[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77998-78022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30345]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 130808698-4999-02]
RIN 0648-XC809
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month
Finding on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and availability of a status review
report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on two petitions to list
the pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a
comprehensive status review of the pinto abalone in response to these
petitions. Based on the best scientific and commercial information
available, we have determined that the species does not warrant listing
at this time. We conclude that the pinto abalone is not currently in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The
species will remain on the NMFS Species of Concern list, with one
revision to apply the Species of Concern status throughout the species'
range (Alaska to Mexico). We also announce the availability of the
pinto abalone status review report.
DATES: This finding was made on December 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The pinto abalone status review report is available
electronically at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/. You may
also receive a copy by submitting a request to the Protected Resources
Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attention: Pinto Abalone 12-month Finding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Neuman, NMFS, West Coast
Region (562) 980-4115; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources (301) 427-8466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) was added to the
National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS') ``Species of Concern'' list
on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). On July 1, 2013, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition from the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that the pinto
[[Page 77999]]
abalone be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and that critical habitat be designated for the
species. On August 5, 2013, we received a second petition, filed by the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the pinto abalone under
the ESA and designate critical habitat. On November 18, 2013, NMFS
determined that the petitions presented substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for pinto
abalone (a ``positive 90-day finding'') and published the finding in
the Federal Register (78 FR 69033), pursuant to 50 CFR 424.14.
In the fall of 2013, we assembled a Status Review Team (SRT) to
compile and review the best available information, assess the
extinction risk and threats facing the species, and produce an ESA
status review report for pinto abalone. The status review report (NMFS
2014) provides a thorough account of pinto abalone biology and natural
history, and an assessment of demographic risks, threats and limiting
factors, and overall extinction risk for the species. The status review
report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the
Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The key background
information and findings of the status review report are summarized
below.
Species Description
The pinto abalone is a marine gastropod of the genus Haliotis. It
is one of seven species of abalone native to the west coast of North
America and occurs in both rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from
Baja California to Alaska (Geiger 1999). Like all abalone, pinto
abalone are benthic, occurring on hard substrate, relatively sedentary,
and generally herbivorous, feeding on attached or drifting algal
material. The shell is scallop-edged, multi-colored (mottled red and/or
green), and characterized by irregular lumps, with three to seven open
respiratory pores that are slightly raised above the shell's surface
and paralleling a deep groove (Stevick 2010). The pinto abalone's
muscular foot is tan and is used to adhere to hard substrate and for
locomotion. The epipodium (the circular fringe of skin around the foot)
and tentacles are mottled yellow to dark tan with vertical banding
patterns. The maximum recorded shell length for pinto abalone is 190 mm
(see status review report). The maximum age is not known, but estimated
longevity of at least 15-20 years is reasonable for pinto abalone
(Shepherd et al. 2000, cited in Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2009)
Distribution
Of the seven species of abalone found along the west coast of North
America (Geiger 1999), pinto abalone have the broadest latitudinal
range, extending from Salisbury Sound, Sitka Island, Alaska to Bahia
Tortugas, Baja California, Mexico (Campbell 2000), and are the
predominant abalone found in Washington and Alaska, and in British
Columbia, Canada. Other than a few observations on the Oregon coast, we
are not aware of any records of pinto abalone along the outer coast of
Washington from Neah Bay to Cape Mendocino in California, indicating a
gap in the species distribution (Geiger 2000 and 2004 (ABMAP: http://www.vetigastropoda.com/ABMAP/NEPacific.html)).
Two subspecies of pinto abalone have been recognized by
taxonomists, based on differences in shell shape and pattern (McLean
1966). The northern form (Haliotis kamtschatkana kamtschatkana) is
generally distributed from Alaska south to Point Conception,
California. The southern form, or ``threaded abalone'' (Haliotis
kamtschatkana assimilis) is generally distributed from central
California to Turtle Bay in Baja California, Mexico (Geiger 1999). As
discussed below under ``the Species Question'' section of this notice,
recent evidence suggests that the two subspecies overlap throughout
their range, with examples of the northern form observed in Baja
California and examples of the southern form in British Columbia and
Washington.
Population Structure and Genetics
We are aware of only one published assessment of population
structure in H. kamtschatkana to date, conducted by Withler et al.
(2001). The assessment estimated variation at 12 microsatellite loci
for abalone sampled at 18 sites located throughout coastal British
Columbia and at one site in Sitka Sound, Alaska. The results indicated
a lack of differentiation among sites and suggest historically high
gene flow among populations within the region from British Columbia to
Alaska. This study is limited in that it only examines populations in
one part of the species range and uses one set of microsatellite loci;
however, it represents the best available information to date regarding
population structure.
Other studies have examined whether there is a genetic basis for
the delineation of two subspecies, which has been based entirely on
differences in shell morphology. Studies thus far have examined the
portions of the mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase subunit one
(COI) and cytochrome b (Cyt b), as well as the reproductive proteins
lysin and VERL (vitelline envelope receptor for lysin), and have found
no genetic differentiation between the two purported subspecies
(Gruenthal and Burton 2005, Straus 2010, Supernault et al. 2010,
Schwenke and Park, unpublished data cited in the status review report).
We discuss this further in the section of this notice titled ``the
Species Question.''
Habitat
Pinto abalone are generally found in rocky intertidal and subtidal
habitats with ample algal cover. The specific depth ranges and habitats
occupied vary across the species range, as described below. The species
occurs in areas with little freshwater influence (salinity >= 30 parts
per thousand), and can tolerate wide ranges in temperature, from 2 to
24 degrees Celsius, based on laboratory experiments (Paul and Paul
1998).
In the northern part of its range (e.g., Alaska to Washington), the
species occurs in shallower habitats ranging from the lower intertidal
to 20m deep relative to mean lower low water (MLLW); they are most
commonly found from the intertidal to 10m deep relative to MLLW
(Rothaus et al. 2008). In Alaska, pinto abalone are primarily found in
the lower intertidal and subtidal surge zones on the outer coast of
Southeast Alaska, as well as in the Inside Passage of southern
Southeast Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) comments
to NMFS, 17 January 2014). In British Columbia, pinto abalone occur on
rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats within areas ranging from
sheltered bays to exposed coastlines (COSEWIC 2009). In Washington, the
recorded depth range of pinto abalone is 3 to 20 m deep relative to
MLLW. Occupied habitats vary with respect to exposure and contain hard
substrate (bedrock and boulders/cobble) with ample quantities of
benthic diatoms and micro- and macro-algae.
In the southern part of the range, pinto abalone occur in deeper
subtidal waters from approximately 12 to 40 m deep relative to MLLW
(Geiger and Owen 2012) and are commonly found on open rock surfaces.
Distribution in areas along the Southern California mainland is patchy
and may be correlated with substrate type, relief, algal composition,
and the presence of intermittent sand channels that may
[[Page 78000]]
accumulate drift kelp (an important food source). Pinto abalone appear
to prefer flat rock over uneven rock, low relief with scattered rock
and boulders over high relief habitats, and areas with Pelagophycus
porra, Laminaria farlowii, Agarum fimbriatum, Pterygophora californica,
and coralline algae (articulated and crustose) (unpublished data from
Bill Hagey et al. and Melissa Neuman et al., cited in the status review
report). A recent study reported that in Mexico, H. k. assimilis and H.
sorenseni occurred at depths ranging from 11 to 25 m (relative to
MLLW), with the majority found between 13 to 15 m and 19 to 21 m deep,
although this may reflect a bias toward the depths that were visited
most frequently (Boch et al. 2014).
Movement
Little is known about movement patterns of larval or juvenile pinto
abalone anywhere in their range. The planktonic larval stage is short
(approximately 5-6 days; Olsen 1984, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988),
and thus dispersal is likely to be limited and almost certainly
determined primarily by patterns of water movement in nearshore
habitats near spawning sites. Larval settlement and metamorphosis in
pinto abalone is likely to be associated with chemical cues present in
crustose red algae, as has been found for red abalone (H. rufescens)
(Morse and Morse 1984). Small juvenile (<10 mm) pinto abalone are
difficult to find in the field, but are occasionally observed under
boulders and on smooth bedrock or boulders that are bare or encrusted
with coralline algae, mostly at deeper depths (e.g., -5 to -15 m) than
adults are typically found (Breen 1980a). Other grazers (e.g., sea
urchins, chitons, limpets, and adult abalone) may be important in
maintaining encrusting coralline algae (Sloan and Breen 1988).
To our knowledge there is no published information on direct
observations of movement behavior of small (<20 mm) juvenile pinto
abalone in the field. However, distribution patterns of juveniles and
adults indicate an ontogenetic shift in habitat use, with small
juveniles (<10 mm shell length) occupying highly cryptic habitats in
deeper waters and migrating to shallower depths and more exposed
habitats as they increase in size (Sloan and Breen 1988). This shift
may be associated with changes in diet (Sloan and Breen 1988) and
predation risk (Griffiths and Gosselin 2004) with size.
Movement generally decreases as individuals grow in size and age.
Tagging studies and observational surveys conducted in British Columbia
indicate that although adult pinto abalone have the ability to move
several meters a day and tens of meters in a year, they typically
exhibit minimal movement, likely staying within close proximity to
their settlement habitat (Sloan and Breen 1988). Laboratory and field
observations indicate that individuals tend to be more active at night
(Sloan and Breen 1988) and during the spawning season (spring through
summer months). Observations of spawning behavior in the wild (Breen
and Adkins 1980a) and in the laboratory (Quayle 1971) indicate that
pinto abalone form aggregations, stack on top of each other, and
migrate to the highest point available during spawning events. The
reason for this behavior is unknown, but may serve to increase
fertilization rates by aggregating spawners and increasing the chances
for the eggs to encounter sperm (which tend to be in the water column)
before they land on the bottom (Sloan and Breen 1988).
Diet
After a short 5-6 day lecithotrophic (non-feeding) larval phase
(Olsen 1984, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988), juveniles settle and
immediately begin feeding (Morse 1984; Morse and Morse 1984, cited in
Sloan and Breen 1988). Laboratory observations and gut content analyses
of hatchery-reared juveniles show that post-metamorphic juveniles graze
on minute benthic diatoms, microalgae, and bacteria associated with
encrusting coralline algae and rock surfaces (Olsen 1984, Norman-
Boudreau et al. 1986, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Juveniles may
also feed on the crustose coralline algae itself (Garland et al. 1985,
cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). These observations are consistent with
the microhabitats within which small juveniles are found in the wild
(smooth or crustose coralline encrusted bedrock and boulders) (Breen
1980a).
Juveniles shift to feeding on macroalgae as they grow in size and
age. Adults have been observed to feed directly on attached macroalgae
(Sloan and Breen 1988), but drift macroalgae is believed to be the
primary food resource (Breen 1980a). Laboratory studies indicate that
adults prefer Macrocystis and Nereocystis, but will feed on diatoms and
brown, red, and green algae, including Laminaria, Pterygophora, and
Costaria (Paul et al. 1977; unpublished data by Breen and unpublished
student reports by P. Gee and J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, cited in
Sloan and Breen 1988). Adults avoided Fucus distichus and Agarum
cribrosum (Paul et al. 1977; unpublished student reports by P. Gee and
J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Diet
composition likely varies by location within the species range,
depending on what is available.
Reproduction and Spawning Density
Although size at maturity can vary by location (depending on
factors such as water temperature and food availability and quality),
pinto abalone become emergent and are generally reproductively mature
at a size of about 50 mm shell length (SL) (about 2-5 years in age),
with all abalone mature at a size of about 70 mm SL (Leighton 1959,
Ault 1985, Campbell et al. 1992). Pinto abalone have separate sexes and
are ``broadcast'' spawners. Gametes from both parents are released into
the water, and fertilization is entirely external. Resulting embryos
and larvae are minute and defenseless, receive no parental care or
protection, and are subject to a broad array of physical and biological
sources of mortality. Like other species with a broadcast-spawning
reproductive strategy, abalone produce large numbers of gametes (e.g.,
millions of eggs or sperm per individual per year) to overcome high
mortality in early life stages and survive across generations. As
broadcast spawners, pinto abalone are also subject to selection for
other reproductive traits, such as spatial and temporal synchrony in
spawning and mechanisms to increase the probability of fertilization.
An important factor in successful reproduction is the density of
spawning adults. A reduction in adult density could result in increased
growth, survival, and gamete production due to decreased intraspecific
competition; however, for broadcast spawners, these advantages may be
countered by decreases in the rate of successful fertilization if
individuals are sparsely distributed (Levitan 1995, Levitan and Sewell
1998, Gascoigne and Lipcius 2004). A critical distance of 1 m has been
identified for abalone species; that is, it is estimated that
individuals of the opposite sex need to be within 1 m of one another to
increase the chances of successful fertilization (Babcock and Keesing
1999). Evidence for critical adult density thresholds below which
recruitment failure occurs has been found for broadcast-spawning
species across a broad taxonomic range, and a few estimates have been
developed for abalone species. Babcock and Keesing (1999) estimated
critical density thresholds at 0.15-0.20 per square meter (sq m) for
Haliotis laevigata Donovan, 1808. Shepherd et al. (2001) and Shepherd
and Rodda (2001) noted that these density thresholds can vary according
to coastal topography. For
[[Page 78001]]
example, coastal topography can create larval retention areas where
threshold density may be lower than in areas where larvae are more
easily dispersed. Neuman et al. (2010) reviewed recruitment patterns in
three long-term data sets for black abalone (H. cracherodii) in
California. In each case, recruitment failed when declining population
densities fell below 0.34 per sq m.
Critical density thresholds have not been estimated for pinto
abalone, but evidence suggests that the aggregative nature of the
species may facilitate successful reproduction despite low overall mean
densities. In 2009, Seamone and Boulding (2011) studied aggregation
characteristics during the spawning season at three sites in Barkley
Sound, BC. Mean densities at the study sites were 0.12, 0.48, and 0.64
abalone per sq m. Based on critical density thresholds estimated for
other abalone species, recruitment failure would be expected at the
site with a density of 0.12 per sq m. However, Seamone and Boulding
(2011) found that the mean distance between individual pinto abalone at
all three study sites was significantly less than 1.0 m, indicating
aggregation. These aggregations were independent of sex, and therefore,
the probability of encountering an individual of the opposite sex
increased with increasing overall mean density. Nonetheless, pinto
abalone at all three sites were sufficiently aggregated during the
spawning season to potentially increase fertilization rates and
compensate for low densities.
Populations at the San Juan Islands Archipelago in Washington do
appear to be experiencing recruitment failure (Rothaus et al. 2008).
There, the mean density of emergent abalone has declined from 0.18 per
sq m in 1992 to 0.01 per sq m in 2013 (Rothaus et al. 2008, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014), and the percentage of
emergent juveniles (<90mm SL) has also declined from 31.9 percent in
1979 to 7.1 percent in 2013 (WDFW 2014). However, there is evidence of
recent recruitment events in all other areas throughout the species'
range, despite low densities that are, in most areas, below the
critical density thresholds that have been estimated for other abalone
species (i.e., 0.15 to 0.34 adults per sq m).
In Alaska, density data are not available but ADF&G has observed
mixed age classes in some areas in Southeast Alaska, including
juveniles, indicating recent recruitment (pers. comm. with S. Walker,
ADF&G, cited in status review report). In British Columbia, recurring
and recent recruitment has been observed in several areas. Mean adult
densities at index sites have declined since the fishery closed in
1990, from 0.41 to 0.23 per sq m between 1989 and 2006 along the
Central Coast and from 0.27 to 0.15 per sq m between 1990 and 2007 at
Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). However, observations of small, immature
pinto abalone (<70 mm SL) indicate that recruitment has been occurring
despite low densities. In fact, densities of immature pinto abalone
have increased, from 0.14 to 0.18 per sq m between 1989 and 2006 along
the Central Coast and from 0.20 to 0.27 per sq m between 1990 and 2007
at Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). The 2011 surveys along the Central Coast
and 2012 surveys at Haida Gwaii show increases in both immature and
mature pinto abalone densities, with overall densities at most of the
sites meeting or exceeding the short-term recovery goal of 0.32 per sq
m established by Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2007)
(pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). The most recent
data for other areas in British Columbia indicate that mean densities
of emergent abalone (all sizes) vary greatly from 0.0098 per sq m on
the south coast of Vancouver Island in 2005 (DFO 2007) to 0.15 per sq m
at the Broken Group Islands in Barkley Sound in the early 2000s
(Tomascik and Holmes 2003). Tomascik and Holmes (2003) noted evidence
of recruitment, with juveniles making up 42 percent of the sampled
population.
In northern California, mean densities exceeded the critical
density thresholds estimated for other abalone species (Babcock and
Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010) in Sonoma County (data from 2007-
2012) and in Mendocino County (data from 2007-2013) at survey sites
deeper than 10 m (unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 24 April 2014). In addition,
smaller size classes of pinto abalone (15 to 49mm SL) were well
represented at the Mendocino County sites, indicating recent
recruitment (unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014).
