![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for White Abalone
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 29, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 103)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29046-29055]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29my01-12]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 990910253-1120-03; ID No. 041300B]
RIN 0648-AM90
Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for White
Abalone
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Following completion of a comprehensive status review of the
white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) and a review of factors affecting
the species, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the white abalone
as an endangered species on May 5, 2000. After considering public
comments on the proposed rule, NMFS is now issuing a final rule to list
the white abalone as an endangered species. NMFS has determined that it
is not prudent to designate critical habitat because identification of
such habitat is expected to increase the threat of poaching for white
abalone.
DATES: Effective June 28, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Wingert, 562-980-4021; or Marta
Nammack, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Actions Related to
White Abalone
NMFS designated the white abalone, which is a marine invertebrate
mollusc, as a candidate species under the ESA on July 14, 1997 (62 FR
37560), based on information indicating that the species had suffered a
major decline in abundance. Because of the depleted status of white
abalone, NMFS contracted with Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO)
in August 1998 to conduct a comprehensive status review of the species.
The status review of white abalone was completed in March 2000.
NMFS received a petition on April 29, 1999, from the Center for
Biological Diversity and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
to list white abalone as an endangered species on an
[[Page 29047]]
emergency basis and designate critical habitat under the ESA. On May
17, 1999, NMFS received a second petition to list white abalone as an
endangered species throughout its range and designate critical habitat
under the ESA from several environmental organizations. NMFS considered
this second request as supplemental information to the first petition.
NMFS published its 90-day finding on September 24, 1999 (64 FR
51725), which concluded that the first petition presented sufficient
scientific and commercial information indicating that a listing of
white abalone as an endangered species may be warranted. However, NMFS
did not find that the petition presented substantial evidence
warranting listing on an emergency basis. This finding was based on a
review of the petition and other available information which indicated
that the State of California had closed commercial and recreational
fishing for white abalone and that white abalone habitat was not
currently at risk from destruction or adverse modification.
Based on the findings of the white abalone status review and an
evaluation of the factors affecting the species, NMFS published a
proposed rule to list the white abalone as an endangered species on May
5, 2000 (65 FR 26167).
Abalone Life History and Ecology
Abalone are marine gastropods belonging to the family Haliotidae
and genus Haliotis and are characterized by a flattened spiral shell
(Haaker, 1986; Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Abalone have separate sexes
and are broadcast spawners, releasing millions of eggs or sperm during
a spawning event. Fertilized eggs hatch and develop into free-swimming
larvae, spending from 5 to 14 days as non-feeding zooplankton before
development (i.e., metamorphosis) into the adult form. After
metamorphosis, they settle onto hard substrates in intertidal and
subtidal areas. Abalone grow slowly and have relatively long lifespans
of 30 years or more. Young abalone (referred to as ``cryptic abalone'')
seek cover in rocky crevices, under rocks, and deep crevices, feeding
on benthic diatoms, bacterial films, and single-celled algae found on
coralline algal substrate (Cox, 1962). As abalone grow and become less
vulnerable to predation at about 75-100 mm (2.9-3.9 inches) in length,
they emerge from secluded habitat to more open, visible locations where
their principal food source, attached or drifting algae, is more
available (Cox 1962). In dive surveys, these animals are classified as
``emergent'' abalone. Abalone lead a relatively sedentary lifestyle.
Although juveniles may move tens of meters per day, adult abalone have
extremely limited movements as they increase in size (Cox, 1962;
Tutschulte, 1976; Shephard, 1973).
Successful abalone recruitment has been related to the interaction
between spawning density, spawning period and length, and fecundity
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). At low adult densities, fertilization
success is much reduced. When males and females are greatly separated,
fertilization success may be negligible and recruitment failure will
likely occur (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
White Abalone
Eight species of Haliotis occur along the west coast of North
America. Historically, white abalone ranged from Point Conception,
California, U.S.A., to Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico.
Although studies have recognized possible population structure in other
Haliotis species, no studies have identified distinct populations of
white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Tutschulte (1976) reported
that white abalone are not as cryptic as other California abalone
species.
White abalone is the deepest-living of the west coast Haliotis
species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000). According to Cox (1960) and
Tutschulte (1976), white abalone were found at subtidal depths of 20-60
m (66-197 ft) and were historically most ``abundant'' at depths of 25-
30 m (80-100 ft). At these depths, white abalone are found in open low
relief rock or boulder habitat surrounded by sand (Tutschulte, 1976;
Davis et al., 1996).
White abalone may be limited to depths where algae grow, a function
of light levels and substrate availability, because they are reported
to feed less on drift algae and more on attached brown algae
(Tutschulte, 1976; Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). The upper and lower
limits of white abalone depth distribution could also be influenced by
temperature effects on larvae and juvenile survival. Leighton (1972)
found that white abalone larval survival is reduced at lower
temperatures. Tutschulte (1976) speculated that white abalone may have
been restricted to depths below 25 m (82 ft) by predation from sea
otters when sea otter and white abalone latitudinal ranges overlapped
or from competition with pink abalone and predation by octopuses.
According to Hobday and Tegner (2000a), the maximum shell length
recorded for white abalone in California and Mexico is 20-25 cm (7.8-
9.8 inches) and 17 cm (6.6 inches), respectively. Cox (1960) indicated
the maximum size was slightly larger at 25.4 cm (10 inches), but that
the ``average'' observed size is about 13-20 cm (5-8 inches) and
animals less than 10 cm (4 inches) are rare. White abalone reach sexual
maturity at a size between 88 and 134 mm (3.4-5.2 inches) in
approximately 4 to 6 years and spawn in the winter, between February
and April (Tutschutle, 1976; Tutschutle and Connell, 1981). Compared to
two other California abalone species, white abalone have a high degree
of spawning synchronicity wherein most males and females spawn in a
relatively short time period. Based on a peak in 5-year old animals
prior to the peak of the white abalone fishery, Tutschulte (1976)
suggested that white abalone have irregular recruitment. Tutschulte
(1976) estimated that the maximum lifespan of white abalone is 35 to 40
years.
