 
sea ice habitat at this time. The primary international regulatory 
mechanisms addressing GHG emissions and global warming are the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. 
However, the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period only sets targets 
for action through 2012. There is no regulatory mechanism governing GHG 
emissions in the years beyond 2012. The United States, although a 
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has not ratified it; therefore, the 
Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States.

Domestic U.S. Regulatory Mechanisms

    Several laws exist that directly or indirectly promote the 
conservation and protection of bearded seals. These include the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as Amended, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 
Act. Although there are some existing domestic regulatory mechanisms 
directed at reducing GHG emissions, these mechanisms are not expected 
to be effective in counteracting the growth in global GHG emissions 
within the foreseeable future.
    At this time, we are not aware of any formalized conservation 
efforts for bearded seals that have yet to be implemented, or which 
have recently been implemented, but have yet to show their 
effectiveness in removing threats to the species. Therefore, we do not 
need to evaluate any conservation efforts under the PECE.
    NMFS has established a co-management agreement with the Ice Seal 
Committee (ISC) to conserve and provide co-management of subsistence 
use of ice seals by Alaska Natives. The ISC is an Alaska Native 
Organization dedicated to conserving seal populations, habitat, and 
hunting in order to help preserve native cultures and traditions. The 
ISC co-manages ice seals with NMFS by monitoring subsistence harvest 
and cooperating on needed research and education programs pertaining to 
ice seals. NMFS' National Marine Mammal Laboratory is engaged in an 
active research program for bearded seals. The new information from 
research will be used to enhance our understanding of the risk factors 
affecting bearded seals, thereby improving our ability to develop 
effective management measures for the species.

Proposed Determinations

    We have reviewed the status of the bearded seal, fully considering 
the best scientific and commercial data available, including the status 
review report. We have reviewed threats to the Beringia DPS, the 
Okhotsk DPS, and E. b. barbatus, as well as other relevant factors, and 
given consideration to conservation efforts and special designations 
for bearded seals by states and foreign nations. In consideration of 
all of the threats and potential threats to bearded seals identified 
above, the assessment of the risks posed by those threats, the possible 
cumulative impacts, and the uncertainty associated with all of these, 
we draw the following conclusions:
    Beringia DPS: (1) The present population size of the Beringia DPS 
is very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 155,000 individuals. 
(2) It is highly likely that reductions will occur in both the extent 
and timing of sea ice in the range of the Beringia DPS, in particular 
in the Bering Sea. To adapt to this ice regime, bearded seals would 
likely have to shift their nursing, rearing, and molting areas to ice-
covered seas north of the Bering Strait, where projections suggest 
there is potential for the ice edge to retreat to deep waters of the 
Arctic basin. (3) There appears to be a moderate to high threat that 
reductions in spring and summer sea ice could result in spatial 
separation of sea ice resting areas from benthic feeding habitat. 
Reductions in sea ice suitable for molting and pup maturation also 
appear to pose moderate to high threats. (4) Within the foreseeable 
future, the risks to the persistence of the Beringia DPS appear to be 
moderate (abundance and diversity) to high (productivity and spatial 
structure). We conclude that the Beringia DPS is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and we propose to

[[Page 77512]]

list this DPS as threatened under the ESA.
    Okhotsk DPS: (1) The present population size of the Okhotsk DPS is 
very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 95,000 individuals. (2) 
Decreases in sea ice habitat suitable for whelping, nursing, pup 
maturation, and molting pose the greatest threats to the persistence of 
the Okhotsk DPS. As ice conditions deteriorate, Okhotsk bearded seals 
will be limited in their ability to shift their range northward because 
the Sea of Okhotsk is bounded to the north by land. (3) Although some 
bearded seals in the Sea of Okhotsk are known to use land for hauling 
out, this only occurs in late summer and early autumn. We are not aware 
of any occurrence of bearded seals whelping or nursing young on land, 
so the predicted loss of sea ice is expected to be significantly 
detrimental to the long term viability of the population. (4) Within 
the foreseeable future the risks to the persistence of the Okhotsk DPS 
due to demographic problems associated with abundance, productivity, 
and spatial structure are expected to be high. We conclude that the 
Okhotsk DPS of bearded seals is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and we propose to list this DPS as threatened under the ESA.
    E. b. barbatus: (1) The present population size of E. b. barbatus 
is very uncertain, but is estimated to be about 188,000 individuals in 
Canadian waters. (2) Although significant loss of sea ice habitat is 
projected in the range of E. b. barbatus in this century, major 
portions of the current range are predicted to be at the core of future 
ice distributions. (3) Within the foreseeable future, the risks to the 
persistence of E. b. barbatus in terms of abundance, productivity, 
spatial structure, and diversity appear to be moderate, reflecting the 
expected persistence of favorable sea ice habitat in major portions of 
the subspecies' range. We find that E. b. barbatus is not in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. We therefore conclude that listing E. b. barbatus as threatened 
or endangered under the ESA is not warranted.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or 
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all 
individuals, organizations and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
to implement regulations ``to provide for the conservation of 
[threatened] species'' that may include extending any or all of the 
prohibitions of section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) 
also prohibits violations of protective regulations for threatened 
species implemented under section 4(d). Based on the status of the 
Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the bearded seal and their 
conservation needs, we conclude that the ESA section 9 prohibitions are 
necessary and advisable to provide for their conservation. We are 
therefore proposing protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for 
the Okhotsk DPS and the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal to include all 
of the prohibitions in section 9(a)(1).
    Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to 
consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or to adversely 
modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a Federal 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. 
Examples of Federal actions that may affect the Beringia DPS of bearded 
seals include permits and authorizations relating to coastal 
development and habitat alteration, oil and gas development (including 
seismic exploration), toxic waste and other pollutant discharges, and 
cooperative agreements for subsistence harvest.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide us with authority 
to grant exceptions to the ESA's section 9 ``take'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or 
to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. The type of 
activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/
enhancement permit include scientific research that targets bearded 
seals. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits are required for 
non-Federal activities that may incidentally take a listed species in 
the course of otherwise lawful activity.