In southern California, data from directed pinto abalone surveys as
well as opportunistic observations while surveying other abalone
species show low densities, ranging from 0.0002 per sq m at San Miguel
Island to 0.0286 per sq m at Point Loma in 2006-2012 (unpublished data,
I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 24 April 2014) and from 0 to 0.15 per sq m off San
Diego in pinto abalone surveys conducted in 2014 (unpublished data, A.
Bird, CSUF). Observations of small pinto abalone at Santa Cruz Island,
Point Loma, and at several other sites off San Diego indicate recent
recruitment events occurring despite low mean densities. In Mexico,
density data are generally not available except for a recent survey
conducted in 2012 on the El Rosario Coast (Boch et al. 2014). The
estimated density of pinto abalone was 0.0139 per sq m (NMFS 2014),
with the majority being small abalone 40-80mm SL, indicating that
recent recruitment has occurred (Boch et al. 2014).
Overall, although the available data indicate that mean densities
of pinto abalone in most areas are presently below the critical density
thresholds (as estimated for other abalone species), recurring and/or
recent recruitment events continue to be observed in areas throughout
the species' range. The ``Abundance'' section of this notice provides
more detail regarding pinto abalone abundance and trends. We note that
abalone appear to experience natural fluctuations in abundance and
reproductive success, which may be partly driven by environmental
variables. For example, Breen (1986) presents several examples of
natural declines and recovery in unfished stocks of pinto abalone and
other abalone species. Thus, we might expect population abundance and
recruitment levels to vary from year to year and across longer time
frames.
Larval Dispersal
Effective methods for marking and direct tracking of larval
movements do not exist (e.g., McShane et al. 1988). As a result, larval
dispersal distances are estimated using indirect methods, including (a)
examination of spatial relationships of newly recruited cohorts to
known aggregations of breeding adults (Prince et al. 1988); (b) the use
of molecular tools to evaluate the relatedness of adult populations and
newly recruited cohorts (Hamm and Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 2006);
and (c) the use of objects such as drift cards or drift bottles as
surrogates for larvae and collecting data on recovery times and
locations (e.g., Tegner and Butler 1985, Chambers et al. 2005, Hurn et
al. 2005). Each of these methods includes biases and sources of error
that must be considered when interpreting the results.
Because specific studies for pinto abalone are limited, we look to
the information that is available regarding dispersal distances for
other abalone species. Studies using the three methods discussed above
give consistent results indicating limited larval dispersal
[[Page 78002]]
distances in abalone species, including Haliotis cracherodii, rubra,
and rufescens (Prince et al. 1987 and 1988, McShane et al. 1988,
McShane 1992, Hamm and Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 2005 and 2006,
Gruenthal 2007, Gruenthal et al. 2007). Given that most abalone larvae
are in the plankton for a period of about 3-10 days before settlement
and metamorphosis (e.g., McShane 1992), it seems clear that abalone in
general have limited capacity for dispersal over distances beyond a few
kilometers and are able to do so only rarely. Available information on
the genetic structure of pinto abalone populations suggests that long-
distance dispersal events occur frequently enough to maintain high gene
flow among populations over distances of at least 1000 km (Withler et
al. 2001).
Larval Settlement and Recruitment
Studies on abalone settlement cues suggest that availability of
crustose coralline algae in appropriate habitats may be significant to
the success of the larval recruitment process in pinto abalone (Morse
and Morse 1984, Morse 1990, Morse 1992). Crustose coralline algae is
ubiquitous in rocky benthic habitats along the west coast of North
America, but an understanding of the processes that sustain these algal
populations has not been established to our knowledge. Field
observations along the British Columbia coast indicate differential
distribution of juveniles and adults, with juveniles observed at deeper
depths, suggesting that settlement of larvae occurs in deeper habitats
(Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, settlement may be influenced by other
environmental factors in addition to the presence of crustose coralline
algae.
Recruitment is defined here as the appearance in one or more
locations of measurable numbers of new post-metamorphic individuals.
Prince et al. (1987, 1988), McShane et al. (1988), and McShane (1992)
have presented evidence that recruitment of abalone is most likely to
occur in relatively close spatial proximity to aggregations of breeding
adults, at least in part a consequence of the relatively short duration
of the planktonic larval phase. Other data suggest that abalone
recruitment may be influenced by distribution of breeding adults,
densities of adults on a local scale, availability of benthic
recruitment substrata that provide appropriate chemical cues for
settlement and metamorphosis of larvae, regional and local flow regimes
that control larval dispersal from natal sites, and possibly predation
and starvation of larvae (Strathmann 1985, McShane et al. 1988, McShane
1992).
As discussed above (see ``Reproduction and Spawning Density''
section of this notice), data from index site surveys indicate that
populations in Washington are experiencing recruitment failure, whereas
populations in areas throughout the rest of the species' range have had
successful recruitment despite continued declines and low overall
densities in most areas. A study by Zhang et al. (2007) estimating
stock recruitment relationships for populations at Haida Gwaii and
along the Central Coast found that poaching, rather than lack of
recruitment, is an important factor limiting recovery in British
Columbia. This is corroborated by preliminary results from 2011 and
2012 surveys in these areas, showing an increase in population
densities that is most likely due to reduced poaching within these
areas (pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). There
is also evidence of recent recruitment events in northern California
(unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014), southern
California (unpublished data, I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 24 April 2014;
unpublished data, A. Bird, CSUF, and E. Parnell, UCSD/Scripps, cited in
status review report), and Mexico (Boch et al. 2014) from surveys
targeting pinto abalone as well as opportunistic observations on
surveys for other abalone species. ADF&G has observed mixed age classes
in some areas in Southeast Alaska, including juveniles (S. Walker,
pers. comm., cited in status review report).
We note that the cryptic nature of juvenile pinto abalone make the
detection of recruitment events difficult. Small juveniles (< 10 mm SL)
have occasionally been observed under boulders and on smooth bedrock or
boulders that are bare or encrusted with coralline algae (Breen 1980a).
Juveniles tend to occupy highly cryptic habitats in deeper waters
compared to adults (Sloan and Breen 1988). In surveys along the coast
of British Columbia, only 60 percent of juveniles 10-70 mm in size were
exposed, compared to 90 percent of individuals 70-90 mm size and almost
all individuals greater than 90 mm in size (Boutillier et al. 1985,
cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, recruitment events may be
occurring but going undetected in regions that are not surveyed on a
regular, consistent basis.
Growth
Because young post-metamorphic abalone are often cryptic in
coloration and habitat use, direct measurements of growth rate in the
field are difficult. As a result, much of the information available on
growth in pinto abalone come from lab studies and growth models.
Available data on pinto abalone growth in captive settings suggest
that young animals reach sizes of about 22 mm SL (range 8-32 mm SL) in
their first year (Olsen 1984), then grow at rates of approximately 18
mm per year for the next several years (Sloan and Breen 1988). Growth
begins to slow at lengths of about 50 mm SL, corresponding to the onset
of sexual maturity. Growth appears to vary based on many factors
besides age, including location, water temperature, season, food
availability and quality, and exposure to wave action. The maximum
recorded shell lengths for pinto abalone are 165 mm (Breen 1980a) and
190 mm (see status review report).
Mortality
The status review report provides a detailed review of mortality in
abalone, taken largely from Shepherd and Breen's (1992) review. We
summarize the information here. Early life stages of abalone,
particularly the larval stages, likely experience high mortality rates
even in pristine settings. For larval stages, factors contributing to
mortality include inappropriate oceanographic conditions (e.g.,
temperature, salinity) and habitats as well as predation. Little is
known regarding mortality for newly-metamorphosed and small (<40-50 mm
shell length) abalone, but habitat disturbances and predation may
contribute to mortality (see status review report).
Larger, emergent abalone (>40-50 mm shell length) face mortality
from human removal, disease, predation, variation in food supply,
physical disturbance, and pollution. Human removal of pinto abalone
occurs through commercial, recreational, and subsistence harvest;
purposeful illegal harvest; and accidental lethal injury. We discuss
fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for commercial, recreational, and
subsistence purposes in more detail under the ``Abundance'' section of
this notice. Predation by sea otters has been highlighted as an
important factor contributing to the continued decline of pinto abalone
populations in places like Alaska where sea otter populations are
increasing (ADF&G comments to NMFS, 17 January 2014). Other sources of
natural mortality include diseases such as withering syndrome,
ganglioneuritis (and the related amyotrophia), vibriosis, and shell
deformities (sabellidosis). These sources of mortality and their impact
on the species are discussed in more detail in the ``Summary of Factors
[[Page 78003]]
Affecting the Species'' section later in this document.
Abundance
There are two types of data that can be examined to provide a
better understanding of variation in pinto abalone abundance over time:
fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Due to the general lack
of formal data, we also include observations reported by individuals or
groups of people. We summarize the available information by region
(Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Mexico),
because both species abundance and the level of information available
vary by geographic region. The status review report provides a more
detailed account of the available information for each region.
Alaska
Several fisheries for pinto abalone have existed in Alaska,
including a commercial fishery and sport fishery (both of which are now
closed) and personal use and subsistence fisheries (both of which are
still in operation). Data are not available on the number of pinto
abalone taken in the fisheries, but trends in commercial fisheries
harvest levels indicate a decline in pinto abalone, with harvest in
Southeast Alaska falling from a peak of 378,685 lbs in 1979/1980 to a
low of 14,352 lbs in 1995/1996 (the fishery closed in 1995; Rumble and
Hebert 2011). Between the 1993/1994 season and 1994/1995 season,
harvest per unit effort for the fishery was estimated to have declined
by 64 percent (Rumble and Hebert 2011).
Commercial harvest of pinto abalone in Southeast Alaska began in
the 1960s with a significant increase in effort and harvest in the late
1970s and early 1980s, followed by a steep decline in catch in the late
1980s and 1990s (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The increase in effort can be
attributed in large part to an increase in value from less than one
dollar per pound in the early 1970s to greater than six dollars per
pound in 1993-1994 (Woodby et al. 2000). Harvest peaked at 378,685
pounds in 1979-1980, followed by a decline in harvest that was likely
due in part to declines in pinto abalone abundance as well as changes
in regulations to limit the fishery, including harvest limits and area
and seasonal closures (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The commercial fishery
for pinto abalone was closed in 1995 and remains closed (Woodby et al.
2000). Commercial harvest was primarily conducted using scuba or hookah
dive gear in the subtidal zone, though pinto abalone can be picked by
hand in the intertidal zone during extreme low tides (Rumble and Hebert
2011).
Data from the subsistence abalone fishery are available from 1972
to 1997 and indicate a significant decline (98 percent decrease) in the
subsistence harvest from an average of 350-397 pinto abalone per
household in 1972 to an average of 3-9 pinto abalone per household in
1997 (Bowers et al. 2011). Subsistence harvest of pinto abalone in
Alaska is believed to remain low (ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January
2014). In 2012, the Alaska Board of Fisheries reduced the daily bag
limit for subsistence harvest to 5 abalone, with no closed season and
no annual limit (Bowers et al. 2011). Prior to 2012, the daily bag
limit for subsistence harvest was 50 abalone. The minimum size limit is
3.5 inches and legal harvest methods include snorkel equipment, abalone
irons, or collection by hand. Scuba and hookah diving for subsistence
abalone harvest has been prohibited since 1996.
Abalone harvest has also occurred in the sport abalone fishery (for
non-residents) and personal use abalone fishery (for state residents),
but data on trends in harvest are not available. In the sport fishery,
the daily bag limit was 5 abalone per day (minimum size: 3.5 inches),
with no closed season. Scuba and hookah gear were allowed until 1996.
The Alaska Board of Fisheries closed the sport abalone fishery in 2012
and it remains closed to present. In the personal use abalone fishery,
the daily bag limit was 50 abalone per person (except in one area
around Sitka where the daily bag limit was 20 abalone per person), with
a minimum size limit of 3.5 inches and no closed season. In 2012, the
Alaska Board of Fisheries reduced the daily bag limit to 5 abalone per
person. Scuba and hookah diving were allowed until 1996. The personal
use abalone fishery remains open, but harvest is believed to be low
(ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January 2014).
There are limited fishery-independent data on pinto abalone
populations in Alaska. No long-term monitoring of pinto abalone
populations in Alaska has been conducted. However, observations of
pinto abalone have been made by ADF&G biologists while conducting dive
surveys to monitor other benthic invertebrate species for management
purposes. From 1996 to 2000, about 125 to almost 250 pinto abalone were
observed per year during red sea urchin dive surveys; in 2001, the
number observed dropped to about 50 pinto abalone, and in 2002-2011,
fewer than 20 pinto abalone were observed per year (ADF&G comments to
NMFS, 17 January 2014). These observations suggest a continued decline
in pinto abalone populations since closure of the commercial fishery.
ADF&G noted an increase in empty abalone shells observed on red sea
urchin survey transects in Southeast Alaska between 2001 and 2012
(pers. comm. with K. Hebert, ADF&G). These observations are coincident
with increased sea otter abundance in Southeast Alaska and suggest that
sea otters are having an impact on pinto abalone abundance where the
two species overlap (pers. comm. with K. Hebert, ADF&G). The one
exception to this observed pattern is in Sitka Sound, where sea otters
and a small population of pinto abalone appear to co-exist (pers. comm.
with K. Hebert, ADF&G). ADF&G has observed mixed age classes in some
areas in Southeast Alaska, including juveniles (S. Walker, pers.
comm.).
British Columbia
Although also limited, data are available from both fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent sources regarding the abundance of
pinto abalone in British Columbia, making this region relatively data
rich compared to other regions of the coast. The available data
indicate a decline in pinto abalone populations during and even after
closure of abalone fisheries, with signs of increases in abundance in
the past five years attributed to a reduction in poaching.
Harvest of pinto abalone has a long history in British Columbia.
Pinto abalone were harvested in commercial, recreational, and
traditional First Nations food, social, and ceremonial fisheries. Prior
to the advent of scuba gear around 1960, abalone harvest by First
Nations and recreational fishers occurred primarily at low tide by
shore picking (Farlinger and Campbell 1992), although some First
Nations used a two-pronged spear to take abalone as deep as 2 m below
the lowest tide (Jones 2000). After the advent of scuba gear, the
recreational fishery became widespread along the coast (Farlinger and
Campbell 1992). No landing statistics are available for either the
First Nations or recreational fisheries (Sloan and Breen 1988,
Farlinger and Campbell 1992). However, during the recreational fishery
in 1983, McElderry and Richards (1984) estimated that scuba divers in
the Strait of Georgia collected 1,172 pinto abalone per thousand sport
dives and that between 76,000 and 172,000 recreational dives occurred
in that year in the Canadian portion of the Strait of Georgia.
[[Page 78004]]
The commercial abalone fishery began in British Columbia as early
as 1889 as a small, local, and sporadic fishery (Mowat 1890), but
expanded significantly in the 1970s when landings increased to nearly
60 metric tons (mt) in 1972 and then to 273 mt in 1976 (Federenko and
Sprout 1982). Commercial landings peaked at over 480 and 400 mt in 1977
and 1978, but dropped to about 200 mt in 1979 when a quota was put in
place for the first time. Landings leveled out to between 44 and 47 mt
under quota management and numerous other management actions taken
following 1977 (Sloan and Breen 1988). Reasons for the increase in
abalone harvest in the 1970's include the advent of scuba and dry-
diving suits, allowing more diver submergence time; the advent of on-
board boat freezers; emergence of a market in Japan for pinto abalone;
tripling of the price per pound between 1972 and 1976 to over three
Canadian dollars per pound; restricted access to salmon and herring
fisheries; and unrestricted access to the abalone fishery prior to 1977
(Sloan and Breen 1988, Farlinger and Campbell 1992). All pinto abalone
fisheries in British Columbia were closed in December 1990 due to
observed declines and overall low population levels (Egli and Lessard
2011) and remain closed to date.
Breen (1986) estimated that at the beginning of 1976 the abalone
stock stood at 1,800 mt in areas that were open to harvest (closed
areas (Fedorenko and Sprout 1982): Juan Perez Sound, Lower Johnstone
Strait, Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de Fuca). By the end of
1980, the stock size had been reduced to an estimated 450 mt (Breen
1986). The SRT attempted to estimate the number of individual pinto
abalone landed each year from 1952-1990 in the commercial fishery,
based on landed biomass and the predicted mean weight of legal-sized
northern abalone (>= 90 mm from 1952-1976 and >= 100 mm after 1976). An
estimated 2.5 million abalone were harvested in 1977, with at least a
million abalone harvested each year from 1976 to 1979 and over 240,000
harvested each year during the last decade of the fishery (see status
review report). Most of the commercial harvest occurred at Haida Gwaii
(formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands) and along the North
Coast (Sloan and Breen 1988, Egli and Lessard 2011).
