Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni), 76454-76469 [E8-28897]
Download as PDF
76454
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Management Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone 907/
786–3800; facsimile 907/786–3816. If
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R7–ES–2008–0105; 92210–1117–
0000–FY08–B4]
RIN 1018–AV92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Southwest Alaska
Distinct Population Segment of the
Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris
kenyoni)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the
southwest Alaska Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the northern sea otter
(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately
15,225 square kilometers (km2) (5,879
square miles (mi2)) fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation. The proposed
critical habitat is located in Alaska.
DATES: We will accept comments
received on or before February 17, 2009.
We must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section by January 30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R7–
ES–2008–0105; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
Detailed, colored maps of areas
proposed as critical habitat in this
proposed rule are available for viewing
at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
seaotters/criticalhabitat.htm. Hard
copies of maps can be obtained by
contacting the Marine Mammals
Mangement Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas M. Burn, Marine Mammals
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
suggestions on this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from
human activity, the degree of which can
be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether the benefit of
designation would outweigh threats to
the species caused by the designation,
such that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of
habitat of the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter,
• What areas occupied at the time of
listing and that contain features
essential for the conservation of the
species we should include in the
designation and why, and
• What areas not occupied at the time
of listing are essential to the
conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed
designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(5) Any areas that might be
appropriate for exclusion from the final
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
(6) Special management
considerations or protections that the
proposed critical habitat may require.
(7) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section. We will not
consider comments sent by email or fax
or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Marine Mammals Management
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
ADDRESSES
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat in this
proposed rule. For more information on
the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2005 (70 FR
46366). More detailed information on
northern sea otter biology and ecology
that is directly relevant to designation of
critical habitat is discussed under the
Primary Constituent Elements section
below.
Description and Taxonomy
Sea otters are the only completely
marine species of the aquatic lutrinae,
or otter subfamily of the family
Mustelidae (skunks, weasels, minks,
badgers, and honey badgers)
(Wozencraft 1993, pp. 310). In an
exhaustive systematic review and
analysis of sea otter skull morphology,
Wilson et al. (1991, p. 33–34) concluded
there were three subspecies, the Russian
sea otter (Enhydra lutris lutris) from
Asia to the Commander Islands,
southern sea otter (E. l. nereis) from
California, and a newly described
subspecies, the northern sea otter (E. l.
kenyoni), from Alaska.
Currently there are three population
stocks of sea otters recognized in
Alaska, as defined under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.): (1) Southeast Alaska; (2)
southcentral Alaska; and (3) southwest
Alaska (Gorbics and Bodkin 2001, p.
632). The southwest Alaska population
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
stock (DPS) is listed as threatened under
the Act.
The sea otter is one of the largest
mustelids, and the sexes are moderately
dimorphic (two distinct forms). Adult
males attain weights of 45 kilograms
(kg) (99.2 pounds (lbs)) and total lengths
of 148 centimeters (cm) (58.3 inches
(in)), and adult females attain weights of
36 kg (79.4 lbs) and total lengths of 140
cm (55.1 in). Size appears to vary among
populations and to a large extent may
represent the status of the population
relative to available food resources.
Fur and the air trapped within it
provide the primary source of insulation
and buoyancy for the sea otter, and in
contrast to most other marine mammals
(which rely on a thick blubber layer),
there is little or no subcutaneous fat.
The ability of the sea otter to
thermoregulate is dependent on
maintaining the integrity of the pelage
(fur), in conjunction with an extremely
high metabolic rate (as discussed
below). This requires a nearly constant,
yet gradual, molt, as well as frequent
and vigorous grooming. The color of the
pelage ranges from light brown to nearly
black. As animals age, they may attain
a grizzled appearance, with whitening
occurring in the head, neck, and torso
regions. Newborn pups have a pale
brown, woolly natal pelage until about
3 months of age.
Distribution and Habitat
The southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter ranges from Attu
Island at the western end of Near
Islands in the Aleutians, east to
Kamishak Bay on the western side of
lower Cook Inlet, and includes waters
adjacent to the Aleutian Islands, the
Alaska Peninsula, the Kodiak
archipelago, and the Barren Islands.