In the laboratory, settlement of white abalone larvae occurred
after 9 to 10 days at 15 deg.C (59 deg.F) (Leighton, 1972). This
larval period is longer than periods reported for other California
abalone species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Drift tube studies have
found that larval periods of most abalone species would not usually be
long enough for regular dispersal of abalone between islands and
mainland areas (Tegner and Butler, 1985b). Since they have a relatively
long larval period, potential dispersal distances may be greater for
white abalone than those other of abalone species (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a).
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule
No public hearings were held for NMFS' proposal to list the white
abalone as an endangered species, as no hearings were requested during
the 60-day public comment period. During the public comment period,
however, NMFS received nine written comments on the proposed rule: five
from private citizens; two from non-governmental organizations, and one
each from a local government agency and an academic/research
organization. Of the nine commenters, seven supported the listing of
white abalone as an endangered species, one questioned the need for
listing given the closure of the commercial and recreational fisheries
for white abalone, and one provided some limited technical information
only. A summary of the comments and the responses thereto are presented
here.
Issue 1: Biological Information and Status of White Abalone
Comment: One commenter questioned the 25 cm (9.8 inches) maximum
size of white abalone cited in NMFS' proposed
[[Page 29048]]
rule and indicated that Cox (1960) had reported a maximum size of 10
inches (or 25.4 cm). The commenter also provided museum specimen record
citations for California and Mexico that provide additional
documentation regarding the historic range of white abalone.
Response: NMFS' proposed listing notice does indicate that the
maximum shell length recorded for white abalone in California ranges
from 20-25 cm. This information was taken from the NMFS Status Review
(Hobday and Tegner 2000a). The discussion of white abalone life history
in this final rule has been modified to reflect the maximum size
reported by Cox (1960).
Comment: One commenter speculated that white abalone have been
extinct for at least 10 years based on his personal diving observations
in the northern Channel Islands.
Response: As discussed in NMFS' status review, the proposed listing
notice, and elsewhere in this final rule, the white abalone has
declined precipitously in abundance over the past 30 years; however,
NMFS disagrees that white abalone are already extinct. As discussed
elsewhere in this final rule, the most recent submarine surveys that
were conducted in 1996-7 and 1999 (Davis et al., 1998; Haaker, et al.,
2000) directly observed small numbers of white abalone, and population
estimates developed by Hobday and Tegner (2000a) based on these survey
observations suggest that the current white abalone population ranges
from approximately 1,600 to 2,500 individuals.
Issue 2: Need for Emergency Listing of White Abalone
Comment: One commenter indicated that NMFS should accelerate its
efforts to protect white abalone by listing the species on an emergency
basis under the ESA.
Response: As discussed in the proposed listing notice, NMFS has
determined that an emergency listing of white abalone is not warranted.
That determination was based on the fact that no emergency existed that
posed a significant risk to the well-being of the species.
Specifically, the State of California has closed the commercial and
recreational fisheries for white abalone and the best available
information indicated that white abalone habitat was not currently at
risk of being destroyed or adversely modified. NMFS continues to
believe that the timeframe of the normal rule making process is
sufficient for the white abalone listing determination.
Issue 3: Need for Designation of Critical Habitat
Comment: Three commenters were very concerned that NMFS did not
propose critical habitat for white abalone. These commenters believe
that a critical habitat designation is necessary for the eventual
recovery of white abalone and strongly urged NMFS to designate critical
habitat encompassing the species' historic range, including the
northern Channel Islands. One commenter provided information that it
believed NMFS should consider if it proceeded with a critical habitat
designation that included the Palos Verdes shelf.
Response: Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical
habitat concurrently with a determination that a species is endangered
or threatened. According to Sec. 424.12(a)(1)(i) of NMFS' and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's joint implementing regulations for listing
endangered and threatened species and designating critical habitat (50
CFR part 424), a designation of critical habitat is not prudent when
one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is
threatened by taking or other human activity, and the identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat
to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not
be beneficial to the species.
Over-harvesting of white abalone for human consumption is the
primary factor responsible for the dramatic decline (99 percent) in
white abalone abundance, and it has led to a situation where the
density of surviving adults is so low that successful reproduction and
recruitment are unlikely to occur. There are very limited opportunities
for people to harvest abalone in California any longer, and, therefore,
NMFS believes there is a significant threat to white abalone from
poaching because abalone as a group continue to be highly prized and in
demand as food by humans.
Between July 1999 and April 2001, 135 citations were issued for
violations of Title 14, 29.15, which addresses abalone taken out of
season, sizes, and overlimits (Gaskins, pers. comm., 2001). Because of
the extremely low population size and low density of the surviving
adult white abalone in California, any successful poaching efforts will
reduce adult densities even further, thereby increasing the likelihood
of recruitment failure and risk of extinction. The identification of
critical habitat for white abalone would disclose to the public those
limited areas where the species may currently exist, and, therefore,
NMFS believes such an action will increase the threat of poaching to
white abalone.
In addition, the available information indicates that habitat
degradation or loss was not responsible for the dramatic reduction in
abundance of white abalone. It is probable that the isolated location
of the northern and southern Channel Islands, where most white abalone
were historically harvested, and the relatively deep depth of white
abalone habitat throughout its range have limited the impacts of
anthropogenic habitat alterations. NMFS believes that the continued
isolation of white abalone habitat from human activities serves to
protect that habitat. Given the distribution of the white abalone
habitat between Point Conception and the Mexican border and the fact
that much of it is isolated in the Channel Islands, there are few
Federal activities (e.g., oil and gas development, mining, dredge
disposal) that have the potential to impact white abalone habitat
between Point Conception and the Mexican border. In the case of oil and
gas development, for example, future oil and gas leasing which could
potentially lead to more exploration and development in this area is
not expected to occur in the foreseeable future because of a
Presidential moratorium that prohibits leasing through the year 2012.