Fishery-independent data for pinto abalone in British Columbia
primarily consist of data from index site surveys conducted by the DFO
since 1978, although some data exist for the period prior to the 1970s
(i.e., prior to when the fishery expanded significantly). Surveys from
the early 1900's indicate pinto abalone were present in sufficient
numbers for harvesting around Haida Gwaii and in Queen Charlotte Sound
(Thompson 1914). Exploratory surveys conducted in the same areas in
1955 found few pinto abalone in southeastern Haida Gwaii, and many
areas with no abalone, indicating a decline in the region's population
(Quayle 1962, Sloan and Breen 1988). In contrast, surveys conducted in
1978 in the same area found few sites with no abalone and an estimated
density of 0.58 legal-sized abalone per sq m with an overall mean
density of 2.5 abalone per sq m (Breen and Adkins 1979, Sloan and Breen
1988). Breen (1986) attributed these differences between surveys in
1914, 1955, and 1978 to natural variation in pinto abalone abundance,
rather than to differences in survey methods or observer experience.
Pinto abalone were previously not thought to occur in the Strait of
Georgia (formerly known as the Gulf of Georgia) (Thompson 1914), but
have since been found there, though relatively scarce compared to other
areas in British Columbia and only at depths of 7m or greater (Quayle
1962, Sloan and Breen 1988).
DFO index site surveys for pinto abalone have been conducted every
4-5 years since 1978, providing valuable time series and size frequency
data. Surveys at Haida Gwaii and along the North and Central Coast
began in 1978, and on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, Queen
Charlotte Strait, and the Strait of Georgia in 2003 and 2004. The
status review report summarizes the best available data on pinto
abalone abundance and trends from these surveys. The data indicate that
although recruitment is occurring, the density of mature adults
(defined as pinto abalone [gteqt] 100 mm SL for the purposes of the
index site surveys) has been declining, either due to a high rate of
juvenile mortality before they reach maturity or due to a high rate of
adult mortality that is offsetting juvenile survival (COSEWIC 2009).
Densities of immature abalone have increased by 29 percent at the
Central Coast sites since 1989 and by 35 percent at the Haida Gwaii
sites since 1990, whereas densities of mature abalone have declined by
about 44 percent since 1990 (the year the abalone fisheries closed)
(COSEWIC 2009).
Overall, the survey data from 1978 to 2009 indicate that mature
abalone densities declined by 88-89 percent and total abalone densities
have declined by 81-83 percent at the Central Coast and Haida Gwaii
sites (COSEWIC 2009). However, preliminary results from more recent
surveys in 2011 and 2012 indicate signs of increasing populations,
potentially due to reductions in illegal take. In 2009, abalone were
found at 41 percent of the 34 sites surveyed in Queen Charlotte Strait,
with an overall density of 0.109 per sq m and a mature abalone density
of 0.072 per sq m (Lessard and Egli 2011). These densities were four
times greater than the densities found in 2004 and indicate that
abalone populations in Queen Charlotte Strait are stable (Lessard and
Egli 2011). Results from the 2011 surveys along the Central Coast show
an increase in the mean density of abalone (all sizes) and a decrease
in the estimated mortality rate between 2006 and 2011 (pers. comm. with
J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). The density of mature abalone (>=
70 mm shell length) was at or above the short-term recovery objective
of 0.32 abalone per sq m (as defined in DFO's 2007 Recovery Strategy
for pinto abalone) at 6 of the 8 index survey sites and above the long-
term goal of one abalone per sq m at one site (pers. comm. with J.
Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). Similarly, results from the 2012
surveys at Haida Gwaii indicate an increase in the mean density of both
immature and mature abalone and a decrease in the estimated mortality
rate between 2007 and 2012, as well as densities of mature abalone (>=
70 mm shell length) at or above the recovery objective of 0.32 abalone
per sq m at 5 of the 9 index survey sites (pers. comm. with Joanne
Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). Evidence of successful juvenile
recruitment throughout the years and these recent increases in adult
abundance and density indicate that removing or reducing illegal
harvest to minimal levels would likely allow populations to rebuild.
However, with the continued spread of sea otters in the region,
populations are not expected to return to levels observed during the
1970s when sea otters were absent from the region (COSEWIC 2009).
Washington
Data on abundance and trends in pinto abalone populations in
Washington are limited to fishery-independent data from timed swim and
index site surveys. Although estimates of recreational harvest are
available, they do not provide information on trends in abundance over
time. Overall, the survey data indicate that populations in Washington
have declined over time, despite closure of the fisheries in 1994, and
local recruitment failure may be occurring.
Fishery-dependent data for Washington are limited. Washington has
never had a commercial fishery for pinto abalone. Subsistence harvest
by
[[Page 78005]]
indigenous peoples and early residents reportedly occurred, but the
magnitude and extent of the fishery are not well documented (WDFW
2014). Pinto abalone were first recognized as a recreationally
harvestable shellfish with a daily possession limit of 3 abalone by
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) orders first published in 1959.
Between 1959 and when the recreational fishery was closed in 1994, the
possession limit fluctuated between 3 and 5 abalone per day and several
other measures, including minimum size limits and gear restrictions,
were imposed to manage the fishery.
Although recreational harvest records were not collected, some
estimates of annual harvest are available from compilations of
recreational sport diver interviews, returned questionnaires, diver
logbook records, and information from dive clubs (Bargmann 1984,
Gesselbracht 1991). In the early 1980s, approximately 91 percent of
pinto abalone harvest occurred in the North Puget Sound region,
including the San Juan Islands Archipelago, and the remainder occurred
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and just north of Admiralty Inlet
(Bargmann 1984). Bargmann (1984) estimated that sport divers harvested
34,800 and 3,400 pinto abalone annually from the North Sound and the
Strait/Admiralty regions, respectively, based on data over the period
from April 1982 to March 1983. Gesselbracht (1991, cited in WDFW 2014)
estimated that 40,934 pinto abalone were harvested annually, based on
interviews with sport divers from September 1989 to August 1990.
Fishery-independent data are available from timed swim and index
site surveys in the San Juan Islands Archipelago. Both sets of data
indicate continuing declines in pinto abalone populations since the
fisheries closed in 1994. From 1979-1981, WDFW conducted timed swim
surveys (designed to quantify pinto abalone abundance) at 30 sites,
with a mean encounter rate of about 1.1 pinto abalone per minute or
25.5 pinto abalone per dive (WDFW 2014). These were likely
underestimates of pinto abalone abundance, because swim times were not
adjusted for the time taken to measure abalone size (WDFW 2014). In
contrast, WDFW divers encountered an average of about 1.1 abalone per
dive across all 30 sites in 2010-2011, indicating a reduction in
encounter rate of about 96 percent (WDFW 2014). This reduction in the
encounter rate of pinto abalone per dive indicates a decline in pinto
abalone density among the 30 survey sites. In 2005, Rogers-Bennett et
al. (2007 and 2011) surveyed 10 sites in the San Juan Islands
Archipelago where pinto abalone populations were abundant in the past,
and found only 17 pinto abalone (range in shell length = 75-142 mm); 14
of those abalone were found at just two sites. This number was
substantially lower than the number of pinto abalone found at the sites
in 1979 by WDFW (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2011). Index site surveys show
similar declines in pinto abalone densities around the San Juan Islands
Archipelago. From 1992 to 2013, WDFW has conducted periodic surveys at
10 index sites, originally selected in areas known to have high pinto
abalone abundance. The mean density at the 10 index sites declined from
0.18 abalone per sq m in 1992 to 0.04 abalone per sq m in 2006 (Rothaus
et al. 2008) and 0.01 abalone per sq m in 2013 (WDFW 2014).
Recent data suggests limited recruitment is occurring in the San
Juan Islands Archipelago. The proportion of emergent juvenile pinto
abalone (shell length < 90mm) seen during index site surveys has
declined from 31.8 percent in 1979 to 17.4 percent in 1992, and most
recently to 7.1 percent in 2013 (WDFW 2014). In addition, only four
emergent and three juvenile abalone were observed on 60 abalone
recruitment modules deployed in August and September 2004 (Bouma et al.
2012). The mean size of pinto abalone has also increased by an average
of 0.5 mm per year, from about 97.6 mm in 1979 (measured during timed
swim surveys; n=755) to about 118.4 mm in 2013 (measured during index
site surveys; n=56) (WDFW 2014). This increase indicates a trend in the
populations from smaller, young abalone to a higher proportion of
larger and presumably older individuals, again suggesting that little
to no recruitment has occurred in recent years.
Pinto abalone have been observed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but
no data are available regarding trends in abundance (WDFW 2014). We are
also not aware of any documented observations of pinto abalone on the
outer coast of Washington, south of Portage Head (located just south of
Cape Flattery).
Oregon
Little information is available on pinto abalone presence along the
Oregon coast. Recreational harvest of abalone is allowed in Oregon
(limits: One abalone per day and five abalone per year), but the
minimum size limit of 8 inches (203.2 mm) essentially excludes pinto
abalone from this fishery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) recreational shellfish regulations at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/regulations.asp, accessed: 27 August
2014). Pinto abalone are believed to be naturally rare in Oregon, with
only occasional shells being found (Reimers and Snow 1975). The first
confirmed live pinto abalone in Oregon was observed in 2009 at Orford
Reef by an urchin diver (pers. comm. with Scott Groth, ODFW, cited in
NMFS 2009). The animal was about 100 mm in size, found at a depth of 20
m with no other abalone observed nearby (pers. comm. with Scott Groth,
ODFW, on 26 June 2014). Since 2009, the same urchin diver has spotted
about four more live pinto abalone on Orford Reef and another urchin
diver found one live pinto abalone in Nellies Cove, near Port Orford
(pers. comm. with Scott Groth, ODFW, on 26 June 2014). No directed
surveys for pinto abalone have been conducted in Oregon, and we are not
aware of any other information on pinto abalone presence or abundance
in Oregon waters.
California
In California, estimates of baseline (i.e., abundance prior to
overfishing) and modern pinto abalone abundances have been made using
both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Both indicate a
decline in population abundance from the 1970s to 2000s. As noted
below, however, there is some uncertainty associated with these
estimates. Data from surveys focused on pinto abalone are limited, but
recent efforts are providing preliminary data on population abundances
and densities along the California coast.
Harvest of abalone in California has occurred for thousands of
years, with modern commercial and recreational fisheries beginning in
the late 1890s and early 1900s, respectively. CDFW (formerly CDFG)
landings records indicate that pinto abalone were landed at the
Farallon Islands, Point Montara, Point Buchon, Point Conception, the
Northern and Southern Channel Islands, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and
the offshore banks from 1950-1997 (CDFG 2005). Pinto abalone is not
considered a major component of the commercial or recreational abalone
catch (CDFW 2005); however, fishing pressure led to decreased landings
from a peak of approximately 10,000 pounds (4.5 mt) in 1974 to less
than 500 pounds (0.2 mt) by the 1980s. If a dozen pinto abalone weighed
about 15 pounds (Pinkas 1974, cited in Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002),
then 10,000 pounds would equal about 8,000 pinto abalone and 500 pounds
would equal about 400 pinto abalone. CDFW closed all commercial and
recreational abalone fisheries south of San Francisco
[[Page 78006]]
in 1997. In 1999, CDFW effectively excluded pinto abalone from the red
abalone recreational fishery north of San Francisco by increasing the
minimum legal size limit to 178 mm for all species (Rogers-Bennett et
al. 2002). CDFW has since revised their regulations to specifically
prohibit harvest of pinto abalone in this fishery.
Rogers-Bennett et al. (2002) estimated baseline abundance for H. k.
assimilis using landings data from the peak of the commercial and
recreational fisheries (1971-1980). The baseline minimum estimate of
abundance for H. k. assimilis prior to overexploitation was 21,000
animals. After 1980, only 66 pinto abalone were landed, suggesting a
decline of 99.6 percent over a 10-year period. This baseline abundance
estimate of 21,000 animals provides a historical perspective on
patterns in abundance. However, it is important to note that this
estimate was based on data from a time period when pinto abalone
abundances may have been higher than usual due to the decline of sea
otters along the California coast. Thus, this estimate may overestimate
the true baseline abundances that existed prior to the abalone fishery
and the exploitation of sea otters.
Using estimated densities and suitable rocky habitat derived from
data collected in 1971 and 1975, Rogers-Bennett et al. (2002) also
estimated baseline abundance for H. k. kamtschatkana in northern
California as 153,000 animals. This estimate had large 95 percent
confidence intervals (CIs; upper = 341,000; lower = 29,000) because of
the patchy nature of the abundance data and limited sampling. A modern
estimate of 18,000 abalone (95 percent CI: 13,000-22,000) was derived
from data collected in 1999-2000 at five sites in Mendocino County and
indicates an estimated 10-fold decline in abundance between the 1970s
and 1999-2000 (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002).
CDFW conducted dive surveys at multiple sites in Mendocino County
from 2007-2013 and in Sonoma County from 2007-2012 (L. Rogers-Bennett,
CDFW, unpublished data, 24 April 2014). At sites deeper than 10 m, the
mean densities exceeded the critical density thresholds for successful
reproduction that have been estimated for other abalone species
(Babcock and Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010). Smaller size classes
were observed, indicating that recent recruitment has occurred, despite
limited observations of juveniles in abalone recruitment modules
deployed from 2001-2014 in northern California.
In Southern California, there have been few reports of pinto
abalone from 1970-2000. In 1974, CDFW conducted timed SCUBA surveys at
the Northern Channel Islands (focusing on all abalone species) and
found 53 individuals at San Miguel Island, 10 at Santa Rosa Island, and
18 off Santa Cruz Island (Ian Taniguchi, CDFW, unpublished data, 24
April 2014). The National Park Service, which has been conducting
surveys at the Channel Islands since 1982, observed pinto abalone for
the first time in 2001 (pers. comm. with David Kushner, NPS, cited in
Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002). From 2006-2012, a number of entities
observed pinto abalone during surveys that did not necessarily focus on
pinto abalone but occurred in habitats suitable for them. These
observations indicate that densities are low (ranging from 0.0002 to
0.0286 pinto abalone per sq m), but that recent recruitment has
occurred in at least two locations (Santa Cruz Island and Point Loma)
(Ian Taniguchi, CDFW, unpublished data, 24 April 2014).
Recently, reports of pinto abalone off San Diego have been more
common. In most areas that are surveyed, reports range from a few
individuals to up to several dozen abalone, including a wide size range
(see status review report). Preliminary data from surveys conducted off
San Diego in summer 2014 indicate densities of 0 to 0.015 pinto abalone
per sq m, including animals ranging in size from 13 to 151 mm SL
(Amanda Bird, CSUF, unpublished data). Densities are well below the
estimated threshold values needed for successful recruitment (Babcock
and Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010). However, the presence of small
animals and observations of most (> 50 percent) of animals in pairs
within four meters of one another indicate that the species is
extremely patchy, and that densities recorded on a per sq m basis may
not be the best metric for evaluating population viability.
Mexico
Little information is available on pinto abalone distribution and
abundance in Mexico. Because pinto abalone and white abalone overlap in
range and are difficult to distinguish morphologically, the two species
are often grouped and reported on together. In Mexico, the abalone
fishery has been operating since the 1860s (Croker 1931) and is still
operating, but modern commercial harvests did not develop until the
1940s. Historically, the fishery primarily harvested H. fulgens and H.
corrugata, but H. kamtschatkana/sorenseni were also considered
relatively abundant and harvested.
A recent collaborative study was conducted in August 2012 as a
preliminary assessment of abalone species in the nearshore at El
Rosario, Baja California, and provided density data on pinto and white
abalone in five survey areas (Boch et al. 2014). Pinto and white
abalone were grouped and referred to as a two species complex in the
study, due to similarities in shell morphology and possibly
misidentification by observers. However, the authors estimated that 75
percent of the abalone in this group were pinto abalone (H. k.
assimilis) (pers. comm. with C. Boch, Stanford University). The survey
included twenty-four transects, each covering a 400 sq sq m area within
depths of 11-25 m. A total of 178 H. k. assimilis/sorenseni were found,
ranging in size from 40 to 240 mm SL, with the majority ranging in size
from 40 to 180 mm. Assuming that 75 percent of these were likely H. k.
assimilis, the estimated density of H. k. assimilis for the study area
would be 0.0139 per sq m. Recent recruitment was evident in at least
one area where the population consisted primarily of animals ranging
from 40 to 80 mm in size.
The ``Species'' Question
The ESA defines a species as ``any species or subspecies of
wildlife or plants, or any distinct population segment of any species
of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The
pinto abalone is a marine invertebrate species that has been
taxonomically subdivided into two subspecies: Haliotis kamtschatkana
kamtschatkana (i.e., the northern form that is described as ranging
from Sitka Island, Alaska to Point Conception, California), and
Haliotis kamtschatkana assimilis (i.e., the southern form that is
described as ranging from Monterey, California to Turtle Bay, Baja
California, Mexico) (McLean 1966). The two subspecies were initially
described as separate species by Jonas (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in 1845
and Dall (Haliotis assimilis) in 1878. McLean (1966) argued that the
two previously described species were unique forms, or subspecies,
representing geographic extremes of a single species, with differences
in shell morphology likely related to varying environmental conditions
along a latitudinal gradient within the species' range. Geiger (1999)
upheld the subspecies classification scheme based on the morphological
descriptions of shells provided by McLean (1966) and also maintained
the subspecies range descriptions as described above.