As a species, sea otters occur only in
the North Pacific Ocean. The historical
range includes coastal habitats around
the Pacific Rim between central Baja
California and northern Japan. The
range currently occupied extends from
southern California to northern Japan,
with extralimital sightings in central
Baja California and near Wrangel Island
in the Chukchi Sea. The northward
limits in distribution appear related to
the southern limits of sea ice, which can
preclude access to foraging habitat.
Seasonal and inter-annual variation in
the southern extent of sea ice results in
constriction and expansion of the sea
otter’s northern range. During periods of
advancing winter sea ice along their
northern range, sea otters occasionally
become trapped and sometimes die
(Nikolaev 1965, p. 35; Schneider and
Faro 1975, p. 91). Sea otters attempting
to travel tens of kilometers over the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Alaska Peninsula to access the ice-free
Pacific were observed in 1971 and 1972
(Schneider and Faro 1975, pp. 93–96)
and again in 1982, 1999, and 2000
(USGS unpub. data). Although some
otters may succeed in such efforts, many
apparently die from starvation or
predation by wolves (Canis lupus), red
foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and wolverines
(Gulo gulo). Southern range limits are
less well understood but appear to
coincide with the southern limits of
coastal upwelling, associated canopyforming kelp forests, and the 20–22°
Celsius (68–72° Fahrenheit) isotherm
(Kenyon 1969, p. 135; Estes 1980, p.
133).
Sea otters occupy and use all habitats
within the nearshore marine ecosystem,
from protected bays and estuaries to
exposed outer coasts and offshore
islands. Because they need to dive to the
sea floor to forage (Bodkin 2001, p.
2616), the seaward limit of their usual
distribution is defined by their diving
ability and is approximated by the 100
meter (m) (328.1 feet (ft)) depth contour.
While sea otters may be found at the
surface in water deeper than 100 m
(328.1 ft), either resting or swimming,
they are most commonly observed in
waters within a few km of shore
(Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 22), and
higher densities are frequently
associated with shallow water (Laidre et
al. 2002, p. 1177). Bodkin and Udevitz
(1999, p. 22) found 80 percent of the
otters in Prince William Sound (PWS)
where water depths are less than 40 m
(131.2 ft), although the proportion of
total habitat within this bathymetric
zone was about 33 percent. Where
relatively shallow waters or islands
extend far offshore, sea otters can also
be found in high densities (Kenyon
1969, p. 57). While they periodically
haul out on intertidal or supratidal
shores (flooded by very high tides),
particularly during winter months, and
generally remain close to the sea-land
interface, no aspect of their life history
requires leaving the ocean (Kenyon
1969, pp. 59–104; Riedman and Estes
1990, p. 24). Although sea otter habitat
occurs in the nearshore marine
environment, it is important to note that
activities that occur in the broader
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska
ecosystems may affect their habitat and
populations (Estes et al. 1998, p. 475).
Sea otters forage in diverse bottom
types, from fine mud and sand to rocky
reefs. Recent research employing
archival time depth recorders recovered
from sea otters in southeast Alaska
showed that 84 percent of foraging
occurred in depths between 2–30 m
(6.6–98.4 ft), and that 16 percent of all
foraging was between 30–100 m (98.4–
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76455
328.1 ft) (Bodkin et al. 2004, p. 305).
Maximum foraging depths averaged 61
m (200.1 ft) and ranged from 35–100 m
(114.8–328.1 ft). Less than 2 percent of
all foraging dives were greater than 55
m (180.4 ft). Females dove to depths less
than 20 m (65.6 ft) on 85 percent of their
foraging dives while males dove to
depths greater than 45 m (147.6 ft) on
50 percent of their foraging dives.
Recent research from California suggests
these patterns may be similar among
populations (Tinker et al. 2006, p. 148).