Although there are a small number of existing leases where very limited
exploration may occur in the future, this activity would be focused in
only a few locations well offshore from areas that might contain white
abalone habitat. Hard minerals exploration and mining in coastal areas
south of Point Conception are not constrained by the Presidential
moratorium, but there are no such activities occurring at present and
none are expected in the foreseeable future. Because few, if any,
Federal activities are likely to affect white abalone habitat, NMFS
believes that there are minimal additional regulatory benefits through
ESA section 7 that are likely to accrue to the species from the
designation of critical habitat.
After considering the increased risks to white abalone from
poaching that would be more likely to occur as a result of a critical
habitat designation, and noting the benefits that may accrue to the
species from such a designation, NMFS does not believe that a
designation would provide significant benefits that outweigh the
increased risks (see 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)). Based on all of the above
NMFS has determined that it is not prudent to
[[Page 29049]]
designate critical habitat for white abalone at this time.
Issue 4: Need To Initiate a White Abalone Recovery Program
Comment: Several commenters strongly urged NMFS to initiate a
recovery effort for white abalone as soon as possible because they
believe that the population only consists of a very few, older
individuals and successful reproduction is unlikely to occur at present
densities. These commenters also urged NMFS to establish breeding
programs, including outplanting and monitoring of laboratory reared
animals, in an effort to provide for the continued existence of white
abalone.
Response: NMFS recognizes that the continued existence of white
abalone is precarious and that the species is at a high risk of
extinction in the near future. For this reason, NMFS agrees there is an
urgent need to embark on a recovery effort for this species as soon as
possible. NMFS is committed to this effort and intends to take a lead
role in white abalone recovery, including the establishment of a white
abalone recovery team and the development of a recovery plan. NMFS also
continues to be supportive of the restoration efforts promoted by the
White Abalone Restoration Consortium, which includes the collection of
white abalone broodstock followed by spawning and rearing of progeny in
the laboratory for subsequent re-establishment in the wild. NMFS
believes that efforts such as these will be crucial to ensuring the
continued survival and long-term recovery of white abalone.
Status of White Abalone
Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as any
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The term ``threatened species'' is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' NMFS considered the following factors in evaluating the risks
facing white abalone and in making a determination as to its current
status: (1) Current abundance in relation to historical abundance; (2)
trends in abundance; (3) spatial and temporal distribution and
effective population size, and (4) natural and human influences. A
discussion of these factors with respect to white abalone is presented
in detail below.
1. Current Abundance in Relation to Historical Abundance
a. Historical Abundance. Estimates of pre-exploitation abundance of
white abalone can be made from both fishery-independent and fishery-
dependent data and by using an estimate of the total area of white
abalone habitat within the species range. Based on a historical range
between Point Conception and Punta Eugenia and on the assumption that 3
percent of the area within depth contours of 25 to 65 m (82-213 ft) is
rocky reef habitat, Davis et al. (1998) estimated the total area of
white abalone habitat throughout the species' range to be 966 hectares
(ha). Using Tutschulte's (1976) density estimate of 0.23 white abalone/
m2, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) estimated a pre-exploitation abundance of
2,221,800 animals. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) calculated a second pre-
exploitation population abundance estimate for white abalone in Mexico
of 2.12 million individuals using fishery-independent data from surveys
conducted by Guzman and Proo et al. (1976) between 1968 and 1970 along
the west coast of Baja California within the depth range of 0 to 27 m
(0-89 ft). Hobday and Tegner (2000a) then doubled this estimate to
account for white abalone in California and calculated a pre-
exploitation estimate of white abalone abundance of 4.24 million
animals throughout the range of the species. This second larger
estimate incorrectly assumes that white abalone were found throughout
the area surveyed (i.e., in southern Baja, California), and therefore,
may overestimate white abalone abundance.
Hobday and Tegner (2000a) also calculated a pre-exploitation
abundance of white abalone using fishery-dependent data. Between the
peak years of white abalone exploitation in California, approximately
605,807 lbs (274,792 kg) of white abalone were landed. Assuming each
abalone weighs 1.67 lbs (.76 kg), then a total of 362,759 animals were
harvested. Since it would have taken 10 years for white abalone to
reach California's legal size limit, and the fishery collapsed after
only 10 years of exploitation, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) assume that
all legal-sized adults were harvested every year. If total catch in the
10-year period represents the total accumulated virgin stock and there
was no recruitment, they estimated the pre-exploitation California
population size equals the total catch between 1969 and 1978 which was
crudely estimated to be 362,759 animals. If this figure is doubled to
include Mexico, the historical abundance is estimated to be 725,518
white abalone throughout its historical range. However, the actual pre-
exploitation abundance must have been greater because some white
abalone were harvested in subsequent years, some animals were lost to
natural mortality, and white abalone from the recreational catch were
not included in the estimate. Not all of the pre-exploitation estimates
account for cryptic white abalone.
b. Current Abundance. Using a research submersible vessel, the
first deep-reef surveys for white abalone were conducted near Santa
Barbara, Anacapa, and Santa Cruz Islands, and on Osborn Bank in 1996
and 1997 (Davis et al., 1998). After searching 77,070 m\2\ (829,601
ft\2\) of rocky reef between 27 and 67 m (89 and 220 ft) depth, only
nine live white abalone were found. Assuming that population densities
of white abalone estimated from these surveys (i.e., 0.000167 white
abalone/m\2\, 0.0001) were representative of white abalone
densities throughout their entire range and that the total available
habitat within the species range is 966 ha (2,386 acres), Hobday and
Tegner (2000a) estimated that the population size throughout the entire
range of the species was 1,613 white abalone. They concluded from these
results that white abalone are absent or at extremely low densities at
all depths and areas surveyed. Using these same data, Davis et al.
(1998) estimated that fewer than 1,000 white abalone existed in 1996-
1997 throughout the species range and concluded that these submersible
surveys both confirmed the ``critically low '' population density and
demonstrated the lack of a de facto refugia beyond normal SCUBA depths.