Our Policies on Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, we and FWS published a series of policies 
regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of 
scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum 
extent possible, those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272). We must also follow 
the Office of Management and Budget policy for peer review as described 
below.

Role of Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information 
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. The scientific information 
contained in the bearded seal status review report (Cameron et al., 
2010) that supports this proposal to list the Beringia DPS and the 
Okhotsk DPS as threatened species under the ESA received independent 
peer review.
    The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a 
final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified 
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. Independent 
specialists will be selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the 
effect of our ESA listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of 
the final rule, specific activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will not 
be considered likely to result in violation. Because the Okhotsk DPS 
occurs outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, we are 
presently unaware of any activities that could result in violation of 
section 9 of the ESA for that DPS; however, because the possibility for 
violations exists (for example, import into the United States), we have 
proposed maintaining the section 9 protection. Activities that we 
believe could result in violation of section 9 prohibitions against 
``take'' of the Beringia DPS of bearded seals include: (1) Unauthorized 
harvest or lethal takes of bearded seals in the Beringia DPS; (2) in-
water activities that

[[Page 77513]]

produce high levels of underwater noise, which may harass or injure 
bearded seals in the Beringia DPS; and (3) discharging or dumping toxic 
chemicals or other pollutants into areas used by the Beringia DPS of 
bearded seals.
    We believe, based on the best available information, the following 
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) federally 
funded or approved projects for which ESA section 7 consultation has 
been completed and mitigated as necessary, and that are conducted in 
accordance with any terms and conditions we provide in an incidental 
take statement accompanying a biological opinion; and (2) takes of 
bearded seals in the Beringia DPS that have been authorized by NMFS 
pursuant to section 10 of the ESA. These lists are not exhaustive. They 
are intended to provide some examples of the types of activities that 
we might or might not consider as constituting a take of bearded seals 
in the Beringia DPS.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5A)) defines critical habitat 
as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species, at the time it is listed * * * on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed * * 
* upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3 of the ESA also 
defines the terms ``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to 
mean ``to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are 
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the 
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no 
longer necessary.'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on 
the best scientific data available, and must take into consideration 
the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Once critical 
habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry out any actions 
that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This 
requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement that Federal 
agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species.
    In determining what areas qualify as critical habitat, 50 CFR 
424.12(b) requires that NMFS ``consider those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of a given species 
including space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, 
reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical 
and ecological distribution of a species.'' The regulations further 
direct NMFS to ``focus on the principal biological or physical 
constituent elements * * * that are essential to the conservation of 
the species,'' and specify that the ``known primary constituent 
elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description.'' The 
regulations identify primary constituent elements (PCEs) as including, 
but not limited to: ``roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, 
feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, 
host species or plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation 
type, tide, and specific soil types.''
    The ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to consider the economic 
impact, the national security impacts, and any other relevant impacts 
from designating critical habitat, and under section 4(b)(2), the 
Secretary may exclude any area from such designation if the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species. At this time, the Beringia 
DPS's critical habitat is not determinable. We will propose critical 
habitat for the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal in a separate 
rulemaking. To assist us with that rulemaking, we specifically request 
information to help us identify the PCEs or ``essential features'' of 
this habitat, and to what extent those features may require special 
management considerations or protection, as well as the economic 
attributes within the range of the Beringia DPS that could be impacted 
by critical habitat designation. 50 CFR 424.12(h) specifies that 
critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in 
other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 
information only on potential areas of critical habitat within the 
United States or waters within U.S. jurisdiction.
    Because the known distribution of the Okhotsk DPS of the bearded 
seal occurs in areas outside the jurisdiction of the United States, no 
critical habitat will be designated as part of the proposed listing 
action for this DPS.