Previous Federal Actions
The southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter was listed as
threatened on August 9, 2005 (70 FR
46366). Critical habitat was considered
to be prudent, but not determinable, and
therefore was not designated for this
DPS at the time of listing. When a not
determinable finding is made, we must,
within one year of the publication date
of the final listing rule, designate critical
habitat, unless the designation is found
to be not prudent. On December 19,
2006, the Center for Biological Diversity
filed suit against the Service for failure
to designate critical habitat within the
statutory time frame (Center for
Biological Diversity et al. v.
Kempthorne et al., No. 1:06–CV–02151–
RMC (D.D.C. 2007)). On April 11, 2007,
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia entered an order approving a
stipulated settlement of the parties
requiring the Service on or before
November 30, 2008, to submit to the
Federal Register a determination as to
whether designation of critical habitat
for the southwest Alaska DPS is
prudent, and if so, to publish a
proposed rule. We have subsequently
reaffirmed that critical habitat for the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter is prudent. This proposed rule
complies with the court order and
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For more
information on previous Federal actions
concerning the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2005 (70 FR
46366).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
76456
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means the use of
all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act
requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the
government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
the landowner. Where the landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an activity
that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7 of the Act
would apply. However, even in the
event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the landowner’s
obligation is not to restore or recover the
species, but to implement reasonable
and prudent alternatives to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat
designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed must
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific data available, habitat
areas that provide essential life cycle
needs of the species (areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements,
as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Occupied habitat that contains the
features essential to the conservation of
the species meets the definition of
critical habitat only if those features
may require special management
considerations or protection. Under the
Act, we can designate unoccupied areas
as critical habitat only when we
determine that the best available
scientific data demonstrate that the
designation of that area is essential to
the conservation needs of the species.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be proposed as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species
may move from one area to another over
time. Furthermore, we recognize that
designated critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that we
may eventually determine, based on
scientific data not now available to the
Service, are necessary for the recovery
of the species. For these reasons, a
critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may
not be required for recovery of the
species.
Areas that support populations, but
are outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject
to conservation actions we implement
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and our
other wildlife authorities. They are also
subject to the regulatory protections
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available scientific information
at the time of the agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may
result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available to these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining areas occupied
at the time of listing that contain
features essential to the conservation of
the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter, and areas
unoccupied at the time of listing that are
essential to the conservation of the DPS,
or both. In proposing critical habitat for
the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter, we reviewed the
relevant information available,
including peer-reviewed journal
articles, unpublished reports, the final
listing rule, and unpublished materials
(such as survey results and expert
opinions). In general, sea otters occupy
the vast majority of the available habitat
within southwest Alaska. Exceptions
include portions of Kodiak Island where
otters have yet to recolonize their former
range, and there may also be some
individual islands in the Aleutian
archipelago where otters have
disappeared (Doroff et al. 2003, p. 58).
We are not currently proposing any
areas outside the geographical area
presently occupied by the DPS because
designating only occupied areas is
sufficient for the conservation of the
species.
We have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species including
research published in peer-reviewed
articles and presented in academic
theses and agency reports. We also
discussed habitat requirements with
members of the southwest Alaska sea
otter recovery team at several meetings.
The sea otter recovery team includes
representatives from University of
Alaska Fairbanks, Fish and Wildlife
Service, University of British Columbia,
Marine Conservation Alliance, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Alaska
Veterinary Pathology Services,
Defenders of Wildlife, National Marine
Fisheries Service, The Alaska SeaLife
Center, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Smithsonian National Zoological
Park, The Alaska Sea Otter and Steller
Sea Lion Commission, University of
California Santa Cruz, University of
Alaska Sea Grant Program, and Sand
Point, Alaska.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, in determining which areas
occupied at the time of listing to
propose as critical habitat, we consider
areas containing the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and may
require special management
considerations or protection. These
features are the specific primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for the conservation of the
species. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for the
southwest Alaska DPS from its
biological needs, as described in the
Background section of this proposed
rule and the following information.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Sea otters exhibit complex movement
patterns related to habitat
characteristics, social organization, and
reproductive biology. It is likely that
movements differ among populations
depending on whether a population is at
or near carrying capacity or has access
to unoccupied suitable habitat into
which it can expand (Riedman and
Estes 1990, p. 58). Most research into
sea otter movements has been
conducted where unoccupied habitat is
available to dispersing animals. Early
research in the Aleutian Islands by
Kenyon (1969, p. 204) also found that
males have larger home ranges than
females and described the female sea
otter’s home range as including 8–16 km
(5.0–9.9 mi) of contiguous coastline.