In October 1999, scientists conducted another deep-reef survey for
white abalone near Santa Cruz, Anacapa, Santa Barbara, San Clemente and
Santa Catalina Islands and on Osborn, Farnsworth, Tanner and Cortez
Banks using a submersible vessel (Haaker et al., 2000; Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b). In contrast to the 1996-1997 submersible surveys, the
areas selected for the October 1999 study were the areas where the
greatest amount of white abalone had been removed by the commercial and
recreational fisheries in the 1970s. This survey covered approximately
57.5 ha (142 acres) (Haaker et al., 2000) of suitable white abalone
habitat, at a depth between 19 and 65 m (62 and 213 ft), and found 157
live white abalone with an average density of 0.00027 white abalone/
m\2\ or 2.7 white abalone per ha.
The 1996-1997 and 1999 surveys for white abalone in California
covered approximately 6 percent of the estimated 966 ha (2,386 acres)
of suitable habitat throughout the species'
[[Page 29050]]
range, so Hobday and Tegner (2000b) combined data from these surveys
and calculated another estimate of current population abundance. Based
on the estimated potential habitat (966 ha or 2,386 acres) and the
area-specific white abalone densities, Hobday and Tegner (2000b)
calculated a revised current population abundance of 2,540 individuals
throughout the range of the species.
In October and November of 2000, NMFS and the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducted a remotely operated vehicle survey
for white abalone in the vicinity of Catalina Island, San Clemente
Island, Cortes Bank, and Tanner Bank. These survey localities
constituted areas which historically accounted for more than 90 percent
of all white abalone landings. The number of white abalone observed by
both the pilot and an observer were counted for each dive and video
tapes of each dive were re-analyzed after the survey to confirm
identifications and to count cryptic animals. Transects were only
conducted on rocky substrates and at depths ranging from 35-65 m where
white abalone are normally found. Based on the results of this survey,
the white abalone population in U.S. waters was estimated as 1,658
individuals with a 95-percent confidence interval of 174-15,579
individuals. The high variance associated with this estimate is due to
the variability in the numbers of white abalone observed in the
transects.
All of these historical and current white abalone abundance
estimates are likely to be biased for several reasons. First, the total
amount of white abalone habitat may be more or less than the 3-percent
assumed area within the depth range between 25 and 65 m (82-213 ft),
and the amount of habitat may vary among different geographic areas
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000b). Second, since the exact width of the
submarine transects are not known, the area actually surveyed may be
larger or smaller than that which was assumed. In addition, since white
abalone prefer low relief rocks covered with foliose algae near sand at
depths between 40-60 m, observers collecting data during surveys may
preferentially search these areas. Finally, in 1996 alone, 12,307 kg
(27,132 lb) of white abalone were reported in Mexican commercial
abalone landings. Based on an average weight of 1.67 lb (0.75 kg) per
white abalone, landings of this magnitude would lead to an
approximation of 32,000 white abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). If
the Mexican landings data are correct, the current white abalone
density estimates based on fishery-independent data may be too low.
2. Trends in Abundance
a. Commercial Fishery Data-- California. Commercial white abalone
harvest began in 1967, at a time when the total abalone landings in
California began to decline (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Over 95 percent
of the commercial white abalone landings occurred within the 9-year
period between 1969 and 1977. White abalone landings peaked at 144,000
lbs (86,000 individuals) in 1972, only 3 years after intense harvest
began. The decline in white abalone landings was so dramatic by 1978
(less than 5,000 lbs (2270 kg) landed), that the CDFG no longer
required white abalone to be reported separately on commercial landings
receipts. Between 1987 and 1992, only 11 white abalone were voluntarily
reported in commercial landings, and, since 1992, none have been
reported.
b. Recreational Fishery Data--California. Data on the recreational
catch of abalone in California comes from commercial passenger dive
boats (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Between 1971 and 1993, white abalone
comprised 1.29 percent of the total, and 2.89 percent of the
``identified,'' recreational abalone catch in California. Most of the
catch was harvested from Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands.
Recreational harvest of white abalone peaked at about 35,000 animals in
1975, then declined sharply. By 1986, white abalone were rarely
reported as landed by divers using commercial dive boats. Abalone catch
from recreational divers not using commercial dive boats has not been
quantified.
c. Commercial Fishery Data--Mexico. Data on abalone landings in
Mexico are limited because species-specific catch data are sparse.
Before 1984, Mexico did not require commercial abalone fishermen to
land abalone in the shell, the only visual identifying characteristic.
Prior to about 1990, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) found no data on the
number or weight of white abalone landed in Mexico. Often, available
data were temporally and spatially inconsistent and contradictory.
Although white abalone are deep-living and often difficult to find,
they were harvested in Mexico prior to 1931 because the tender meat
attracted a high price (Croker, 1931). Historically, white abalone
comprised only a few percent of the total abalone in Baja California.
However, in certain cooperatives, white abalone was sometimes a
significant portion of the abalone catch (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
For instance, between 1992 and 1994, white abalone represented about 65
percent of the catch of one Mexican fishing cooperative. Since the
total abalone catch for that cooperative was 57,983 lbs (26,301 kg) of
meat, 65 percent of the catch represents a large amount of white
abalone meat (i.e., 37,689 lbs or 17,096 kg). Hobday and Tegner (2000a)
suggest that this harvest may represent overharvesting of newly located
reefs, because that harvest rate was not sustained in subsequent years.
Data from Zone 1 (the northernmost portion of the species range in
Mexico) from 1990 to 1997 indicate that white abalone represented only
0.73 percent of the total abalone catch (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). In
this same zone, no catch trends are evident for any abalone species.
White abalone were not harvested south of Zone 1 from 1993 to 1998.