More recently, two lines of evidence have raised uncertainty
regarding the taxonomic structure of pinto abalone as
[[Page 78007]]
consisting of two subspecies. First, none of the genetic tools and
analyses conducted to date have been able to confirm a discernible
difference between H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. assimilis. Studies
conducted thus far tend to indicate high intraspecific (within species)
variability in pinto abalone, depending on the gene sequenced, but no
genetic differentiation between subspecies. One highly conserved
portion of the genome that has been investigated and that geneticists
would have expected to be different between subspecies, is the area
that controls the production of the reproductive proteins lysin and
VERL (vitelline envelope receptor for lysin). Supernault et al. (2010)
examined this portion of the genome for forensic analyses of
northeastern Pacific abalone species. Results indicated that all
species recognized on the basis of morphological differences have been
confirmed to be distinct on the basis of genetic sequences, with only
the two subspecies, H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. assimilis,
indistinguishable through molecular analysis. Gruenthal and Burton
(2005) had similar results, concluding H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k.
assimilis were statistically indistinguishable at sequenced portions of
the mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase subunit one (COI) and
cytochrome b (CytB), as well as VERL, although the sample sizes were
small. Straus (2010) also found no statistically significant
differences in either COI or lysin, stating that the two subspecies
share identical sequences at both mitochondrial and nuclear loci and
cannot be differentiated. Most recently, Schwenke and Park (unpublished
data, cited in the status review report) constructed bootstrapped
neighbor-joining trees of new and archived mitochondrial COI and VERL
sequences, finding that VERL is currently the best marker available to
resolve the most closely related abalone species group found along the
Northeastern Pacific coast (white, pinto, flat, and red), whereas COI
separates this group from the remaining species (i.e. black, pink, and
green; pers. comm. with P. Schwenke, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, cited in status review report). Again, however, neither marker
provided subspecies level resolution. Thus, to date, the subspecies
remain indistinguishable at the molecular level, although future
analyses using newer methods that search the entire genome (such as
single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) may be able to find genetic
support for the delineation of the two putative subspecies.
Second, collections from several shell collectors contain multiple
examples of the southern form (H. k. assimilis) in British Columbia and
Washington and of the northern form (H. k. kamtschatkana) in Baja
California, Mexico, as well as multiple specimens collected from both
the northern and southern portion of the species' range that exhibit
morphologies representative of both subspecies (pers. comm. with B.
Owen and A. Rafferty, cited in status review report). We recognize that
shell collections may not represent a random sample of shells from the
population and that these shells may constitute a relatively small
population of outliers in the wild. Despite this, these examples
suggest that the range overlap between the two putative subspecies is
much more extensive than was previously thought (Canada to Mexico,
rather than just along the central California coast) and that this
degree of overlap (approximately 80 percent of the species' range) does
not meet the definition of subspecies as allopatric populations
(Futuyma 1986).
The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the pinto abalone should
be considered as one species throughout its range for the purposes of
the status review. This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence
for species divergence at the molecular level, the degree of overlap
between the subspecies, and the fact that there are other examples of
marine invertebrate species with broad geographic ranges (e.g., ochre
and bat stars) and/or pronounced morphological plasticity (e.g.,
periwinkle snails) extending on the order of 1,000s of kilometers. We
do not reject the possible existence of pinto abalone subspecies.
However, the lack of genetic, geographic, or ecological justification
for treating the two subspecies as separate species led the SRT to
consider the status of the species and its extinction risk throughout
its range from Alaska to Mexico.
Assessment of Risk of Extinction
Approach to Extinction Risk Assessment
The ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' A threatened species is ``any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, we interpret an
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not
presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the
primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered
species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction,
either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
To evaluate whether the pinto abalone meets the definition of
threatened or endangered, we considered the best available information
and applied professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced
by the species. We evaluated both demographic risks, such as low
abundance and productivity, and threats to the species including those
related to the factors specified by the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E). In
a separate evaluation (see the ``Efforts Being Made to Protect the
Species'' section below), we also considered conservation efforts being
made to protect the species.
As described above, we convened an SRT, comprised of nine fishery
biologists and abalone experts from the NMFS West Coast and Alaska
Regions, the NMFS Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers,
NMFS Office of Science and Technology, the National Park Service, and
the U.S. Geological Survey/University of Washington. The SRT was asked
to review the best available information on the species and to evaluate
the overall risk of extinction facing pinto abalone now and in the
foreseeable future. The ability to measure or document risk factors for
pinto abalone is limited and the available information is often not
quantitative, or less than ideal. Therefore, in assessing risk, we
included both qualitative and quantitative information and modeled the
assessment on the approaches used in previous NMFS status reviews to
organize and summarize the professional judgment of the SRT members.
The SRT first performed a threats assessment for pinto abalone by
scoring the severity and scope of threats to the species, as well as
the time frame over which the threats are affecting the species and the
level of data that is available regarding the threats and their
effects. The SRT considered past factors for decline, as well as
present and future threats faced by the species. Detailed definitions
of these risk scores can be found in the status review report. The
results of this threats assessment are summarized below under ``Summary
of Factors Affecting the Species.''
The SRT then assessed the demographic risks for pinto abalone. The
SRT considered demographic
[[Page 78008]]
information reflecting the past and present condition of pinto abalone
populations. This information is detailed in the status review report
and summarized above under the ``Background'' section of this notice,
and included the best available information on population abundance or
density, population trends and growth rates, the number and
distribution of populations, exchange rates of individuals among
populations, and the ecological, life history, or genetic diversity
among populations. In some cases, information was not available or
severely limited.
As in previous NMFS status reviews, the SRT analyzed the collective
condition of individual populations at the species level according to
four demographic risk criteria: Abundance, growth rate/productivity,
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These four general
viability criteria, reviewed in McElhany et al. (2000), reflect
concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology, are generally
applicable to a wide variety of species, and describe demographic risks
that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of
extinction risk. The SRT's methods and conclusions for the demographic
risk assessment are described in more detail below in the ``Analysis of
Demographic Risk'' section of this notice.
The SRT members were then asked to make an overall extinction risk
determination for pinto abalone now and in the foreseeable future. For
this analysis, the SRT considered the best available information
regarding the status of the species along with the results of the
threats assessment and demographic risk analysis. The SRT defined five
levels of overall extinction risk: No/Very Low risk, Low risk, Moderate
risk, High risk, and Very High risk. To allow individuals to express
uncertainty in determining the overall level of extinction risk facing
the species, the SRT adopted the ``likelihood point'' (Forest Ecosystem
Management Assessment Team, or FEMAT, 1993) method, in which each SRT
member distributed 10 `likelihood points' among the five levels of
risks. The scores were then tallied and summarized. This approach has
been used in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., for Pacific salmon,
rockfish in Puget Sound, Pacific herring, black abalone, scalloped
hammerhead) to structure the team's analysis and express levels of
uncertainty when assigning risk categories.
The SRT did not make recommendations as to whether the species
should be listed as threatened or endangered, or if it did not warrant
listing. Rather, the SRT drew scientific conclusions about the overall
risk of extinction faced by pinto abalone under present conditions and
in the foreseeable future (defined as 30 years and 100 years) based on
an evaluation of the species' demographic risks and assessment of
threats. NMFS considered the SRT's assessment of overall extinction
risk, along with the best available information regarding the species
status and ongoing and future conservation efforts, in making a final
determination regarding whether the species meets the definition of
threatened or endangered.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
According to section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce
determines whether a species is threatened or endangered because of any
(or a combination) of the following factors: The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational
purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or other natural or man-made factors affecting its
continued existence. We examined these factors for their historic,
current, and/or potential impact on pinto abalone and considered them,
along with current species distribution and abundance, to help
determine the species' present vulnerability to extinction. When
considering the effects of the threat into the foreseeable future, the
time frame considered by the SRT varied based on the threat, but
generally ranged from 30 to 100 years. A time frame of 30 years
represents approximately 3 generation times for pinto abalone
(McDougall et al. 2006, COSEWIC 2009) and was considered a reasonable
period over which predictions regarding the threats and their effects
on the species could be made. A time frame of 100 years was considered
a reasonable period over which predictions regarding longer-term
threats (e.g., ocean acidification, effects of climate change) have
been or could be made. The time frames for foreseeable future are
discussed in more detail under the ``SRT Assessment of Overall
Extinction Risk'' section of this notice.
For each of these factors, the SRT identified and evaluated several
stressors that either have or may contribute to declines in pinto
abalone. Overall, the SRT rated most of these stressors as low threats
and several as moderate threats to pinto abalone, but did not identify
any high or very high threats. Among the moderate threats, the SRT was
most concerned about low densities that have resulted from past
fisheries harvest of pinto abalone, the potential threat posed by ocean
acidification, and illegal take due to poaching and inadequate law
enforcement. The potential for reduced genetic diversity as a
consequence of low population densities and the potential for predation
(particularly by sea otters) to further reduce local densities were
also identified as threats of greater concern. Finally, oil spills and
disease outbreaks (through the spread of pathogens) were highlighted as
highly uncertain risks that need to be addressed through careful
planning, monitoring, and management. Below, we discuss the threats
associated with each factor and our assessment of each factor's
contribution to extinction risk to the species. Where relevant, we
discuss the risks posed by a factor in combination with other factors
(e.g., risks posed by disease and inadequate regulatory mechanisms).
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range
Most of the threats that result in substrate destruction or
modification, such as coastal development, recreational access, cable
repairs, nearshore military operations, and benthic community shifts,
occur infrequently, have a narrow geographic scope, or have uncertain
or indirect effects on pinto abalone. Some exceptions may exist in the
cases of water temperature increases and reduced food quantity and
quality associated with the ENSOs, PDOs, IPOs, and long-term climate
change, as well as sea level rise due to long-term climate change, in
that these threats have the potential to produce more widespread
impacts, but the certainty in how these factors will affect pinto
abalone is low. For example, increased water temperatures associated
with climate change may be widespread throughout the U.S. West Coast,
though the latest climate report suggests that impacts will be least
felt in the Pacific Northwest (Mote et al. 2014). Increased water
temperatures could affect the health and range of pinto abalone,
particularly at the northern and southern extreme of the species range.
However, pinto abalone have a wide temperature tolerance and may be
able to adapt to changing temperatures over time, such as by seeking
depth refuges. It is also not clear how El Ni[ntilde]o/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) events,
[[Page 78009]]
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) events, and climate change may
affect food quantity and quality for pinto abalone. Sea level rise may
result in loss of suitable habitat in a preferred depth range because
of increased erosion, turbidity and siltation; however, the effects on
pinto abalone are uncertain because pinto abalone typically occupy
subtidal habitats throughout much of their range. We are not aware of
any studies that have examined the potential effects of sea level rise
on abalone, and therefore, we currently lack information to determine
whether these habitat changes will be important factors for species
decline.
Climate change impacts, such as ocean acidification, could affect
settlement habitat by affecting the growth of crustose coralline algae,
but the effects to pinto abalone are unclear. For example, McCoy (2013)
and McCoy and Ragazzola (2014) found morphological changes (e.g.,
reduced thickness or density) in crustose coralline algal species in
response to ocean acidification, with responses varying by species.
However, Johnson et al. (2014) found that crustose coralline algal
species exposed to varying carbon dioxide levels may be acclimatized to
ocean acidification, with species-specific variation in the responses.
North Pacific waters, including the California Current Ecosystem, have
relatively low seawater pH values due to a variety of natural
oceanographic processes (Feely et al. 2004, Feely et al. 2008, Feely et
al. 2009, Hauri et al. 2009), and this may make crustose coralline
algal species within the pinto abalone's range better able to adapt to
the effects of ocean acidification. In addition, it is unclear how
ocean acidification may affect the chemical cues that are believed to
attract pinto abalone to settle on crustose coralline algae. Overall,
climate change impacts such as ocean acidification could affect
settlement habitat, but the effects are highly uncertain at this time.
Oil spill and response activities were also identified as a concern
for pinto abalone, for both the potential effects on habitat (substrate
destruction or modification) and on the abalone themselves
(environmental pollutant/toxins, under ``Other Natural or Man-made
Factors''). These effects would be of particular concern where the
species occurs in intertidal and shallower waters (e.g., Alaska and
British Columbia). The threat of an oil spill is greater in areas with
higher ship traffic and human development. If a spill were to occur,
acute effects could be very damaging in the localized area of the
spill. However, there is little information available on the effects of
oil spills on subtidal habitats where pinto abalone tend to occur
throughout most of their range, as well as little information available
on the effects of oil on abalone.
Overall, the best available information does not indicate that the
threats discussed above have resulted in the destruction of or
substantial adverse effects on pinto abalone habitat, or in curtailment
of the species' range. Evaluations in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2009)
and Washington (Vadopalas and Watson 2013) indicate that habitat does
not appear to be a limiting factor for the species at this time. Future
effects on the species' habitat and/or range may result from ENSOs/
PDOs/IPOs or the impacts of long-term climate change; however, the
magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects are highly uncertain at
this time. We conclude that the habitat threats discussed above are not
contributing substantially to the species' risk of extinction now. The
future impacts of climate- and/or oil spill-related habitat changes are
highly uncertain, but based on past impacts our best judgment leads us
to conclude that impacts will not contribute substantially to the
species' risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational
Purposes
Fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for commercial and recreational
purposes (i.e., prior to the fishery closures) has contributed to
population declines and low densities throughout the species' range
(see the ``Abundance'' section above). Harvest of pinto abalone is
currently prohibited throughout the coast except in Alaska (i.e., for
personal use and subsistence harvest) and Mexico. Data on harvest
levels and the impacts on pinto abalone are not available for Alaska
and Mexico. In Mexico, green and pink abalone are the focus of the
abalone fishery, with other abalone species (including pinto abalone)
making up only one percent of the abalone fishery (Boch et al. 2014).
In Alaska, the daily limits for personal use and subsistence harvest
were reduced in 2012 from 50 to 5 abalone per day. We do not have data
to assess how this harvest level would affect pinto abalone populations
in Alaska. ADF&G believes that personal use and subsistence harvest of
pinto abalone is currently low (ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January
2014). Bowers et al. (2011) found that the average subsistence harvest
of pinto abalone ranged from 350-382 abalone per household in 1972 but
decreased to 3-9 abalone per household in 1997. In recent interviews,
local residents have indicated to ADF&G that they are not participating
in the personal use fishery due to the lack of abalone (Bowers et al.
2011). Based on this information, it is likely that personal use and
subsistence harvest of pinto abalone in Alaska is low. The SRT
expressed concern regarding the continued harvest of pinto abalone in
Alaska and Mexico, but rated fisheries harvest as a Moderate threat
overall, due to prohibitions on harvest throughout most of the species'
range and what appears to be low levels of harvest in Alaska and Mexico
presently. However, monitoring of harvest levels and pinto abalone
populations is needed to obtain a better understanding of the impacts
of these fisheries in Alaska and Mexico.
The effects of past fisheries harvest on local densities still
persist today throughout the species' range. Past harvest levels,
particularly in commercial fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia,
were not sustainable and reduced densities to very low or non-existent
levels. Some populations (e.g., at the San Juan Islands Archipelago in
Washington) appear to be experiencing recruitment failure. There are
also a few areas where pinto abalone have not been observed in recent
surveys in Washington and British Columbia. However, pinto abalone
populations continue to persist throughout most survey sites. In
addition, evidence of recent recruitment events have been observed at
several areas throughout the species' range. Since the closure of
abalone fisheries in British Columbia in 1990, small size classes of
pinto abalone have been observed regularly during index site surveys at
Haida Gwaii and along the Central Coast (two areas that once supported
a large proportion of fisheries harvest) (COSEWIC 2009). Small pinto
abalone have also been observed in surveys conducted within the last 10
years off Alaska (pers. comm. with S. Walker, ADF&G, cited in status
review report), California (pers. comm. and unpublished data from A.
Bird, CSUF, and Ed Parnell, UCSD, cited in status review report), and
Mexico (Boch et al. 2014), indicating recent recruitment events (see
the ``Reproduction and Spawning Density'' section of this notice for
more details). These observations show that densities at those
locations remain high enough to support reproduction and recruitment,
and also that we have much more to learn about the species' population
dynamics and the factors influencing successful reproduction and
[[Page 78010]]
recruitment. For example, mean adult densities may not be an
appropriate metric for predicting reproductive and recruitment success
because it does not adequately represent the patchy distribution of
abalone within an area. Fine-scale spatial distribution patterns (e.g.,
aggregations) may be more important for reproductive and recruitment
success than the overall density of adults in an area.