Male sea otter home ranges are highly
variable. For territorial (breeding) males,
the area defended is smaller than that of
a female range, but the territory is not
necessarily defended year-round and
may include larger scale movements to
more productive feeding grounds.
Breeding may not occur until a male is
older (7–10 years) and in an established
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
population. Little is known about the
home range of non-breeding males. In
the listed region, where dramatic
reduction in numbers have occurred,
even less is known about movement
patterns and home range sizes (A.
Doroff, USFWS, pers. comm. 2008).
At present, sea otters occur
throughout nearly all of their former
range in southwest Alaska, albeit at
considerably lower densities than were
present prior to the recent population
decline that led to the listing of the DPS.
Space for individual and population
growth and for normal behavior does
not appear to be a limiting factor for this
DPS.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
The sea otter is a generalist predator,
known to consume a wide variety of
different prey species (Kenyon 1969, p.
110; Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 36;
Estes and Bodkin 2002, p. 847). With
few exceptions, their prey consist of
sessile, or slow-moving, benthic
invertebrates such as mollusks,
crustaceans, and echinoderms,
including sea urchins. Foraging occurs
in habitats with rocky and soft sediment
substrates between the high intertidal
zone to depths slightly in excess of 100
m (328.1 ft). Preferred foraging habitat is
generally in depths less than 40 m
(131.2 ft; Riedman and Estes 1990, p.
31), although studies in southeast
Alaska have found that some animals
forage mostly at depths from 40–80 m
(131.2–262.5 ft; Bodkin et. al. 2004, p.
318).
The diet of sea otters is usually
studied by observing prey items brought
to the surface for consumption, and
therefore diet composition is usually
expressed as a percentage of all
identified prey that belong to a
particular prey species or type.
Although the sea otter is known to prey
on a large number of species, only a few
tend to predominate in the diet in any
particular area. Prey type and size
depends on location, habitat type,
season, and length of occupation.
Sea otters can be very diverse in their
diets. Different habitats offer different
types of prey. There are about 200
known prey species for sea otters, but
the dominant ones that tend to sustain
the population are crab, clam, urchin,
and mussel. The predominately softsediment habitats of southeast Alaska,
Prince William Sound, and Kodiak
Island support populations of clams that
are the primary prey of sea otters.
Throughout most of southeast Alaska,
burrowing clams (species of Saxidomus,
Protothaca, Macoma, and Mya)
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76457
predominate in the sea otter’s diet
(Kvitek et al. 1993, p. 172). They
account for more than 50 percent of the
identified prey, although urchins (S.
droebachiensis) and mussels (Modiolis
modiolis, Mytilus spp., and Musculus
spp.) can also be important. In Prince
William Sound and Kodiak Island,
clams account for 34–100 percent of the
otter’s prey (Calkins 1978, p. 127; Doroff
and Bodkin 1994, p. 202; Doroff and
DeGange 1994, p. 706). Mussels (Mytilus
trossulus) apparently become more
important for sea otters as a prey base
as the length of occupation by sea otters
increases, ranging from 0 percent of
their prey base at newly occupied sites
at Kodiak to 22 percent of their prey
base in long-occupied areas (Doroff and
DeGange 1994, p. 709). Crabs (C.
magister) were once important sea otter
prey in eastern Prince William Sound,
but apparently have been depleted by
otter foraging and are no longer eaten in
large numbers (Garshelis et al. 1986, p.
642). Sea urchins are minor components
of the sea otter’s diet in Prince William
Sound and the Kodiak archipelago. In
contrast, the diet in the Aleutian,
Commander, and Kuril Islands is
dominated by sea urchins and a variety
of fin fish (Kenyon 1969, p. 116; Estes
et al. 1982, p. 250). Sea urchins tend to
dominate the diet of low-density sea
otter populations, whereas more fishes
are consumed in populations near
equilibrium density (Estes et al. 1982, p.