Public Comments Solicited

    Relying on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we exercised our best professional judgment in developing 
this proposal to list the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS of the 
bearded seal. To ensure that the final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and effective as possible, we are 
soliciting comments and suggestions concerning this proposed rule from 
the public, other concerned governments and agencies, Alaska Natives, 
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
Comments are encouraged on this proposal as well as on the status 
review report (See DATES and ADDRESSES).
    Comments are particularly sought concerning:
    (1) The current population status of bearded seals;
    (2) Biological or other information regarding the threats to 
bearded seals;
    (3) Information on the effectiveness of ongoing and planned bearded 
seal conservation efforts by states or local entities;
    (4) Activities that could result in a violation of section 9(a)(1) 
of the ESA if such prohibitions applied to the Beringia DPS of the 
bearded seal;
    (5) Information related to the designation of critical habitat, 
including identification of those physical or biological features which 
are essential to the conservation of the Beringia DPS of the bearded 
seal and which may require special management consideration or 
protection; and
    (6) Economic, national security, and other relevant impacts from 
the designation of critical habitat for the Beringia DPS of the bearded 
seal.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal 
by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). We will review all 
public comments and any additional information regarding the status of 
the Beringia DPS and the Okhotsk DPS and will complete a final 
determination within 1 year of publication of this proposed rule, as 
required under the ESA. Final promulgation of the regulation(s) will 
consider the comments and any additional information we receive, and 
such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from 
this proposal.

[[Page 77514]]

Public Hearings

    50 CFR 424.16(c)(3) requires the Secretary to promptly hold at 
least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of 
publication of a proposed rule to list a species. Such hearings provide 
the opportunity for interested individuals and parties to give 
opinions, exchange information, and engage in a constructive dialogue 
concerning this proposed rule. We encourage the public's involvement in 
this matter. If hearings are requested, details regarding the 
location(s), date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming 
Federal Register notice.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 
actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analyses required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, 
this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This rule does not 
contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism 
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific 
directives for consultation in situations where a regulation will 
preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of 
those circumstances is applicable to this rule.

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal 
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive 
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which 
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal 
with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has 
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the 
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward 
Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care 
with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise 
of tribal rights. E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments--outlines the responsibilities of the Federal 
Government in matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public 
Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of Public Law 
108-447 (118 Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies to consult with 
Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under 
E.O. 13175.
    We intend to coordinate with tribal governments and native 
corporations which may be affected by the proposed action. We will 
provide them with a copy of this proposed rule for review and comment, 
and offer the opportunity to consult on the proposed action.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be 
found on our Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ and is 
available upon request from the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (see 
ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

    2. In Sec.  223.102, in the table, amend paragraph (a) by adding 
paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Species \1\                                         Citation(s)  for       Citation(s) for
--------------------------------------------------    Where listed          listing          critical habitat
          Common name            Scientific name                       determination(s)       designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Bearded seal, Beringia DPS  Erignathus         The Beringia DPS   [INSERT FR          NA.
                                 barbatus           includes all       CITATION & DATE
                                 nauticus.          breeding           WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    populations of     A FINAL RULE].
                                                    bearded seals
                                                    east of 157
                                                    degrees east
                                                    longitude, and
                                                    east of the
                                                    Kamchatka
                                                    Peninsula, in
                                                    the Pacific
                                                    Ocean.
(9) Bearded seal, Okhotsk DPS.  Erignathus         The Okhotsk DPS    [INSERT FR          NA.
                                 barbatus           includes all       CITATION & DATE
                                 nauticus.          breeding           WHEN PUBLISHED AS
                                                    populations of     A FINAL RULE].
                                                    bearded seals
                                                    west of 157
                                                    degrees east
                                                    longitude, or
                                                    west of the
                                                    Kamchatka
                                                    Peninsula, in
                                                    the Pacific
                                                    Ocean.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement;
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement; see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
    3. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.216 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.216  Beringia DPS of Bearded Seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Beringia DPS of bearded seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(8).

[[Page 77515]]

    4. In Subpart B of part 223, add Sec.  223.217 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.217  Okhotsk DPS of Bearded Seal.

    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the 
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species shall apply to the 
Okhotsk DPS of bearded seal listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(9).

[FR Doc. 2010-30931 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P