Reduced genetic diversity is a potential risk associated with low
densities. Withler et al. (2001) provide the only published assessment
of population structure in pinto abalone and found high levels of
genetic variation in pinto abalone populations sampled at 18 sites
throughout coastal British Columbia and at one site in Sitka Sound,
Alaska. Unfortunately, research on populations throughout the remainder
of the species' range has not been conducted, and thus the Wither et
al. (2001) study represents the best available information. Based on
this, the SRT expressed a moderate degree of concern, but most members
felt that the species' genetic diversity likely remains high.
Overall we conclude that past fisheries harvest has reduced the
abundance of pinto abalone populations throughout its range, but not to
a point that contributes substantially to the species risk of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The presence of small,
newly-recruited animals in multiple areas spanning the species' range
(except for the San Juan Islands) suggests that abundance levels are
not low enough to lead to repeated recruitment failure. The threat of
overutilization from fisheries harvest has largely been removed,
because fisheries harvest of pinto abalone has been prohibited
throughout most of the species range. Presently, harvest of pinto
abalone is only allowed in Alaska's personal use and subsistence
fisheries and in Mexico. The best available information indicates that
these fisheries are not contributing substantially to the species' risk
of extinction; however, data on harvest levels are needed to better
assess how these fisheries may be affecting the status of the species
in Alaska and Mexico.
Disease or Predation
Disease has been identified as a major threat to abalone species
worldwide, with four significant abalone diseases emerging over the
past several decades (withering syndrome, ganglioneuritis, vibriosis,
and shell deformities). Pinto abalone are likely susceptible to all of
these diseases, and have been confirmed to be highly susceptible to
withering syndrome, a disease that has resulted in significant declines
in black abalone populations throughout southern California. No
infectious diseases affecting wild pinto abalone have been reported in
Alaska, Washington, or California, but two abalone pathogens have been
reported in British Columbia. To date, no outbreaks have been observed
in wild populations and there is no evidence indicating that disease
has been a major source of mortality in the recent past or currently.
However, multiple sources and pathways exist for pathogens or invasive
species to be introduced into wild pinto abalone populations, including
aquaculture facilities and the movement of abalone (e.g., import,
transfer) for aquaculture, research, and food/hobby markets (identified
under the ``Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'' factor
below). Great care is needed to closely monitor and manage these
sources and pathways, to protect wild populations from potentially
devastating pathogens and invasives.
Abalone face non-anthropogenic predatory pressure from a number of
consumer species such as gastropods, octopuses, lobsters, sea stars,
fishes and sea otters (Ault 1985; Estes and VanBlaricom, 1985; Shepherd
and Breen 1992). Pinto abalone have been exposed to varying predation
pressure through time and this pressure is likely to continue. However,
in the past, pinto abalone populations may have been better able to
absorb losses due to predation without compromising viability.
Specifically, predation by sea otters has been raised as a potentially
significant factor in the continued decline and/or lack of recovery of
pinto abalone populations in areas where the two species overlap.
Sea otters were hunted to near extinction in the mid-1700s to
1800s, but have begun to recover in recent decades with protection from
the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and the help of reintroductions in Southeast Alaska,
British Columbia, and Washington in the late 1960s. Within the
geographic range of pinto abalone, contemporary sea otter populations
are present in Southeast Alaska, in two discrete population segments
off British Columbia, from Cape Flattery to Destruction Island off
Washington, from Half Moon Bay to near Gaviota on the mainland
California coast, and at San Nicolas Island off southern California.
Sea otter populations in these areas have been expanding in both
abundance and distribution in recent years and are likely to continue
to expand as the populations grow. Sea otters remain regionally extinct
in the marine waters of Oregon and Baja California, Mexico.
Available data on red abalone in California suggests that sea otter
predation typically reduces red abalone density by about 90 percent
(Ebert 1968, Lowry and Pearse 1973, Cooper et al. 1977, Hines and
Pearse 1982, Ostfeld 1982, Wendell 1994, Fanshawe et al. 2003) and
eliminates viable commercial and recreational harvests of red abalone
(Wild and Ames 1974, Estes and VanBlaricom 1985). Relationships of sea
otters with pinto, white, and black abalone are uncertain because of
lesser overlap in habitat characteristics, especially water depth. Sea
otters are known to feed on pinto abalone, but the level of predation
pressure and effects on pinto abalone populations have not been
directly investigated and remain poorly known. To our knowledge there
are no published data documenting effects of predation by sea otters on
pinto abalone at the population level.
Continued growth of the sea otter population will encompass an
increasing proportion of pinto abalone habitat and will increase the
risk of predation by sea otters on pinto abalone populations. However,
the effects are not clear. Observations by divers for the ADF&G on the
outer coast of Southeast Alaska suggest that sea otters preferentially
select red sea urchins and pinto abalone as prey when foraging in rocky
subtidal habitats (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The dramatic increase in
sea otter numbers and range has thus caused significant concern about
benthic invertebrate fisheries in Southeast Alaska. However, in British
Columbia, in at least two index sites where sea otters have been
present for several years, densities of pinto abalone are higher than
in areas with no sea otters (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, 24 April
2014). At one of these sites, the density of mature abalone in 2011
exceeded DFO's long-term recovery target of one abalone per sq m (pers.
comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). As in other areas
along the coast, however, data are not available to determine the
natural population levels of pinto abalone prior to the local
extirpation of sea otters in British Columbia in the early 1920s. Thus,
we lack historical data with which to compare current density
estimates.
Sea otter predation will likely affect pinto abalone populations,
but in no case has local extinction of any abalone population or
species in the northeastern Pacific been documented as a result of
predation by sea otters. Sea otters have been present in significant
[[Page 78011]]
numbers in the coastal North Pacific Rim since the Pleistocene, and in
northern hemisphere oceans of the earth for approximately seven million
years. It seems certain that undisturbed populations of sea otters and
abalones can sustainably co-exist as a consequence of co-evolved
interactions.
Overall, the best available information indicates that threats
associated with disease are not contributing substantially to the pinto
abalone's risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Disease
could pose a risk to pinto abalone in the future if an outbreak of
sufficient magnitude and scope occurs among wild populations, but the
likelihood of such an outbreak is difficult to predict. The SRT
emphasized the importance of closely monitoring and managing potential
sources and pathways by which pathogens or invasive species could be
introduced to wild populations (e.g., import or transfer of abalone for
aquaculture, research, and food/hobby markets). Such precautions are
important for the protection of all abalone species throughout the
coast.
In addition, the best available information indicates that
predation is not contributing substantially to the pinto abalone's risk
of extinction presently or in the foreseeable future. Sea otter
predation has likely contributed to continued declines and/or lack of
recovery of pinto abalone populations where the two species overlap.
However, we agree with the SRT's conclusion that sea otters and abalone
can sustainably co-exist and that our criteria for healthy, sustainable
abalone populations must account for the presence of sea otters in the
ecosystem.
Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms
Poaching has been a source of mortality for pinto abalone
throughout their range since the establishment of harvesting
regulations by the States and Canada. The problem of poaching clearly
persists in some regions along the coast, particularly in British
Columbia. The continued declines in mature pinto abalone densities at
Haida Gwaii and along the Central Coast, despite the fisheries closures
and observed recruitment events, were mainly attributed to illegal
harvest (COSEWIC 2009). However, recent index site surveys in 2011 and
2012 indicate a decline in annual mortality at both the Haida Gwaii and
Central Coast sites and an increase in both immature and mature abalone
densities (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). This
decrease in annual mortality and increase in densities is most likely
due to a decrease in poaching pressure as a result of existing
regulatory mechanisms and outreach and education programs; however, it
may also be due to other factors such as improved oceanographic
conditions to support juvenile survival or the benefits of the
fisheries closures finally being manifested in population recovery
(pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). We are not
aware of any evidence indicating illegal harvest is currently occurring
in Washington, although several cases of illegal harvest and laundering
of pinto abalone product were investigated in the late 1980s and
periodic cases of illegal sport harvest were reported after the 1994
fishery closure (WDFW 2014). It is generally believed that current
populations in Washington no longer exist at commercially-viable
quantities, and the effort vs. reward deters poaching. WDFW enforcement
covers the entire coast and includes at-sea monitoring of commercial
and recreational fisheries and periodic patrols of commercial buyers
and markets. However, Vadopalas and Watson (2013) identify poaching as
a major threat to abalone in Washington. In other regions along the
coast, poaching is recognized as a historical and future risk, but
specific information on current levels of poaching is lacking. We are
not aware of any enforcement cases or evidence for poaching, but
continued efforts to enforce the regulations and monitor their
effectiveness are needed to protect the species from this threat.
As discussed above (under ``Disease and Predation''), the
introduction of pathogens or invasive species was also a concern
identified by the SRT, given the potentially high risks posed by
disease to pinto abalone. Regulatory mechanisms are advisable to ensure
adequate monitoring whenever animals are moved (e.g., imports,
transporting between facilities) for aquaculture, research, and/or
food/hobby markets, to protect wild populations from pathogens and
invasive species. In California, state regulations require abalone
health monitoring at aquaculture facilities and control the
importation/exportation of abalone between facilities. The State also
monitors aquaculture facilities for introduced organisms and disease on
a regular basis and restricts out-planting abalone from facilities that
have not met certification standards. These measures will likely reduce
the transmission of pathogens or invasive species from aquaculture
facilities. In Washington and British Columbia, where abalone
hatcheries are operated in support of restoration efforts, disease
monitoring is also conducted and precautions are taken to avoid and
minimize the transmission of pathogens and invasive species. Some
improvements to existing regulations are needed to further protect the
species. Although a permit is required to import non-native abalone
species into California, a permit is not needed to import native
abalone species, even if the source of those abalone is outside of the
U.S. This presents a potential risk because live abalone imported into
the State could carry pathogens. Information is not available regarding
the amount of native abalone species that are imported into the U.S.
from other countries each year.
Overall, based on the best available information, we conclude that
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate and that existing
deficiencies in regulatory mechanisms are not contributing
substantially to the pinto abalone's risk of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future. Prohibitions on the harvest of pinto abalone
throughout most of the coast provide a high level of protection for the
species. Poaching continues to occur in British Columbia; however,
recent increases in abalone densities at index sites were most likely
due to reduced poaching pressure as a result of enforcement and
outreach efforts, although favorable oceanographic conditions and
reduced harvest pressure could have also contributed to these
increases. In other areas, information on poaching is limited.
Enforcement measures are in place throughout the coast, but monitoring
is needed to ensure illegal take is not occurring. In addition,
regulations and measures have been implemented to minimize the risk of
transmitting pathogens or invasive species to wild populations.
However, some improvements are advisable (e.g., to regulations on live
abalone imports) to further protect pinto abalone and other abalone
species.
Other Natural or Man-Made Factors
Among the other natural or human factors affecting pinto abalone,
the SRT identified ocean acidification as a threat of greater concern.
Ocean acidification is a concern particularly for early life stages
because of the potential for reduced larval survival and shell growth,
as well as increased shell abnormalities. The impacts of ocean
acidification can be patchy in space and time and may develop slowly.
Effects of ocean acidification on early life stages of pinto abalone
are beginning to be understood. Laboratory studies indicate that
reduced larval survival and shell abnormalities or decreased shell size
[[Page 78012]]
occur at elevated levels of CO2 (800 and 1800 ppm
CO2), compared to lower levels (400 ppm CO2)
(Crim et al. 2011). Friedman et al. (unpublished data) have also found
reduced larval survival occurs at elevated pCO2 and are studying the
synergistic effects of increased pCO2, varying temperature, and
exposure to Vibrio tubiashii on early life stages of pinto abalone
(results pending).
Other climate-change related effects that may impact pinto abalone
include increased water temperatures and decreased salinity (due to
freshwater intrusions). Bouma's (2007) studies with cultured pinto
abalone indicated that laboratory rearing temperatures of 11, 16, and
21 [deg]C did not affect post-larval survival. Larvae tolerated
temperatures of 12-21 [deg]C, with mortality at 24 [deg]C. Captive
adult pinto abalone in Alaska showed no behavioral abnormalities at 2-
24 [deg]C, but high mortality at 0.5 [deg]C and 26.5 [deg]C. Low
salinity intrusions from freshwater inputs to Puget Sound and the San
Juan Islands Archipelago may also have negative effects on pinto
abalone recruitment. In laboratory experiments, early life stages of
pinto abalone appear to be intolerant to low salinities below 26 psu
(Bouma 2007). Bouma (2007) found that when introduced into a halocline
microcosm (where salinity levels change with depth along the water
column), larvae actively avoided areas of lower salinity. Later larval
stages appear to be more tolerant of sub-optimal salinity levels (Bouma
2007).
In evaluating the threat of ocean acidification and other climate
change impacts, the SRT recognized that some information is available
regarding the potential effects of ocean acification, elevated water
temperatures, and low salinity intrusions on pinto abalone. However,
the SRT also recognized that our understanding of these effects
includes a high degree of uncertainty, due to limited studies involving
pinto abalone and the uncertainty and spatial variability in
predictions regarding ocean acidification and climate change impacts
into the future. The overall level of data available is low, especially
regarding how ocean acidification may affect the species throughout its
range, given variability in local conditions throughout the coast,
natural variation in ocean pH, species adaptability, and projections of
future carbon dioxide emissions.
Environmental pollutants and toxins are likely present in areas
where pinto abalone have occurred and still do occur, but evidence
suggesting causal and/or indirect negative effects on pinto abalone due
to exposure to pollutants or toxins is lacking. In addition, very
little is known regarding entrainment and/or impingement risks posed by
coastal facilities. Direct effects would be focused on larval stages
and be very localized in area. Despite uncertainties due to lack of
data, the SRT felt that the risk posed by environmental pollutant/
toxins and entrainment or impingement is likely low given their limited
geographic scope.
Overall, the best available information regarding other natural or
manmade factors affecting pinto abalone do not indicate that these
factors are contributing substantially to the species' risk of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Ocean acidification and
climate change impacts could affect pinto abalone in the future;
however, the magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects are highly
uncertain at this time.
Analysis of Demographic Risk
The SRT first identified a series of questions related to the four
demographic risk criteria (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial
structure/connectivity, and diversity), in order to structure their
evaluation of these four criteria. For example, one of the questions
related to the abundance criterion was: Is the species' abundance so
low, or variability in abundance so high, that it is at risk of
extinction due to depensatory processes? The SRT then assessed these
questions using a voting process that was first used in an ESA status
review by Brainard et al. (2011) to assess extinction risk for 82 coral
species.
For each question, each SRT member scored the likelihood that the
answer to each question was true, by anonymously assigning 10 points
across the following eight likelihood bins, developed by the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007): exceptionally
unlikely (<1 percent), very unlikely (1-10 percent), unlikely (10-33
percent), less likely than not (33-50 percent), more likely than not
(50-66 percent), likely (66-90 percent), very likely (90-99 percent),
and virtually certain (>99 percent). The IPCC (2007) developed this
approach as one method for assessing the uncertainty of specific
outcomes using expert judgment and, where available, quantitative
information. The IPCC (2007) used this approach to evaluate the
probability of occurrence of different climate change model outcomes,
whereas Brainard et al. (2011) used this approach to qualitatively
evaluate the likelihood that different coral species would fall below a
defined critical risk threshold. In this status review, the SRT applied
this approach to qualitatively evaluate the likelihood that pinto
abalone are at risk of extinction due to different demographic risks.
For each question, the scores were tallied (mean and range for each SRT
member and across all SRT members) and reviewed, and the range of
perspectives was discussed by the SRT. Each SRT member then had the
opportunity to change their scores before submitting their final
scores. Below, we summarize the SRT's conclusions regarding demographic
risks. Additional details are provided in the status review report.
The SRT concluded that the risks to the species associated with
abundance and population growth are moderate. Team members agreed that
depensatory processes due to low and/or highly variable abundance or
low population growth were a concern for pinto abalone in a number of
locations (e.g., San Juan Island Archipelago, Alaska). Pinto abalone
abundance and population growth have declined throughout the species'
range, and, while there is some indication that recent recruitment has
occurred in localized areas (e.g., Mexico, Point Loma, Palos Verdes,
Mendocino County, British Columbia, Alaska), the rate of population
growth is unknown. The SRT expressed some concern that population
growth may not be occurring at a pace or extent sufficient to buffer
against possible further declines due to processes happening over
longer (e.g., PDO, IPO, climate change, and ocean acidification over
decades; ENSO events over years) and/or uncertain time scales (e.g.,
cumulative oil spill impacts, poaching events, or harvest impacts).
However, the SRT also expressed a high degree of uncertainty regarding
the species' abundance and productivity.