250). For unknown reasons, fish are
rarely consumed by sea otters in regions
east of the Aleutian Islands.
As the population has declined in the
past 20 years throughout much of the
range of the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter, prey species such
as sea urchins have increased in both
size and abundance (Estes et al. 1998, p.
474). Recent studies of sea otter body
condition indicate improved overall
health and suggest that limited
nutritional resources were not the cause
of the observed population decline
(Laidre et al. 2006, p. 987). Although
food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological
requirements do not appear to be a
limiting factor, availability of sufficient
prey resources and areas in which to
forage is essential to the conservation of
the DPS.
Cover or Shelter
Estes et al. (1998, p. 473) believe the
decline of sea otters in southwest Alaska
is the result of increased predation,
most likely by killer whales (Orcinus
orca). These authors examined a suite of
information and concluded that the
recent population decline was likely not
due to food limitation, disease, or
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
76458
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
reduced productivity. Several lines of
evidence, including increased frequency
of killer whale attacks and significantly
higher mortality rates in Kuluk Bay on
Adak Island, as compared to Clam
Lagoon, a protected area that is
inaccessible to killer whales, also
support this conclusion (Estes et al.
1998, p. 473).
A shift in distribution toward the
shoreline has also been observed in the
western and central Aleutian Islands,
which may allow otters easier escape
onto the land. In August 2007, the
Service and USGS conducted skiffbased surveys in the Near and Rat Island
groups in the western Aleutians. In
addition to recording the number and
approximate location of every otter
sighting, observers also recorded the
approximate distance to the nearest
shore. The median distance to shore for
811 sea otters observed was 10 m (32.8
ft); 90 percent of all otters observed
were within 100 m (328.1 ft) (USFWS
unpublished information). Aerial survey
data indicate that in some areas, the
majority of the remaining sea otter
population inhabits sheltered bays and
coves, which may also provide
protection from marine predators
(USFWS unpublished information).
Canopy-forming kelps (including
species of Macrocystis, Alaria, and to a
lesser extent Nereocystis), provide
resting habitat (Kenyon 1969, p. 57;
Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 23), and
may also provide protection from
marine predators (C. Matkin, personal
communication). Kelp forests occur
primarily in waters less than 20 m (65.6
ft) in depth (O’Clair and Lindstrom
2000, pp. 41, 57). In addition, killer
whales may be less likely to forage in
shallow, constricted areas less than 2 m
(6.6 ft) in depth (C. Matkin, personal
communication).
Based on our understanding of threats
to the southwest Alaska DPS, we believe
that features that provide protection
from marine predators, especially killer
whales, are essential to the conservation
of the DPS.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
There appears to be a positive
relationship between shoreline
complexity and sea otter density
(Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 23).
Although not obligatory, headlands,
coves, and bays appear to offer preferred
resting habitat, particularly to females
with pups, presumably because they
provide protection from high wind and
sea conditions. Surveys of sea otters in
southwest Alaska do not indicate that
pup production is a limiting factor for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
the DPS (USFWS and USGS
unpublished information).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
Within the range of the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter, the
vast majority of sea otter habitats are
undisturbed, and are representative of
the historical, geographical, and
ecological distributions of the species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the
Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern
Sea Otter
Within the geographical area
occupied by the southwest Alaska DPS
of the northern sea otter at the time of
listing, we must identify the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential to the
conservation of the DPS (i.e., the
essential physical and biological
features) that may require special
management considerations or
protections.
Based on the above needs and our
current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species, we
have determined that the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter’s
PCEs are:
(1) Shallow, rocky areas where marine
predators are less likely to forage, which
are waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in
depth,
(2) Nearshore waters that may provide
protection or escape from marine
predators, which are those within 100 m
(328.1 ft) from the mean high tide line
and
(3) Kelp forests that provide
protection from marine predators,
which occur in waters less than 20 m
(65.6 ft) in depth.
(4) Prey resources within the areas
identified by PCEs 1–3 that are present
in sufficient quantity and quality to
support the energetic requirements of
the species.