Although the data are limited, it appears that in those areas, catch-
per-unit-effort of abalone declined from 205 to 18 kg/boat/day (452 to
40 lbs) between 1958 and 1984, respectively (Guzman del Proo, 1992, as
cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
Since 1981, total abalone catch has remained near 800-1000 tons
(726 - 907 metric tons), with most abalone harvested from Cedros
Island. From 1993 to 1998, the price of abalone in Mexico remained
constant and is an important source of income for the region (Ponce-
Diaz et al., 1998, cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Based on trends
in landings, Mexico's white abalone populations may be depleted (Guzman
del Proo, 1992), though perhaps not as severely as in the United States
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a).
d. Recreational Fishery-dependent Data--Mexico. Although there is
no recreational abalone fishery in Mexico, the collection of intertidal
abalone is thought to occur at some unknown level (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a).
e. Summary of Trends. Survey assessments for white abalone have
been limited in number and are spatially separate (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a). For this reason and because relatively few white abalone were
observed, estimates of white abalone density based on fishery-
independent data collected during surveys in the 1980's and 1990's are
imprecise. The current white abalone abundance estimates based on these
survey data may also be biased due to assumptions about the total
amount of white abalone habitat currently available (e.g., 3 percent)
and the amount of area actually surveyed. Nevertheless, data collected
from the white abalone surveys represent the best available scientific
information on the species.
[[Page 29051]]
The results of the series of fishery-independent abalone surveys
conducted in the early 1980s and 1990s indicate that white abalone
density may have declined by several orders of magnitude in California
since 1970 (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Over the last 30 years, white
abalone abundance has declined from approximately 2.22 to 4.24 million
animals (pre-exploitation) to approximately 1,613 to 2,540 animals
throughout the species' range. This decline represents a decrease in
white abalone abundance of over 99 percent since exploitation began in
the late 1960s. Review of the commercial landings data also indicates a
significant decline in white abalone abundance, from a peak of 144,000
lbs (65,318 kg) in 1972 to less than 1,000 lbs (454 kg) in 1979, after
only a decade of commercial exploitation.
3. Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Effective Population Size
In addition to the absolute number of individuals in a population
or species, the spatial and temporal distribution of individuals is
critical for successful fertilization, recruitment, and survival of
local populations. Reproductive failure will occur below a threshold
population density because surviving individuals are so few and so
scattered that they cannot find mates. This is commonly referred to as
the ``Allee Effect'' (Primack, 1993). Individuals that are close enough
to find mates may still not produce offspring because of other factors
such as age, poor health, sterility, malnutrition, and small body size
(Primack, 1993). As a result of these factors, the ``effective
population size'' of breeding individuals will be substantially smaller
than the actual population size.
Even with high adult densities, abalone recruitment is highly
variable and unpredictable (Davis et al., 1996). Based on results from
modeling and experiments with sea urchins, Pennington (1985)
demonstrated that successful fertilization for broadcast spawners
requires that males and females be close enough for free-swimming sperm
to contact eggs in sufficient densities. Juvenile abalone recruitment
severely declines or ceases in abalone populations that are depleted
below approximately 50 percent of virgin stock levels (Shepherd and
Brown, 1993; Richards and Davis, 1993). Price et al. (1988) found that
abundance of breeding animals determined recruitment for the Australian
abalone species, Haliotis rubra. Thus, despite the fact that adult
abalone broadcast millions of sperm and eggs and their offspring have a
planktonic larval phase, locally reduced adult abalone densities can
result in lower local recruitment. More recently, Babcock and Keesing
(1999) found that, for the Australian abalone species, Haliotis
laevigata, recruitment failure occurred when the mean nearest neighbor
distances were over 1-2 m (3.3-6.6 ft) or when densities fell below 0.3
animals/m\2\. They also speculate that reductions in abalone densities
may further reduce reproductive success by limiting the ability to
synchronize reproductive behavior.
Because abalone are slow-moving bottom dwellers, their ability to
aggregate during spawning to overcome even relatively small distance
separations is extremely limited. If the current estimate of white
abalone density (e.g., 0.00027 white abalone/m\2\) is representative
throughout most of the range of the species, it is far below that
necessary to produce gamete concentrations high enough for effective
fertilization. Based on the current estimated average distance of
approximately 50 m (164 ft) between white abalone adults, the chance of
successful fertilization and regular production of viable cohorts of
juvenile white abalone is extremely low (Davis, 1998).
The density of white abalone observed during the 1999 submersible
survey varied from 0 to 9.76 abalone per ha (Hobday and Tegner, 2000b).
The highest densities were found at Tanner Bank, an offshore area where
distance, average sea conditions, and navigational challenges may have
reduced white abalone fishing effort. Of the 157 white abalone found in
the October 1999 submersible survey, nearly 80 percent were individuals
where the nearest neighbor was more than 2 m (6.6 ft) away (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b). Twenty percent of the white abalone observed were found
in ``groups'' of two, and one group of four was found. Although these
groups have the potential to produce offspring if at least one male and
one female occurs in each group, it is still likely that the effective
population size of the species is currently very small (Hobday and
Tegner, 2000b).
The size and frequency of empty abalone shells observed during
surveys can also indicate local population structure and whether
habitat is suitable for survival. For example, about 20 percent of the
empty shells near stable red abalone populations with regular juvenile
recruitment are juvenile-sized shells (Hines and Pearse, 1982, reported
in Davis et al., 1996). In contrast, the percentage of juvenile-sized
empty shells found near a red abalone population on the verge of
collapse at Santa Rosa Island dropped from 22 percent to 6 percent as
recruitment and adult densities declined (Tegner et al., 1989; Davis et
al., 1992, reported in Davis et al., 1996).
Davis et al. (1996) found that during the 1992-1993 SCUBA surveys
for white abalone, most of the empty shells and live individuals were
probably more than 25 years old (>140 mm or 5.5 inches). All of these
shells, except one, were adult size (>50 mm or 2 inches) and most were
between 131 and 180 mm (5 and 7 inches). During the 1996-1997 white
abalone surveys, over 300 empty shells were observed. All of these
shells appeared to be over 25 years old (Davis, G., pers. comm.,
February 2000). These observations indicate that the survey sites were
previously inhabited by white abalone. Davis et al. (1998) concluded
that these older abalone represent the last major cohort recruited to
the population. This cohort would have been spawned in the late 1960s
or early 1970s and survived because they would have been too small to
be legally harvested during the peak of the fishery in the 1970s.