The majority of SRT members agreed that spatial structure and
diversity pose a low risk to pinto abalone. The SRT expressed a low
level of concern regarding loss of variation in life history traits,
population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic
characteristics. Most SRT members agreed that it is very unlikely that
the species is at risk due to the loss of or changes in diversity, or
due to alterations in the natural processes of dispersal, migration,
and/or gene flow, or those that cause ecological variation. The SRT
acknowledged that the species has experienced population declines and
currently has a patchy distribution, but noted that the species has
historically existed with a highly patchy distribution. The SRT was
concerned about the potential loss of source populations or
subpopulations in some areas due to past fishing pressure;
[[Page 78013]]
however, they also expressed a high level of uncertainty regarding this
risk, given the limited information on source-sink dynamics for pinto
abalone. Recent evidence of localized recruitment in a few areas,
spread over a wide geographic range (Alaska to Mexico) suggests that
local populations are dense enough to support reproduction. The SRT's
prevailing justification for concluding that spatial structure and
diversity pose low risk to pinto abalone was that other related species
of abalone that were overfished (e.g., red, pink, and green abalone)
and that may exhibit lower spatial connectivity and/or genetic
diversity than is suspected for pinto abalone, made remarkable
recoveries in many locations range-wide over a period of roughly two
decades (see status review report).
Overall, despite their high degree of uncertainty, the SRT members
expressed low to moderate levels of concern for the majority of the
questions and demographic categories. The SRT expressed a higher degree
of uncertainty regarding the species' abundance and productivity and
the risks posed by these demographic factors. However, none of the SRT
members placed any of their likelihood points in the highest risk
category (>99 percent) and they placed very few points (<5 percent) in
the next highest risk category (90-99 percent) across all questions and
demographic categories, indicating that no SRT member thought the risk
of extinction of pinto abalone was virtually certain, or even very
likely, due to any of the demographic risks identified.
SRT Assessment of Overall Extinction Risk
In the overall risk assessment, the SRT considered the demographic
risks together with the threats to evaluate the level of extinction
risk faced by the species now and in the foreseeable future. Because
data are not available to quantitatively assess the species' extinction
risk (e.g., through development of a population viability model), the
SRT adopted an approach similar to what has been done in previous NMFS
status reviews, using a voting process to organize and summarize the
professional judgment of the SRT members regarding the overall level of
extinction risk to the species. We summarize the SRT's assessment and
conclusions regarding extinction risk below. In the ``Final
Determinations'' section of this notice, we considered the SRT's
conclusions, along with the best available information regarding the
status of the species and ongoing/future conservation efforts (see
section titled ``Efforts Being Made to Protect the Species'') to
develop a final determination regarding overall extinction risk to the
species.
For the purpose of this extinction risk analysis, the term
``foreseeable future'' was defined as the time frame over which threats
can be predicted reliably and over which their impacts to the
biological status of the species may be observed. The SRT considered
the life history of pinto abalone and the availability of data
regarding threats to the species, and recommended two time frames for
the foreseeable future.
First, the SRT recommended a foreseeable future of 30 years,
representing approximately three generation times for pinto abalone as
defined in the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
Red List assessment (McDougall et al. 2006) and the COSEWIC (2009)
assessment for pinto abalone. This time frame is consistent with what
was used to define the foreseeable future in the black abalone status
review (VanBlaricom et al. 2009) and represents a reasonable time frame
over which threats can be predicted reliably and impacts to the
species' status would be observable.
The SRT also recommended a foreseeable future of 100 years, because
they felt that a time frame greater than 30 years may be needed to
adequately consider the effects of longer-term threats, such as climate
change, ocean acidification, ENSOs, and PDOs/IPOs. This time frame was
used by Brainard et al. (2011) in their status review of multiple coral
species that are affected by climate change and ocean acidification. A
foreseeable future of 100 years represents a reasonable time frame over
which we have some information on and predictions regarding longer-term
threats and oceanographic regime shifts. However, the SRT also
recognized that this longer time frame introduces more uncertainty into
the assessment.
NMFS agreed that the 30 year and 100 year time frames for
foreseeable future were appropriate and asked the SRT to assess the
overall level of extinction risk over both time frames. As stated
above, the SRT assessed the overall level of extinction risk to the
species now and in the foreseeable future (30 years and 100 years)
using the likelihood point method (e.g., FEMAT method), in which each
member distributed 10 likelihood points among the following five levels
of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High
risk. We summarize the SRT's assessment below; further details can be
found in the status review report.
Over both time frames, SRT members distributed likelihood points
across all five extinction risk categories, with the majority of
likelihood points placed in the Low risk and Moderate risk categories
and very few (1-2) points placed in the Very High risk category. When
considering a foreseeable future of 100 years, most of the SRT members
shifted some likelihood points from the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories to the Moderate and High risk categories, expressing greater
concern, but also greater uncertainty, regarding demographic risks and
threats over the 100 year time frame compared to the 30 year time
frame.
For the overall risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years,
the SRT distributed their likelihood points across the five extinction
risk categories as follows (the first number represents the total
points attributed by SRT members and the second number represents the
total possible points, which was 80): No or Very Low Risk (11/80, or 14
percent), Low Risk (33/80, or 40 percent), Moderate Risk (32/80, or 41
percent), High Risk (3/80, or 4 percent), Very High Risk (1/80, or 1
percent). Only one SRT member placed a likelihood point in the Very
High risk category. Based on the likelihood point distributions, the
SRT was fairly certain that the species has a Low to Moderate risk of
extinction currently and in a foreseeable future of 30 years. Of the 80
points distributed across categories, the SRT placed 76 points across
the Very Low, Low, and Moderate risk categories. The categories with
the greatest number of points were the Low risk (33 points) and
Moderate risk (32 points) categories.
For the overall risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years,
the SRT distributed their likelihood points across the five extinction
risk categories as follows: No or Very Low Risk (6/80, or 8 percent),
Low Risk (24/80, or 30 percent), Moderate Risk (36/80, or 45 percent),
High Risk (12/80, or 15 percent), Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 percent).
Only two SRT members placed likelihood points in the Very High risk
category. All but one SRT member (who made no changes to their point
distribution when considering 100 years vs. 30 years) shifted some of
their likelihood points from the No/Very Low and Low risk categories to
the Moderate and High risk categories when considering a foreseeable
future of 100 years rather than 30 years. This shift indicated that the
SRT was more certain that the species has a Moderate risk of extinction
currently and in the foreseeable future when considering a foreseeable
future of 100 years vs. 30 years. Again, the SRT distributed most of
their points (66 out of 80 points)
[[Page 78014]]
across the Very Low, Low, and Moderate risk categories.
Overall, the SRT concluded that pinto abalone have a Low to
Moderate level of extinction risk now and in the foreseeable future
(over both the 30 year and 100 year time horizons). The SRT recognized
that there is a high level of uncertainty regarding demographic
factors, in particular regarding abundance and productivity levels. The
main concerns highlighted by the SRT include declines in abundance and
uncertainty regarding whether current abundance and productivity levels
are sufficient to support the persistence and recovery of the species
in the face of continuing and potential future threats. Long-term
declines have been observed in surveyed areas throughout the species
range. There is concern that these declines may be putting the
populations at the San Juan Islands Archipelago at risk, because the
populations appear to be experiencing recruitment failure. Throughout
the rest of the species' range, densities remain low but recurring and/
or recent recruitment events have been observed and have even resulted
in increased densities (of mature and all sizes of pinto abalone) at
several index sites in British Columbia. Observed recruitment events
indicate that demographic characteristics are sufficient to support
reproduction in locations throughout the species range, but
productivity is variable and occurring at undetermined rates.
Observations suggest that abalone recruitment and populations, in
general, are both temporally and spatially episodic. One of the main
data gaps is the lack of historical data on the status of the species
prior to fisheries harvest and prior to the removal of sea otters
throughout most of the coast. Lacking this baseline for comparison
further increases the uncertainty regarding how to interpret the
limited demographic data available for the species, and points to the
need for improved monitoring of pinto abalone populations throughout
its range in order to adequately assess the species' status.
The main reason for the increase in likelihood points for the
Moderate risk category versus the Low risk category when considering a
foreseeable future of 100 years was the general perception by most SRT
members that the species is likely to face more challenging conditions
over the longer time frame, given the currently available predictions
regarding climate change impacts, ocean acidification, and increasing
sea otter populations. However, the SRT also recognized that there is
more uncertainty associated with our understanding of and predictions
regarding these threats and their effects on the species over the
longer time frame. Additional sources of uncertainty include: the lack
of information regarding how naturally occurring events may affect the
species into the future (e.g., IPOs, predation); the unpredictability
of some threats (e.g., oil spills, climate change impacts); and the
potential for pinto abalone to adapt to changing climate and
conditions, as well as to recover from low abundances, which has been
observed for other abalone species. We considered all of these factors
when considering the SRT's assessment in our final determination of
overall extinction risk for the species.
Consideration of ``Significant Portion of Its Range''
The ESA defines an ``endangered'' species as ``any species which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and a ``threatened'' species as ``any species which is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' On July 1,
2014, the USFWS and NMFS issued a final policy on the interpretation
and application of the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
under the ESA (79 FR 37578; ``Final Policy''). Under this policy, the
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an independent
basis for listing a species under the ESA. In other words, a species
would qualify for listing if it is determined to be endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range or if it is determined to be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range.
This policy defines the term ``significant'' as follows: ``a portion of
the range of a species is `significant' if the species is not currently
endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the portion's
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range.'' The range of the species is defined as
``the general geographical area within which that species can be found
at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination.''
The Final Policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a
portion for potential listing under the ``significant portion of its
range'' authority only if information indicates that the members of the
species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for
biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in
that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for
further review, but does not prejudge whether or not the portion
actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed:
To identify only those portions that warrant further
consideration, we will determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination
that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is
required (79 FR 37586; July 1, 2014).
Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both
significant and endangered or threatened merely requires NMFS to engage
in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are
actually met. Id. at 37587. Unless both are met, listing is not
warranted. The Final Policy explains that, depending on the particular
facts of each situation, NMFS may find it is more efficient to address
the significance issue first, but in other cases it will make more
sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially
significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an
affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id.
(``[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not
``significant,'' we will not need to determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to
determine if that portion was ``significant.''). Thus, if the answer to
the first question is negative--whether that regards the significance
question or the status question--then the analysis concludes and
listing is not warranted.
In keeping with the process described in the Final Policy, to
inform NMFS' assessment of whether pinto abalone are endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we
asked the SRT to conduct a 3-step process. First, to help identify any
potentially significant portions of the species' range, the SRT was
asked to evaluate whether any portions of the range may be significant
and whether the members of the species in those portions may be
endangered or threatened. Second, if any potentially significant
portions of the range were identified, we then asked the SRT to
evaluate the level of extinction risk faced by the species within those
[[Page 78015]]
portions. Third, if the SRT's assessment of extinction risk indicated
that the species is at risk of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future within any of the portions, we asked the SRT to
evaluate whether under a hypothetical scenario, the portion's
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without the members in that portion, the remainder of the species would
be at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. If the SRT's
assessment does not indicate that the species is at risk of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future within any of the
portions, then the SRT would not need to conduct this last step of
examining the actual biological significance of the portion.
Thus, under the process contemplated in the Final Policy and
followed by the SRT, the status question was evaluated first, and the
significance question would only be reached if the evaluation of status
yielded a conclusion that the species is endangered or threatened in a
particular portion. In fact, as is explained below, no portions of the
range were evaluated for ``significance'' because the analysis
indicated that no portions contained members of the species that were
actually at risk of extinction presently or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future. We summarize the SRT's analysis below; the
status review report provides further details. Final determinations
were made by NMFS upon consideration of the SRT's evaluation (see
``Final Determinations'' section of this notice).
To identify potentially significant portions of the species' range
(SPR), the SRT was presented the following portions and each member was
asked to indicate (Yes/No) whether they thought the portion may be
significant (based on the final SPR policy's definition of
``significant'') and whether members of the species within that portion
may be considered threatened or endangered: Alaska (AK), British
Columbia (BC), San Juan Islands Archipelago (SJA), Northern California
(NorCal), Southern California (SoCal), and Mexico (MX). Only two of the
eight voting members indicated that British Columbia may be significant
and only one member indicated that Alaska may be significant. None of
the SRT members indicated that the remaining portions (SJA, NorCal,
SoCal, and MX) may be significant. Overall, the SRT agreed that none of
these portions contribute substantially to the viability of the species
such that the loss of that portion would put the species in danger of
extinction presently or in the foreseeable future. Thus, none of these
portions were considered as potential SPRs on their own. However, at
least half of the SRT members indicated that the species may be
threatened or endangered in AK, BC, SJA, SoCal, and MX. These portions
were considered together as a potential SPR, according to the approach
by Waples et al. (2007) for identifying SPRs.
The SRT also evaluated the following larger portions: (a) The
Northern portion of the species range (AK/BC/SJA); and (b) the Southern
portion of the species range (NorCal/SoCal/MX). The Northern and
Southern portions were delineated based on the geographic proximity of
the areas and what appears to be a natural gap in the species' range
between Washington and California (based on the absence of pinto
abalone observations along the outer coasts of Washington and Oregon,
except for a handful of pinto abalone found off Oregon). More than half
of the SRT members indicated that the Northern portion may be
significant, because this portion encompasses a large part of the
species' range, including areas that historically supported the
greatest numbers of pinto abalone (British Columbia). More than half of
the SRT members also indicated that the Northern portion may be
threatened or endangered, based on the declines in pinto abalone
abundance from historical levels, increasing sea otter populations in
several areas, and what appears to be recruitment failure in the San
Juan Islands Archipelago. More than half of the SRT members indicated
that the Southern portion may be significant, based on the large area
encompassed by this portion and evidence of recent recruitment
throughout California and Mexico, which could benefit the species
throughout its range. Half of the SRT members indicated that the
Southern portion may be threatened or endangered based on the declines
in pinto abalone abundance from historical levels, but expressed a high
degree of uncertainty regarding this question. To be conservative, the
SRT included both the Northern and Southern portions as potential SPRs
for further consideration.
The SRT was then asked to evaluate the level of extinction risk to
the species within these three potential SPRs, using the same methods
that were used to evaluate the overall extinction risk to the species
throughout its range. For each of the three potential SPRs, each SRT
member distributed 10 likelihood points among the following five levels
of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High
risk. The SRT assessed extinction risk to the species now and in the
foreseeable future, considering both a 30-year and a 100-year time
frame for foreseeable future.
For the Northern portion (AK/BC/SJA), the SRT concluded that pinto
abalone have a low to moderate level of extinction risk now and in the
foreseeable future over both the 30-year and 100-year time frame.
Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years were as
follows: No or Very Low Risk (14/80, or 18 percent), Low Risk (29/80,
or 36 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (7/80,
or 9 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). None of the SRT
members placed likelihood points in the Very High risk category and few
points were placed in the High risk category. The majority (54 percent)
of likelihood points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories. The categories with the greatest number of points were the
Low (29 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk categories. Likelihood
points attributed to the categories for the level of extinction risk
now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as follows: No or
Very Low Risk (11/80, or 14 percent), Low Risk (19/80, or 24 percent),
Moderate Risk (31/80, or 39 percent), High Risk (17/80, or 21 percent,
Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 percent). When considering a foreseeable
future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT members
shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories to the Moderate and High risk categories. In general, more
points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories (total:
30 points) than in the High and Very High risk categories (total: 19
points). The category with the greatest number of points was the
Moderate risk category (31 points).
For the Southern portion, the SRT concluded that the species has a
Low risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years and
a Low to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of
100 years. Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level
of extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years were as
follows: No or Very Low Risk (25/80, or 31 percent), Low Risk (37/80,
or 46 percent), Moderate Risk (18/80, or 23 percent), High Risk (0/80,
or 0 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). None of the SRT
members placed likelihood points in the High or Very High risk
categories. The majority (77 percent) of likelihood points was placed
in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories; these were also the
categories with the greatest number of points (25 and 37 points,
respectively).
[[Page 78016]]
Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as
follows: No or Very Low Risk (17/80, or 21 percent), Low Risk (28/80,
or 35 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (5/80,
or 6 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). When considering a
foreseeable future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT
members shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories to the Moderate and/or High risk categories. However, the
majority of points remained in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories
(total: 45 points or 56 percent). The categories with the greatest
number of points were the Low (28 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk
categories.
For the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion, the SRT concluded that the
species has a Low risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of
30 years and a Low to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a
foreseeable future of 100 years. Likelihood points attributed to the
categories for the level of extinction risk now and in a foreseeable
future of 30 years were as follows: No or Very Low Risk (22/80, or 28
percent), Low Risk (34/80, or 43 percent), Moderate Risk (23/80, or 29
percent), High Risk (1/80, or 1 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0
percent). None of the SRT members placed likelihood points in the Very
High risk category and only one member placed a likelihood point in the
High risk category. The majority (71 percent) of likelihood points were
placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories. The category with
the greatest number of points was the Low risk category (34 points).
Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as
follows: No or Very Low Risk (15/80, or 19 percent), Low Risk (29/80,
or 36 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (6/80,
or 8 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). When considering a
foreseeable future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT
members shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories to the Moderate and/or High risk categories. None of the SRT
members placed any likelihood points in the Very High risk category and
few points were placed in the High risk category. The majority (55
percent) of points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories. The categories with the greatest number of points were the
Low (29 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk categories.