We propose units for designation
because each of these units contains
sufficient PCEs to support at least one
of the species’ life history functions.
Some units contain all of these and
support multiple life processes, while
some units contain only a portion of
PCEs, necessary to support the species’
particular use of that habitat.
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the occupied areas
contain features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
require special management
considerations or protections. The range
of the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter is sparsely populated
by humans. There are only 31 populated
communities located within an area that
contains approximately 18,000 km
(11,184 mi) of coastline. The human
population within the range of the DPS
is approximately 17,000 persons living
in 31 communities (State of Alaska
Department of Commerce, Community,
and Economic Development Database
2006). The scale of human activities that
occur within the proposed critical
habitat areas is exceedingly small.
Potential activities that could harm the
identified physical and biological
features include, but are not limited to,
dredging or filling associated with
construction of airports, seaports, and
harbors; commercial shipping; and oil
and gas development and production.
Pollution from various potential
sources, including oil spills from
vessels, or discharges from oil and gas
drilling and production, could render
areas containing the identified physical
and biological features unsuitable for
use by sea otters, effectively negating
the conservation value of these features.
Because of the vulnerabilities to
pollution sources, these features may
require special management or
protection through such measures as
placing conditions on Federal permits
or authorizations to stimulate special
operational restraints, mitigative
measures, or technological changes.
The shipping industry transports
various types of petroleum products
both as fuel and cargo within the range
of the southwest Alaska DPS.
Information about the types and
quantities of both persistent and nonpersistent oil has been summarized in a
report on vessel traffic within the
Aleutians subarea (Nuka Research and
Planning Group 2006). Persistent fuels
such as #6 bunker oil, bunker C, and
IFO 380 have low dissipation and
evaporation rates, and will remain on
the surface of marine waters or along
shorelines much longer than nonpersistent fuel such as diesel, gasoline,
and aviation fuel. Approximately 3,100
ship voyages occur through the
Aleutians each year. Most of these
voyages are by bulk and general freight
ships (1,300) and container ships
(1,200). The median fuel capacity for
bulk and general freight ships is 470,000
gallons of persistent fuel oil; for
container ships, the median capacity is
1.6 million gallons of persistent fuel oil.
In addition, there are about 265 voyages
by motor vehicle carriers with an
estimated average fuel capacity of
500,000 gallons of persistent fuel oil.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
There are also approximately 22 voyages
by tanker ships transporting about 400
million gallons of refined oil. The
figures quoted above are for the
Aleutians subarea only, which includes
the North Pacific great circle route from
the west coast of North America to Asia.
Information about shipping traffic that
occurs in other parts of the southwest
Alaska DPS is not well-documented,
though it is presumably on a much
smaller scale compared to what occurs
through the Aleutians.
Numerous instances of vessel
incidents have been documented in the
Aleutians over the past 15 years,
including loss of maneuverability,
grounding, and oil spills (Nuka
Research and Planning Group 2006, p.
29). Nearly 500 incidents affecting the
seaworthiness of U.S. vessels were
reported in the Aleutians from 1990
through July 2006. U.S. vessels
reporting incidents were usually smaller
than foreign vessels, and were primarily
fishing vessels. An additional 48
incidents affecting seaworthiness of
foreign vessels were reported between
1991 and July 2006. The bulk grain ship
M/V Selendang Ayu which ran aground
on Unalaska Island in December 2004,
is known to have resulted in the death
of two sea otters. The long-term impacts
of that spill on sea otter habitat use are
not yet known.
Various safeguards have been
established since the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill to minimize the
likelihood of another spill of
catastrophic proportions in Prince
William Sound. Tankers, other vessels,
fuel barges, and onshore storage
facilities are potential sources of oil and
fuel spills that could affect sea otters in
the southwest Alaska DPS. A review of
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation database
indicates no crude-oil spills were
reported within the range of the
southwest Alaska DPS during the 10year period from July 1, 1995, to June
30, 2005. Of the 520 reported spills of
refined products, 82 percent were from
vessels; most of these (70 percent)
involved quantities smaller than 10
gallons. The majority of vessel spills
occurred in the western Aleutian (149),
eastern Aleutian (107), and Kodiak,
Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula (130)
management units. Only 7 spills were
reported where the quantity was greater
than 5,000 gallons of material. The
largest was the M/V Selendang Ayu,
which spilled 321,052 gallons of IFO
380 fuel and an additional 14,680
gallons of diesel.