4. Other Natural and Human Influences
See subsections (A), (C), and, (E) in the section of this notice
entitled ``Summary of Factors Affecting White Abalone.''
Summary of Factors Affecting White Abalone
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth procedures for listing species. NMFS must determine,
through the regulatory process, if a species is endangered or
threatened based upon any one or a combination of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued
existence. NMFS' status review for white abalone (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a), which includes a review of current and historical factors
affecting white abalone, identifies overutilization for commercial
purposes as the primary reason for the decline of white abalone (Hobday
and Tegner, 2000a). The following discussion summarizes NMFS' findings
regarding the factors responsible for the decline of white abalone.
[[Page 29052]]
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
its Habitat or Range
Loss or modification of habitat is not likely to have been a factor
in the decline of white abalone. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) conclude
that natural or anthropogenic white abalone habitat losses are unknown.
However, due to the isolation of the offshore islands off southern
California and northern Baja California, and the depth range of the
species, anthropogenic impacts to white abalone habitat should be
limited near the islands. The CDFG believes that direct threats to
white abalone are limited, especially on the islands offshore of
southern California, but indicated that mainland habitat may have been
affected to an ``unknown extent'' for a variety of unspecified land-
based human activities. Historically, pollution did affect shallow
water abalone habitat (i.e., Macrocystis kelp forests) along the Palos
Verdes Peninsula in the 1950s which resulted in a decline in certain
shallow water abalone populations (Tegner, 1989; 1993). The source of
that pollution has been controlled, however, and it is no longer
affecting abalone habitat in that area.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
White abalone abundance has declined significantly throughout its
range as a result of overutilization for commercial and recreational
purposes. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest that white abalone in
California were subject to ``serial depletion'' by the commercial
fishery during the early 1970s. Due to their life history
characteristics as slow-moving bottom dwellers with external
fertilization, abalone are particularly susceptible to local and
subsequent serial depletion. If female abalone are not within a few
meters of males when they both spawn, the sperm will be too diluted by
diffusion to fertilize the eggs (Davis et al., 1996). As local abalone
density declines, the probability of successful fertilization and
subsequent recruitment decreases. Serial depletion occurs as fishermen
shift from exploited to unexploited fishing areas due to local
depletion. Total landings may remain constant in the short term.
Eventually, however, if all areas are harvested at unsustainable
levels, recruitment failure occurs on a region wide basis. The CDFG
believes that the most significant threat to white abalone is related
to the effects of low population abundance on continued white abalone
reproduction, survival and recovery.
White abalone catch data from California indicate that over 80
percent of the white abalone landings were taken from San Clemente
Island. The offshore Tanner Bank and Cortez Bank-Bishop Rock region
provided 13 percent of the total catch. Between 1965 and 1975, over 25
percent (average 43 percent) of the white abalone catch in each area
came from a single year (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). If harvest was
sustainable, the portion of catch harvested each year at each location
should have been more consistent over a period of years. Region-wide
landings of white abalone peaked at 144,000 lbs (65,318 kg) in 1972
after only 3 years of commercial exploitation, and declined to less
than 10,000 lbs (4,535 kg) in 1977. By 1978, white abalone landings
were so negligible (1,000 lbs or 454 kg) that CDFG no longer collected
landings data for the species.
Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest that the increasing value of
abalone may have contributed to increased fishing pressure. For
example, the price of white abalone increased from about $2.50 per
pound in 1981 to about $7 per pound in 1993. As the catch of all
abalone declined, the total and per-unit value of the harvest continued
to increase. White abalone was usually the most valuable species and by
1988, white abalone was worth twice the value of other abalone species
(Davis et al., 1996).
C. Disease or Predation
First detected in 1985, withering syndrome disease has
significantly affected west coast abalone species, especially the black
abalone. Withering syndrome also occurs in pink, red, and green abalone
(Alstatt et al., 1996, cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Withering
syndrome has recently been identified as a ricksettia bacterium that
affects the digestive glands of abalone. Surveys of black abalone
suffering from withering syndrome found large numbers of empty black
abalone shells. Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest that large numbers of
empty white abalone shells should have been detected during the abalone
surveys of the 1980s if white abalone were significantly affected by
withering syndrome.
In 1990, 20 freshly dead white abalone with undamaged shells that
could have been killed by withering syndrome were collected from Santa
Catalina (Tegner et al., 1996). In 1993, two live white abalone were
collected from Santa Catalina Island and diagnosed with withering
syndrome, and a white abalone in captivity recently died and showed
symptoms of withering syndrome. Although withering syndrome may affect
white abalone at some frequency, it is unlikely to have been a major
factor in the decline of the species. The mass mortalities associated
with the outbreak of withering syndrome in black abalone populations
resulted in large numbers of shells which were easily detected in
surveys (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). If white abalone were similarly
affected in large numbers, large numbers of shells or affected
individuals of all size classes would have been detected in the surveys
of the early 1980's, but this was not the case.
Several abalone predators have been documented, including sea
stars, fish, crabs, octopuses, and sea otters (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a). Although increases in abundance of these predators could be
related to declines in white abalone abundance, no information is
available on the density of the invertebrate predators in white abalone
habitat. Predation by sea otters is not likely to have been a major
factor in the decline of white abalone due to its depth range and
latitudinal distribution. In California, sea otters seldom forage below
20-25 m, and with the exception of San Miguel and San Nicolas Islands,
otters do not occupy the same geographic range as white abalone. The
CDFG believes that factors such as disease or predation may have
contributed to the decline of white abalone but are not currently a
major factor affecting the species' continued existence.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Because white abalone has experienced significant declines in
abundance throughout its range as a result of commercial over
harvesting, harvest regulations for white abalone during the major
period of its decline in the 1970s were clearly inadequate to conserve
the resource and maintain white abalone harvest at sustainable levels.