Overall, the SRT expressed greater concern regarding extinction
risk to the species within the Northern portion of its range (AK/BC/
SJA) than in the Southern portion (NorCal/SoCal/MX) or the AK/BC/SJA/
SoCal/MX portion (encompassing all areas excluding Northern
California). The SRT focused on long-term declining trends throughout
much of the Northern portion, and threats posed by continuing personal
use and subsistence harvest in Alaska, the recovery of sea otter
populations in several locations, and potential climate change and
ocean acidification impacts. Evidence of recent and recurring
recruitment in a number of areas throughout the Southern portion was a
major factor in the SRT's assessment of lower risk for this portion and
for the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion. For the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion,
the majority of the SRT considered the inclusion of Southern California
and Mexico as providing a buffer from threats that may be more
pronounced in the Northern portion than in the Southern portion. The
SRT also expressed greater concern, as well as greater uncertainty,
regarding extinction risk to the species when considering a foreseeable
future of 100 years compared to 30 years for all three portions.
The SRT concluded that Low to Moderate risks to the species within
any of these portions and over either time frame were the most
plausible. The SRT did not believe that the species is likely to be at
High or Very High risk of extinction in any of the portions over either
time frame. In the ``Final Determinations'' section of this notice, we
discuss our consideration of the SRT's conclusions in determining
whether the species is at risk of extinction now or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future within any of these three potential SPRs.
Efforts Being Made To Protect the Species
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
consider ``efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation,
or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect
such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and
food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its
jurisdiction or on the high seas.'' Therefore, in making a listing
determination, we first assess a species' level of extinction risk and
identify factors that have led to its decline. We then assess existing
efforts being made to protect the species to determine if those
measures ameliorate the risks.
In judging the efficacy of certain protective efforts, we rely on
the joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ``Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions''
(``PECE'', 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides direction for
the consideration of formalized conservation efforts, such as those
identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management
plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal agencies, state and
local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and
individuals), that have not yet been implemented, or have been
implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness.
In determining whether a formalized conservation effort contributes
to a basis for not listing a species, or for listing a species as
threatened rather than endangered, we must evaluate whether the
conservation effort improves the status of the species under the ESA.
Two factors are key in that evaluation: (1) For those efforts yet to be
implemented, the certainty that the conservation effort will be
implemented and (2) for those efforts that have not yet demonstrated
effectiveness, the certainty that the conservation effort will be
effective. Evaluations of the certainty an effort will be implemented
include whether: The necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing)
are available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that
the necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there
is a schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives;
and (for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to
ensure adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an
effort's effectiveness is made 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.
PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration,
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk
assessment. The policy stresses that just as listing determinations
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of
[[Page 78017]]
the listing determination. PECE does not provide explicit guidance on
how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range may
affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the
species' overall viability.
Conservation measures that may apply to listed species include
conservation measures implemented by tribes, states, foreign nations,
local governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal,
state, and foreign nations' recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)),
Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on
taking (16 U.S.C. 1538) constitute conservation measures. In addition,
recognition through federal or state listing promotes public awareness
and conservation actions by Federal, state, tribal governments, foreign
nations, private organizations, and individuals.
The following is a review of the major conservation efforts and an
evaluation of whether these efforts are reducing or eliminating threats
by having a positive conservation benefit and thus improving the status
of the pinto abalone.
Alaska: Pinto Abalone Monitoring Plan
In the past, ADF&G has not conducted fishery-independent monitoring
of pinto abalone populations. Instead, opportunistic observations of
pinto abalone were recorded while surveying other species. The SRT
identified this as an important data gap contributing to the high
degree of uncertainty regarding the status of the species in Alaska.
Fishery-independent surveys focused on pinto abalone will be
particularly informative for assessing population abundance and trends
in response to harvest pressure (e.g., from continuing personal use and
subsistence harvest) and sea otter predation and, as needed, making
sound management decisions.
ADF&G recently conducted monitoring surveys for pinto abalone in
Alaska. At the American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS)
conference in September 2014, a pinto abalone dive workshop was held in
which participants surveyed eight sites within Sitka Sound (pers. comm.
with K. Hebert, ADF&G, on 25 September 2014). Workshop participants
counted and measured pinto abalone along transects and recorded habitat
observations. The surveys are a first step toward developing a pinto
abalone monitoring program in Alaska. In a letter to NMFS on October 6,
2014 (Ingle 2014), ADF&G stated their commitment to developing a
directed monitoring program for pinto abalone in Alaska. In partnership
with the Sitka Sound Science Center, ADF&G was awarded a 2-year grant
from Alaska Sea Grant to begin a monitoring program for pinto abalone
and kelp forests in Sitka Sound. ADF&G plans to establish long-term
monitoring at several index sites throughout southeast Alaska to
estimate abalone density, population size structure, and abundance and
to document habitat characteristics. The goal of such a monitoring
program would be to monitor population trends over time. In addition,
ADF&G plans to evaluate the impacts of sea otter predation on abalone
through monitoring of index sites both within and outside of the
current range of sea otters. ADF&G has already initiated efforts to
seek funding for development and implementation of the monitoring
program beyond the 2-year Alaska Sea Grant.
Based on our judgment, development and implementation of a long-
term pinto abalone and kelp forest monitoring program will benefit the
species in Alaska and inform our evaluation of the species status and
ADF&G's future management decisions to address threats to the species.
ADF&G has already conducted pilot surveys and begun establishing
partnerships and seeking the funding needed to develop and implement
the planned monitoring program. Thus, we believe that the level of
certainty that this monitoring program will be implemented is fairly
high, but the extent to which it is actually implemented will be
dependent on funding. Implementation of this monitoring program would
not reduce risks to the species, but it would provide data to inform
our understanding of the species' status and provide the basis for
future actions to reduce the species' extinction risk.
British Columbia: SARA Listing and Recovery Plan
Pinto abalone are currently listed as endangered (i.e., facing
imminent extirpation or extinction) in British Columbia under Canada's
Species at Risk Act (SARA). This listing was based on continued low
population numbers and declines despite the closure of abalone
fisheries throughout British Columbia since 1990. The species was first
assessed in 1999 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada (COSEWIC) and designated as threatened by COSEWIC in 2000 and
later under SARA in 2003. COSEWIC re-examined and up-listed pinto
abalone to endangered in 2009, due to continued population declines
primarily attributed to poaching (COSEWIC 2009). Up-listing to
endangered status under SARA followed in 2011. Pinto abalone are also
included on British Columbia's Red-list, with a global status of G3G4
(indicating uncertainty regarding the species' status as vulnerable or
apparently secure) and a provincial status of S2 (i.e., imperiled in
the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted
range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors making it
very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province) (BC
Conservation Data Centre 2014).
SARA prohibits killing, harming, harassing, possessing, and buying
or selling an individual or its parts (including the shell); these
prohibitions apply to both farm-raised and wild pinto abalone (COSEWIC
2009). Although fisheries harvest has been prohibited since 1990,
poaching has continued to pose a major threat to pinto abalone in
British Columbia (Lessard et al. 2007). To address this threat,
protocols have been established to track abalone sold on the market, to
deter the sale of wild abalone as cultured abalone (COSEWIC 2009). In
addition, enforcement patrols, prosecution of poaching cases, and
stewardship programs, such as the CoastWatch program, aim to reduce
illegal harvest (DFO 2012). Preliminary data from the most recent index
site surveys in 2012 and 2013 indicate a decrease in mortality
associated with illegal harvest, likely due to these enforcement and
stewardship efforts (pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April
2014).
In 2007, DFO finalized a Recovery Strategy (DFO 2007) for pinto
abalone in Canada that sets goals and objectives for halting and
reversing the decline of the species and identifies the main areas of
activities to be undertaken. In 2012, the DFO finalized the Action Plan
(DFO 2012) to guide implementation of the Recovery Strategy. The
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan set specific population and
distribution objectives as well as short-term (10-year) and long-term
(30-year) recovery targets for pinto abalone. The Action Plan
identifies recovery activities to address threats, monitor status, and
support rebuilding of pinto abalone populations, and also identifies
critical habitat for pinto abalone within four areas in British
Columbia. Few activities were identified as likely to destroy critical
habitat, and the overall estimated impact of works or developments in
critical habitat areas was rated as low. An assessment protocol has
been established that specifies criteria to avoid harmful alteration,
disruption, or destruction of critical habitat (Lessard et al. 2007).
This protocol applies to works or
[[Page 78018]]
development proposed to occur in, on, or under water within pinto
abalone critical habitat. In addition to DFO's Recovery Strategy and
Action Plan, several First Nations and coastal communities have
developed area-based Community Action Plans with similar goals and
objectives to support the long-term recovery of pinto abalone.
Many of the protections and conservation efforts identified in the
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have been ongoing for several years.
DFO continues to conduct index site surveys every 4-5 years, providing
valuable time series and size frequency data to monitor population
status. Adult translocations have been conducted at various locations,
and preliminary results from one site (Broken Group Islands) indicate
success in increasing juvenile densities (Lessard et al. 2007, pers.
comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, cited in COSEWIC 2009). Outplanting
studies have also been conducted at various locations between 2000 and
2010, through partnerships between DFO, First Nations, and other
coastal communities (DFO 2012). Results from Barkley Sound show that
outplanted abalone experience high mortality and/or emigration rates,
but that outplanted individuals made up to 26 percent of the observed
abalone at the sites (Read et al. 2012). Education and outreach efforts
continue to raise awareness regarding the status of pinto abalone and
reduce poaching pressure. Under DFO's Recovery Strategy and Action
Plan, these protections and conservation efforts will continue to be
implemented, evaluated, improved, and added to as new information
becomes available.
Based on the criteria in the PECE policy, in our judgment the DFO
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have a high certainty of
implementation because many of the actions are ongoing and DFO has the
management authority, resources, and partnerships to continue carrying
out these actions. We also anticipate that implementation of the
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan is highly likely to be effective at
substantially reducing the overutilization of pinto abalone as well as
the demographic risks facing the species. For example, preliminary
results from the 2012 and 2013 index site surveys at Haida Gwaii and
along the Central Coast indicate that the reduction in poaching has
allowed populations to rebound, with densities at some sites exceeding
the short-term recovery targets. We anticipate that ongoing and further
protections and conservation efforts will benefit the status of the
species in the foreseeable future, decreasing the species' extinction
risk.
Washington: Ongoing Conservation Efforts and Draft Recovery Plan
Since the early 2000s, the WDFW, Puget Sound Restoration Fund
(PSRF), University of Washington, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, NOAA, and
other partners have worked together to advance the recovery of pinto
abalone in Washington State, focusing on the area around the San Juan
Island Archipelago (see Vadopalas and Watson 2013). With the
establishment of a hatchery for pinto abalone rearing and restoration
studies at NOAA's Mukilteo facility in 2003, much progress has been
made in the development of successful captive propagation and grow-out
methods, as well as in understanding the effects of rearing conditions,
salinity, temperature, and ocean acidification on abalone survival and
behavior. Field studies have been conducted to inform the
prioritization and development of enhancement activities, including
abalone recruitment studies, experimental out-plantings with larvae and
juveniles, adult aggregations, and tagging trials. In addition, a
public outreach campaign was initiated to inform the public about the
status of pinto abalone in Washington.
A final recovery plan for pinto abalone in Washington (Vadopalas
and Watson 2013) was developed in collaboration between WDFW,
University of Washington (Friedman Lab), PSRF, NOAA NMFS Mukilteo
Research Station, Baywater, Inc., Western Washington University's
Shannon Point Marine Center, and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The
plan summarizes the biology, life history, and status of pinto abalone
in the San Juan Islands Archipelago, provides an overview of recovery
efforts to date, and establishes a plan for recovering the species,
including goals and objectives, recommended approaches, and an
evaluation of potential recovery strategies. To achieve the long-term
goal of halting the decline of pinto abalone and recovering populations
to a self-sustainable level, the plan focuses on aggregation and
supplementation activities, drawing upon what has been learned from
collaborative restoration efforts thus far to guide future efforts.
The plan includes clear objectives, identification of threats to
the species, and a diversity of specific strategies to address those
threats, including monitoring and evaluation criteria and an adaptive
management approach. Implementation of the plan would ensure
continuation of current protections, raise awareness of pinto abalone,
and contribute to recovery through active enhancement efforts, using a
multi-faceted approach involving investigation of several strategies
(e.g., aggregation, out-planting) that have been shown to have the
potential to enhance wild populations. We recognize that the plan is
not a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document that has been
vetted through a public review process. In addition, the plan does not
identify funding sources to support the captive propagation and
enhancement activities. WDFW has the legal authority and responsibility
to carry out management (e.g., maintain harvest closures) and recovery
of pinto abalone, and has already established partnerships that are
needed to effectively carry out the plan. Based on the success of past
and ongoing collaborative efforts, we are fairly certain that the
protections and conservation efforts described in the plan will be
implemented. However, funding will determine to what extent enhancement
efforts are implemented, and we cannot be certain what amount of
funding will be available at this time. Overall, we anticipate that
implementation of the recovery actions under the recovery plan would be
highly likely to be effective at substantially reducing the demographic
risks currently facing pinto abalone populations at the San Juan
Islands Archipelago and decrease the species' extinction risk.
California: Abalone Recovery and Management Plan
In 1997, passage of the Thompson bill (AB 663) in California
created a moratorium on the taking, possessing, or landing of abalone
for commercial or recreational purposes in ocean waters south of San
Francisco (including at all offshore islands), and also mandated the
creation of an Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP), with a
requirement that the California Fish and Game Commission undertake
abalone management in a manner consistent with this plan. The ARMP was
finalized by the CDFW and adopted by the California Fish and Game
Commission in December 2005. It includes all of California's abalone
species, providing a cohesive framework for the recovery of depleted
abalone populations in southern California and for the management of
the northern California fishery and future abalone fisheries. The
recovery portion of the plan addresses all abalone species that are
subject to the fishing moratorium (including pinto abalone), with the
ultimate goal of recovering species from a perilous condition to a
sustainable one, with a
[[Page 78019]]
margin of abalone available for fishing. The management portion of the
plan applies to populations considered sustainable and fishable (e.g.,
the current red abalone fishery north of San Francisco), with the goal
of maintaining sustainable fisheries under a long-term management plan
that can be adapted quickly to respond to environmental or population
changes. The ARMP identifies timelines, estimated costs, and funding
sources for implementing the recovery and management actions.
The recovery portion of the ARMP specifies several actions to
assess the status of the species and enhance populations. These
include: Exploratory surveys to evaluate current population levels and
the location of aggregations; detailed surveys of known abalone
habitat; assessment surveys to evaluate achievement of recovery
criteria and goals; disease and genetics research; the development or
support of existing culture programs; and out-planting and aggregation/
translocation feasibility studies and, if successful, large-scale
efforts. Given limited resources, the plan primarily focuses on red,
pink, green, white, and black abalone, because these species made up
the majority of the commercial and recreational fishery and are more
commonly encountered. The ARMP includes focused assessment surveys for
pinto abalone, but other actions will be conducted in conjunction with
those for the other species. For example, exploratory surveys for pinto
abalone will be conducted as part of exploratory surveys for the five
major species. Pinto abalone have been documented during surveys for
other abalone species over the past 15 years, and will continue to be
recorded during surveys for emergent abalone and monitoring of
recruitment modules that have been deployed throughout southern
California (4 sites) and in northern California (one site). Because the
specific habitat and depth requirements of pinto abalone may differ
from the other species, these surveys may or may not provide an
accurate assessment of pinto abalone population levels in California.
Enhancement activities (e.g., culture programs, out-planting and
aggregation/translocation studies) will focus on the other abalone
species. Although the information gained from these studies will likely
benefit future enhancement efforts for pinto abalone, the direct
benefits to the species are limited at this time.
The ARMP also calls for the establishment of new marine protected
areas or MPAs (in addition to those already established) to protect and
preserve abalone populations. The State recently established new MPAs
as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA; FGC Sec. 2852)
process in areas throughout the California coast. Depending on their
location and specific regulations, some MPAs may provide increased
protection for pinto abalone and their habitat. In addition, the ARMP
discusses enhanced enforcement efforts that include routine patrols of
tidal areas, boat patrols, undercover operations, spot-checks of
fishing licenses and abalone permit report cards, abalone checkpoints,
and community outreach and education regarding overfishing and ocean
stewardship. These efforts are likely to reduce the risk of poaching to
pinto abalone.
In our judgment, the recovery actions and increased enforcement
efforts under the ARMP are not necessarily certain to occur due to
funding limitations but would be beneficial to the persistence of pinto
abalone. We anticipate enforcement efforts will help reduce extinction
risk to the species by reducing the risk of overutilization and
poaching, both of which were considered by the SRT to pose moderate
risk to the species. In addition, assessment surveys for pinto abalone
and opportunistic observations during surveys for other abalone will
provide additional data to inform assessments of the species' status
and trends. However, the lack of long-term monitoring and enhancement
efforts focused on pinto abalone limits the effectiveness of the ARMP
in addressing current demographic risks to the species. An important
question is whether and how the habitat and depth distribution of pinto
abalone may differ from other abalone species, to evaluate the degree
of overlap between the species.