The establishment of minimum size limits has been a strategy used
worldwide to manage the harvest of abalone on a sustainable basis
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). In California, minimum size limits were
established for abalone that were greater than the size of sexual
maturity which should have allowed for several years of reproduction
before the animals reached legal harvest size. However, successful
reproduction does not necessarily occur each year. If reproductive
failure occurs for several years, abalone could reach legal size and be
removed by the fishery before they have successfully reproduced and
contributed offspring to
[[Page 29053]]
the population. California also prohibited abalone harvest during the
spawning season. Other regulations, such as bag limits for recreational
fishermen, and limited entry, were also implemented by California as
abalone management measures.
In 1970, California established a permit fee of $100 for both
divers and crew members (Burge et al., 1975; cited in Hobday and
Tegner, 2000a). The diver fee increased to $200 in 1975 and finally
reached $330 in 1991. Relative to permit fees charged by other
countries to harvest abalone (e.g., Tasmania, South Australia), these
relatively low fees did not promote sustainable abalone fishing in
California.
California's abalone management did not prevent serial depletion of
white abalone or promote sustainable harvest practices in the 1970s. In
1996, the California Fish and Game Commission closed the California
white abalone fishery to protect the surviving adults (Davis et al.,
1998). NMFS does not have present documentation that Mexico has closed
its commercial white abalone fishery or limited white abalone fishing.
The intentional capture of sub-legal abalone (i.e., poaching)
before they contributed substantially to the population could have
reduced the reproductive potential of white abalone (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a); however, this is not likely to have been a major factor in the
decline of white abalone because the State of California has required
all commercially caught abalone to be landed in the shell. In Mexico,
during a survey in 1973, a substantial portion of the commercial white
abalone catch was found to be undersized. The impact of illegal white
abalone harvesting as a factor of the species' decline is difficult to
evaluate in Mexico, but was probably not a major factor in California.
Because abalone has no blood clotting ability, cut animals bleed to
death (Cox, 1962, cited in Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Burge et al.
(1975) found that accidental cutting of sub-legal sized abalone is a
significant cause of mortality and could have further reduced white
abalone abundance (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). For example, mortality
due to cutting during collection of sub-legal red abalone was estimated
at 60 percent from small cuts in the lab, and almost 100 percent in the
field. Even undersized abalone that are handled and replaced without
being cut suffer a 2 to 10-percent mortality in the field. Under-sized
abalone may also be subject to predation before they have a chance to
reattach to the substrate.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence
Long-term or short-term changes in ocean conditions could affect
both larval and adult abalone (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). For example,
periodic El Nino conditions increase surface water temperatures above
optimum larval survival levels. In addition, due to the periodicity of
these events, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) suggest the warming events
would lead to recruitment failure. The influence of some diseases may
increase during periods of warm water conditions. Warm water has also
been associated with depleted nutrients in the ocean, declines in
Macrocystis, and the availability of drifting algae material. The
direct or indirect impacts of increasing water temperatures within the
depth range on white abalone are unknown. Harvesting of Macrocystis
pyrifera has been shown to have little effect on shallow-living abalone
species (Tegner, 1989) and could even benefit abalone by providing
greater amounts of drift algae (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). For these
reasons, habitat loss or modification are not likely to have been
factors of decline of white abalone.
Competition from sea urchins and other abalone species for food and
space could have been a factor in the decline of white abalone. For
instance, increasing trends in abundance of sea urchins
(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus) could have limited
the amount of algae available for juvenile or adult white abalone
consumption (Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Although these potential
ecological interactions have not been studied in the field, the
densities of these potential competitors are also currently low and are
no longer likely to limit white abalone abundance (Hobday and Tegner,
2000a).
Hybridization of white abalone with other more abundant California
abalone species could potentially lower white abalone population size
(Hobday and Tegner, 2000a). Natural hybridization between other
California abalone species and white abalone has been observed. Owen et
al. (1971) found that disturbance, high sea urchin frequency, and low
abundance of one parent species increased the frequency of abalone
hybrids. However, because large numbers of white abalone hybrids have
not been found in the field, Hobday and Tegner (2000a) conclude that
hybridization of white abalone with other abalone species is unlikely
to have led to a decline of the species.
Efforts Being Made To Protect White Abalone
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts
being made by any state or foreign nation to protect a species, by
predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or by other
conservation practices. In making this listing determination,
therefore, NMFS must consider white abalone status and the factors that
have led to its decline, as well as state or foreign conservation
efforts that may ameliorate the risks faced by the white abalone.
In judging the efficacy of state or foreign conservation efforts,
NMFS considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty that
such efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of
monitoring provisions that determine effectiveness and that permit
adaptive management (NMFS, 1996b). In some cases, conservation efforts
may be relatively new and may not have had time to demonstrate their
biological benefit. In such cases, provisions for adequate monitoring
and funding of conservation efforts are essential to ensure intended
conservation benefits are realized.
State of California Conservation Measures for White Abalone
The CDFG has conducted and/or participated in several SCUBA and
submersible surveys documenting the distribution and abundance of white
abalone (1980-81, 1992-93, 1996-97, and 1999). The data and information
gathered from these surveys have contributed to a better understanding
of the decline of white abalone. Because the state required that
abalone fishermen submit landings data, the precipitous decline of
white abalone in the 1970s was documented. As mentioned previously, the
state closed white abalone fishing in 1996, thereby eliminating the
factor most responsible for the species' decline. The closure of all
abalone fisheries in southern California in 1997 has also reduced the
likelihood of accidental harvest or poaching of white abalone in
California. Despite these state conservation measures, the species may
not survive without human intervention because most of the remaining
individuals are too far apart to successfully reproduce.
[[Page 29054]]
Mexican Conservation Measures for White Abalone
At present, NMFS does not know whether Mexico has closed its white
abalone fishery or instituted other conservation measures to protect
the species. Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16, NMFS provided Mexico with a
notification that it had published a Federal Register document
proposing to list the white abalone which occurs along the coast of
both the United States and Mexico, and also invited Mexico to provide
any information or comments it may have on the proposal. In addition,
NMFS requested that Mexico provide the agency with information on any
conservation measures it may have implemented to protect the white
abalone. To date, Mexico has not responded to this request for comments
and information.
Private-public Partnerships
Due to concern over the depleted status of white abalone, a
consortium of scientists, fishermen, conservation organizations,
universities, Federal and state agencies, and mariculturists in private
enterprise have joined together to develop and execute a plan to
restore white abalone populations (Davis et al., 1998). The White
Abalone Restoration Consortium (Consortium) has developed the following
four-step restoration plan: (1) Locate surviving white abalone by
surveying historical habitat; (2) collect brood stock; (3) breed and
rear a new generation of brood stock; and (4) re-establish refugia of
self-sustaining brood stocks in the wild. The Consortium has also
initiated an outreach program to raise public awareness of the status
of white abalone and restoration efforts. Particularly challenging is
the ability to increase public awareness of a relatively small and
unknown marine invertebrate. Because nearly 25 years of artificially
producing and outplanting juvenile and younger red abalone in
California have failed to demonstrate effective population restoration,
the Consortium is advocating that captive-born white abalone be reared
until 4 years of age (>100 mm or 4 inches). Federal, state, and private
grants and funds have recently supported white abalone submersible
surveys and the establishment of an aquaculture facility specifically
designed to breed white abalone in captivity and rear offspring to
adulthood for outplanting to the wild.
NMFS recognizes that many of the existing conservation measures
described here can serve to protect the remaining white abalone
survivors, but they do not yet provide for white abalone conservation
at a scale that is adequate to protect and recover the species. Due to
the extremely low population abundance of white abalone throughout its
range, NMFS believes that the existing protective measures alone will
not be sufficient to reduce the risk of white abalone extinction in the
near future.
Listing Determination
The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Section 4(b)(1) of
the ESA requires that the listing determination be based solely on the
best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation to protect
and conserve the species.
The available white abalone landings data and analysis of fishery-
independent data indicate that over the last 30 years, white abalone
has declined in abundance by over 99 percent and several orders of
magnitude. Most of the remaining survivors are old and so scattered
that they will not be able to find mates to spawn successfully and
regularly produce viable cohorts of juveniles. While NMFS recognizes
that many of the existing conservation measures help protect the
remaining white abalone, they do not yet provide for white abalone
conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect the species.
Based on a review of the best available information, including the
findings from NMFS's white abalone status review, information received
in the petition to list white abalone as an endangered species, other
published and unpublished information, and comments on the listing
proposal, NMFS has determined that white abalone are in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and
therefore, warrant listing as an endangered species throughout its
range in the United States and Mexico.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species.
Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to
consult with NMFS to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or to adversely
modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions that may affect white abalone include
coastal development, outfall construction and operation, power plant
permitting, oil and gas exploration and development, etc.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA provide NMFS with authority
to grant exceptions to the ESA's Section 9 take
prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement
permits may be issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for
scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a
listed species. The type of activities potentially requiring a section
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permit include scientific research
that targets white abalone, collection of adult white abalone for
artificial propagation purposes, and aggregation or relocation of white
abalone to enhance the potential of natural propagation in the wild.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take
listed species, as long as the taking is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures that may apply to listed species include
conservation measures implemented by states, foreign nations, local
governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, state, and
foreign nations' recovery actions, Federal consultation requirements,
and prohibitions on taking constitute conservation measures. In
addition, recognition through Federal government or state listing
promotes public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, state,
tribal governments, foreign nations, private organizations, and
individuals.
Based on information presented in this final rule, general
protective and conservation measures that could be implemented to help
conserve white abalone, but which do not constitute NMFS'
interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA,
include the following:
[[Page 29055]]
1. Continue the state prohibition on commercial and recreational
white abalone fishing in California.
2. Continue efforts to locate white abalone in California and
Mexico by surveying historic habitat.
3. Collect white abalone brood stock, spawn the brood stock, rear
the offspring to early adulthood, and outplant the next generation in
the wild.
4. Collect and aggregate adult white abalone in the wild to
facilitate successful reproduction in the field.
5. Promote protection and conservation of white abalone in Mexico.
Take Guidance
NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994,
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'
range. NMFS believes, based on the best available information, the
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:
1. Possession of white abalone which are acquired lawfully by
permit issued by NMFS, pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the
terms of an incidental take statement, pursuant to section 7 of the
ESA.
2. Federally funded or approved projects for which ESA section 7
consultation has been completed, and when activities are conducted in
accordance with any terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an
incidental take statement accompanying a biological opinion.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm white abalone,
and result in a violation of ESA section 9 take prohibitions include,
but are not limited to:
1. Coastal development that adversely affects white abalone (e.g.,
dredging and other coastal construction projects).
2. Destruction/alteration of white abalone habitat, such as the
harvesting of algae.
3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into areas supporting white abalone.
4. Interstate and foreign commerce of white abalone and import/
export of white abalone without a permit.
5. Collecting or handling of white abalone in the United States.
Applications may be submitted to NMFS for the purpose of scientific
research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species.
These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of white abalone under the
ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute a violation of the ESA section 9 take
prohibitions and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits
should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Critical Habitat
See the response to Issue 3 - Need for Designation of Critical
Habitat for a complete discussion of critical habitat. References
A complete list of all cited references is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Executive Order 13132-Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State
and Federal interest, NMFS has conferred with the State of California
in the course of assessing the status of white abalone, and considered,
among other things, state and local conservation measures. California
has expressed support for the conservation of white abalone. The
content of this dialogue with the State of California as well as the
basis for this action, is described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. As NMFS moves forward with its recovery
effort for white abalone, it intends to continue engaging in informal
and formal contacts with the State of California, other affected local
or regional entities, and those engaged in ongoing conservation efforts
for white abalone.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: May 21 2001.
William T. Hogarth,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended
to read as follows:
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(d) Marine invertebrates. White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni).
[FR Doc. 01-13430 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S