National Marine Sanctuary Regulations
Three coastal national marine sanctuaries in California contain
habitat suitable for pinto abalone: Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary (CINMS), Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), and
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS). At all three
sanctuaries, the inshore boundary extends to the mean high water line,
thus encompassing intertidal habitat.
Federal regulations (which are similar at all three sites) for
these National Marine Sanctuaries provide protection against some of
the threats to pinto abalone. For example, direct disturbance to or
development of pinto abalone habitat is regulated at all three
sanctuaries by way of a prohibition on the alteration of, construction
upon, drilling into, or dredging of the seabed (including the
intertidal zone), with exceptions for anchoring, installing navigation
aids, special dredge disposal sites (MBNMS only), harbor-related
maintenance, and bottom tending fishing gear in areas not otherwise
restricted. Water quality impacts to pinto abalone habitat are
regulated by strict discharge regulations prohibiting the discharge or
deposit of pollutants, except for effluents required for normal boating
operations (e.g., vessel cooling waters, effluents from marine
sanitation devices, fish wastes and bait). In addition, CDFW has
established networks of marine reserves and marine conservation areas
within the CINMS and along portions of the MBNMS, where multi-agency
patrols provide elevated levels of enforcement presence and increased
protection against poaching of pinto abalone.
We anticipate that enforcement of these management plans and
regulations will be effective at reducing the risk of poaching and
habitat destruction or alteration for pinto abalone populations within
the sanctuaries. The level of benefits to the species' status is
uncertain, however, because we lack data to understand what proportion
of the populations reside within the sanctuaries. Each of the
sanctuaries is currently undergoing management plan review processes,
which may result in changes to the regulations. However, the level of
protection provided to pinto abalone is not expected to decrease, and
possibly may increase should stricter regulations regarding large
vessel discharges and proposed prohibitions on the release of
introduced species be adopted.
IUCN and NMFS Species of Concern Listings
The pinto abalone was added to the IUCN Red List in 2006 (McDougall
et al. 2006). The IUCN listing raises public awareness of the species
but does not provide any regulatory protections to address threats to
the species. The pinto abalone was also added to the NMFS Species of
Concern List in 2004 (69 FR 19975; 15 April 2004). Species of Concern
are those species about which we have some concerns regarding status
and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to
indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Although inclusion
on the Species of Concern List does not carry any procedural or
substantive protections under the ESA, it does draw proactive attention
and conservation action to the species. In addition, funding under the
Species of Concern grant program has been provided to support research
and conservation efforts for pinto abalone in
[[Page 78020]]
the past, including components of Washington's pinto abalone recovery
efforts, as described above, and studies on the effects of ocean
acidification on pinto abalone. Funding for new grants, however, has
not been available since 2011. In general, the listings under the IUCN
Red List and NMFS Species of Concern List benefit the persistence of
pinto abalone by promoting public awareness of the species. However, it
is difficult to evaluate how effective this will be in reducing threats
to pinto abalone.
Final Determination
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, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the
species. We have reviewed the petition, public comments submitted on
the 90-day finding, the status review report, and other available
published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species
experts and other individuals familiar with pinto abalone. We
considered each of the five ESA statutory factors to determine whether
any presented an extinction risk to the species on its own or in
combination with other factors. As required by the ESA section
4(b)(1)(a), we also took into account efforts to protect pinto abalone
by the states, Tribes, foreign nations, or other entities and evaluated
whether those efforts provide a conservation benefit to the species. On
the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that the pinto abalone is not presently in danger of
extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Below, we
summarize the factors supporting this conclusion.
In our assessment of the five ESA statutory factors, we agree with
the SRT's conclusion that the identified stressors represent low to
moderate threats to the species. Among the moderate threats, the SRT
identified the following as threats of greater concern: Low densities
resulting from historical fisheries harvest; illegal take due to
poaching and inadequate enforcement; sea otter predation; and ocean
acidification impacts. Prohibitions on pinto abalone harvest throughout
most of the species' range have largely removed the threat of over-
utilization. Although populations continue to remain at low densities,
recent/recurring recruitment events indicate that the densities are
high enough to support successful reproduction and recruitment in
Alaska, British Columbia, Northern and Southern California, and Mexico.
Poaching was a major threat hindering the recovery of populations in
British Columbia, but recent evidence indicates that enforcement and
outreach efforts have been effective at reducing illegal take and
allowing population numbers to increase. Regulations are in place, but
continued enforcement and monitoring are needed throughout the range to
evaluate their effectiveness. Sea otter predation has contributed to
population declines and/or lack of recovery in pinto abalone
populations where the two species overlap, but in no case has local
extinction of any abalone population or species in the northeastern
Pacific been documented as a result of predation by sea otters.
Researchers in British Columbia have reported higher pinto abalone
densities at survey sites where sea otters are present compared to
sites where sea otters are absent (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, 24
April 2014), showing that the population level impacts of increasing
sea otter presence may vary. Overall, the SRT concluded, and we agree,
that the two species can sustainably co-exist. Finally, ocean
acidification could affect pinto abalone populations and their habitat
in the future, but there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the
magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects. Overall, we did not
identify any factors or combinations of factors that are contributing
significantly to the species' extinction risk now or in the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we conclude that pinto abalone are not endangered or
threatened due to any of the five ESA statutory factors.
In evaluating the overall risk to the species throughout its range,
we relied on the SRT's assessment of overall extinction risk and the
best available information regarding the species' status and ongoing
and future conservation efforts. We asked the SRT to assess the overall
level of extinction risk to the species now and in the foreseeable
future, considering two time frames: 30 years and 100 years. Thirty
years represents about three generation times for pinto abalone and is
a reasonable time frame over which threats can be predicted reliably
and their impacts to the biological status of the species may be
observed. This time frame for foreseeable future is also consistent
with what was used in the status review for black abalone (VanBlaricom
et al. 2009) and by the IUCN (McDougall et al. 2006) and COSEWIC (2009)
in their assessments of the status of pinto abalone. The 100-year time
frame was also used to consider the impacts of longer-term threats,
such as climate change and changes in oceanographic conditions, but
introduces additional uncertainty into the analysis. We decided to
consider the SRT's assessment over both time frames; however, we put
more weight on the SRT's assessment over a foreseeable future of 30
years, because there is greater certainty in this assessment (i.e., we
can more reliably predict the threats and their impacts over the 30-
year time frame than the 100-year time frame). We note, however, that
the SRT's assessment over both time frames led to the same conclusion
regarding the species' extinction risk, as discussed below.
Over the 30 year time frame, the SRT was fairly certain that the
species faces a Low to Moderate risk of extinction, but expressed some
uncertainty as to the severity of threats and demographic risks. This
uncertainty is expected, given the wide distribution of the species and
varying levels of data available for different regions. The SRT placed
the majority (55 percent) of their likelihood points in the No/Very Low
and Low risk categories, indicating that Low risk may be more plausible
over the 30 year time frame.
We also considered the SRT's assessment over a foreseeable future
of 100 years. The SRT again concluded that the species has a Low to
Moderate risk of extinction, but perceived slightly greater risk (i.e.,
increased points in the Moderate risk category) to the species over a
foreseeable future of 100 years compared to a foreseeable future of 30
years, citing increased concern regarding long-term threats such as
ocean acidification, climate change impacts, and increasing sea otter
predation. Again, the SRT noted increased uncertainty regarding these
threats and their effects on the status of pinto abalone over the 100
year time frame. Although the perceived risk is slightly greater over
the 100 year time-frame, the analysis ultimately indicated a Low to
Moderate risk of extinction, consistent with the analysis over the 30
year time-frame.
In our evaluation of ongoing and future conservation efforts for
pinto abalone, we found that conservation efforts throughout
California, the San Juan Islands Archipelago, and British Columbia are
highly likely to reduce threats to the species and its habitat. At the
San Juan Islands Archipelago and British Columbia, enhancement
activities directly focused on pinto
[[Page 78021]]
abalone are highly likely to benefit pinto abalone populations and
reduce the demographic risks currently affecting the species. Thus,
these ongoing and future conservation efforts will further reduce the
species' extinction risk now and in the foreseeable future,
particularly in British Columbia and at the San Juan Islands
Archipelago where the SRT expressed the most concern. Based on our
evaluation of the best available information regarding the species'
status and threats, the SRT's assessment of extinction risk, and our
assessment of conservation efforts, we conclude that the pinto abalone
has a Low to Low/Moderate risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable
future. Based on our judgment, a Low to Low/Moderate risk of extinction
indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range.
In evaluating the overall risk to the species within a significant
portion of its range, we relied on the SRT's identification and
assessment of potential SPRs. The SRT identified three potential SPRs:
A Northern portion (AK/BC/SJA), a Southern portion (NorCal/SoCal/MX),
and a portion encompassing the whole range excluding Northern
California (AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX). The SRT concluded that the Southern
portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion of the species range have a Low
risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years and Low
to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 100
years. For the same reasons as stated above, we considered the SRT's
assessment for both time frames, but put more weight on the SRT's
assessment over a foreseeable future of 30 years. Over both time
frames, the SRT indicated that extinction risk of No/Very Low to Low
was most plausible for the Southern portion (76 percent of points over
a foreseeable future of 30 years; 56 percent of points over a
foreseeable future of 100 years) and for the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion
(71 percent of points over a foreseeable future of 30 years; 55 percent
of points over a foreseeable future of 100 years). The SRT was more
certain of a No/Very Low to Low risk to the species over a foreseeable
future of 30 years, whereas there was some uncertainty regarding
whether the species may have a Low to Moderate risk over a foreseeable
future of 100 years. As stated above, there are ongoing and future
conservation efforts throughout California, San Juan Islands
Archipelago, and British Columbia that have a high likelihood of
reducing threats and demographic risks to the species. Based on the
best available information regarding the species' status, the SRT's
assessment of extinction risk, and our analysis of conservation
efforts, we conclude that pinto abalone has a Low risk of extinction
throughout the Southern portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion now and
in the foreseeable future. Based on our judgment, a Low risk of
extinction indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
the Southern portion or AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion of its range.
Therefore, we determined that the species is not endangered or
threatened throughout the Southern portion or the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX
portion of its range and did not need to address the question of
whether these two potential SPRs are indeed significant.
For the potential SPR in the Northern portion of the species' range
(AK/BC/SJA), the SRT concluded that there is a Low to Moderate risk of
extinction now and in the foreseeable future (30 years and 100 years).
For the same reasons as stated above, we considered the SRT's
assessment for both time frames, but put more weight on the SRT's
assessment over a foreseeable future of 30 years. When considering a
foreseeable future of 30 years, the SRT placed the majority (54
percent) of their likelihood points in the No/Very Low and Low risk
categories, indicating that No/Very Low to Low risk was the most
plausible. When considering a foreseeable future of 100 years, the SRT
indicated that Low to Moderate risk is more plausible, but expressed
greater uncertainty regarding their assessment of risk because of
greater uncertainty regarding threats (e.g., climate change, ocean
acidification, sea otter predation) and how they might affect pinto
abalone into the future. We note that even over the 100 year time
frame, the number of points in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories
(total: 30 points) were almost equal to the number of points in the
Moderate risk categories (31 points). Most of the SRT members expressed
concern regarding the lack of population data in Alaska and the
declines in pinto abalone abundance in British Columbia and at the San
Juan Islands Archipelago. However, SRT members also noted evidence for
recent/recurring recruitment in both Alaska and British Columbia and
recent signs of recovery in British Columbia under the SARA protections
and decreased poaching pressure. We found that in both British Columbia
and at the San Juan Islands Archipelago, protective regulations and
conservation efforts have been implemented that have a high likelihood
of substantially reducing the demographic risks and threats facing the
species. In both regions, Federal, state, and local governmental
entities, Tribes, and non-governmental organizations have established
strong partnerships and are working together on ongoing conservation
and enhancement activities for the recovery of pinto abalone. In
addition, ADF&G has indicated that they will conduct monitoring surveys
for pinto abalone to better assess the species' status in Alaska. Based
on the best available information regarding the species' status, the
SRT's assessment of extinction risk, and our assessment of conservation
efforts, we concluded that pinto abalone have a Low to Low/Moderate
risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable future throughout the
Northern portion. Based on our judgment, a Low to Low/Moderate risk
indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout the
Northern portion of its range. Therefore, we determined that the
species is not endangered or threatened throughout the Northern portion
of its range and did not need to address the question of whether this
potential SPR is indeed significant.
Based on these findings, we conclude that the pinto abalone is not
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, the pinto abalone does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered species and therefore the
pinto abalone does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at
this time. However, the species will remain on our NMFS Species of
Concern list, with one revision to apply the Species of Concern status
to the species throughout its range (currently, the Species of Concern
status applies only to the species range from Alaska to Point
Conception). We will continue to encourage research, monitoring, and
conservation efforts for the species throughout its range.
We recognize that the status of pinto abalone has been assessed by
various groups at the State and international level. Pinto abalone are
considered a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (i.e., not State ESA
listed, but needing conservation action or additional information) and
a Candidate Species for State ESA listing in Washington; as Endangered
in Canada under SARA (as of 2011; originally listed as Threatened in
2003); and as Endangered on the
[[Page 78022]]
IUCN Red List as of 2006. However, these assessments and their
conclusions do not directly inform our analysis of extinction risk for
the pinto abalone. First, the criteria used for assessing whether a
species warrants listing under the State ESA, Canada's SARA, or the
IUCN Red List are different than the standards for making a
determination that a species warrants listing as threatened or
endangered under the Federal ESA. Second, the geographic scope
considered in these assessments differed from the scope of our
analysis. Washington State's review focuses on the status of the
species within state waters. Canada's SARA listing focused on the
status of the species within British Columbia, and also did not
incorporate more recent data that has become available since 2011,
showing decreased poaching pressure and increasing abundances at index
survey sites. The IUCN Red List assessment focused on the status of the
northern form of pinto abalone (Point Conception to Alaska), and was
largely based on population trends in Alaska and British Columbia
(McDougall et al. 2006). McDougall et al. (2006) cited the lack of
overlap in abundance and low presence of the southern form relative to
other California abalone species as reasons for focusing on the
northern form. However, as we have discussed above (see ``The Species
Question'' section), more recent evidence indicates that the degree of
overlap between the northern and southern form is greater than
previously thought. We considered the pinto abalone as one species
throughout its range due to the lack of genetic, geographic, or
ecological justification for treating the northern and southern forms
as separate species. In addition, the ESA does not allow the
consideration of distinct population segments for invertebrate species.
Thus, our analysis of the species' status under the Federal ESA
considered different standards and a broader geographic scope than
these previous assessments.
In this status review, we identified several important data gaps
that need to be addressed to inform our understanding of the status of
the species. These data gaps include: pinto abalone abundance and
trends in Alaska, California, and Mexico; past and present fisheries
harvest levels in Alaska and Mexico; and the presence, distribution,
and abundance of pinto abalone along the outer coast of Washington and
Oregon. We encourage the following research and monitoring efforts to
address these data gaps.
In Alaska: (a) Establishment of regular, long-term
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and
distribution; and (b) monitoring and management of personal use and
subsistence harvest to minimize impacts to pinto abalone. As discussed
under the ``Summary of factors affecting the species'' (see the section
on ``Overutilization''), ADF&G believes that personal use and
subsistence harvest is currently low, but regulations still allow
harvest of up to five pinto abalone per person per day. Monitoring
would provide the data needed to estimate current harvest levels and to
evaluate the impacts of these harvest levels (allowed and actual) on
the pinto abalone population in Alaska.
In Washington: Surveys to evaluate the presence,
abundance, and distribution of pinto abalone along the outer coast of
Washington.
In Oregon: Surveys to evaluate the presence, abundance,
and distribution of pinto abalone along the outer coast of Oregon.
Revision of the fisheries regulations may also be needed to clarify
that harvest of pinto abalone is prohibited.
In California: Establishment of regular, long-term
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and
distribution.
In Mexico: (a) Establishment of regular, long-term
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and
distribution; and (b) monitoring of pinto abalone harvest and, as
needed, management measures to minimize impacts of fisheries harvest on
pinto abalone. As discussed under the ``Summary of factors affecting
the species'' (see the section on ``Overutilization''), current harvest
levels of pinto abalone in Mexico are thought to be low. Monitoring
would provide the data needed to estimate current harvest levels and
their impacts on the pinto abalone population in Mexico.
Given the data gaps and uncertainties associated with our current
understanding of the status of the species, we plan to retain pinto
abalone on the NMFS Species of Concern list with one revision to apply
the Species of Concern status throughout the species' range (Alaska to
Mexico).
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available on the
NMFS West Coast Region Web site (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/) and upon request (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 22, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30345 Filed 12-22-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P