In 2006, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
State of Alaska, and the National
Academies of Science met to begin
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
plans for the development of a
comprehensive risk assessment for the
Aleutian Islands. Although the
probability of occurrence of a
catastrophic oil spill may be relatively
small, the potential for disastrous
consequences suggest that measures to
prevent or respond to spills may be
important to the recovery of the
southwest Alaska DPS. The Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of
2004 (H.R. 2443) requires oil-spill
contingency plans for vessels over 400
gross tons that call on U.S. ports. In
addition to contingency plans for
vessels of this size class, the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) has both a unified
spill-response plan as well as 10
Subarea plans. The southwest Alaska
DPS is covered by the Aleutian, Bristol
Bay, Kodiak, and Cook Inlet Subarea
plans. In addition, ADEC is developing
Geographic Response Strategies (GRS)
that are designed to be a supplement to
the Subarea Contingency Plans for Oil
and Hazardous Substances Spills and
Releases. The GRS are the current
standard for site-specific oil-spillresponse planning in Alaska.
The first and primary phase of an oilspill response is to contain and remove
the oil at the scene of the spill or while
it is still on the open water, thereby
reducing or eliminating impacts on
shorelines or sensitive habitats. If some
of the spilled oil escapes the first-phase
containment and removal, the second,
but no less important, phase is to
intercept, contain, and remove the oil in
the nearshore area. The intent of phase
two is the same as phase one: remove
the spilled oil before it affects sensitive
environments. If phases one and two are
not fully successful, a third phase (GRS)
is designed to protect sensitive areas in
the path of the oil. The purpose of phase
three is to protect selected sensitive
areas from the impacts of a spill or to
minimize that impact to the maximum
extent practical. Proposed critical
habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter will be
incorporated into the GRS system to
facilitate this additional level of spill
response.
Existing commercial fishing activities,
and their target species (which are not
considered prey for sea otters), within
southwest Alaska primarily occur
outside of the areas proposed as critical
habitat in this rule (Funk 2003, p. 2).
With the exception of oil spills from
shipwrecks, we do not believe that
existing commercial fishing activities in
southwest Alaska have the potential to
harm the identified physical and
biological features for the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76459
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
We are proposing to designate critical
habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter in areas that were
occupied at the time of listing and
contain sufficient PCEs: (1) To support
life history functions essential to the
conservation of the DPS, and (2) which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Much of
the range of the DPS occurs within the
Aleutian archipelago, and although it is
possible that otters have disappeared
from some of the small islands since the
time of listing, we have no information
that indicates any portion should be
considered unoccupied habitat. As a
result, we consider the Aleutian
archipelago to be occupied habitat.
Unlike habitats for terrestrial species,
some of the various characteristics of
sea otter habitat are poorly mapped.
Although shoreline boundaries are
reasonably well-documented, the
bathymetric data for southwest Alaska
exist at a variety of spatial resolutions.
Benthic substrate types are also poorly
mapped. Other features, such as the
distribution and abundance of sea otter
prey species, and the spatial extent of
kelp beds, may be dynamic over time.
This lack of specificity makes it difficult
to explicitly identify and map areas that
contain the PCEs for this DPS beyond a
certain geographic scale.
Areas that provide protection from
marine predators are likely the most
essential to the conservation of this
DPS. Despite the absence of information
necessary to map these areas with
precision, we can define criteria that
will contain the essential PCEs. Kelp
forests that provide resting habitat and
protection from marine predators occur
primarily in waters less than 20 m (65.6
ft) in depth (O’Clair and Lindstrom
2000, pp. 41, 57). In addition to
identifying an approximate seaward
extent of kelp forests, the 20-m (65.6-ft)
depth contour also encompasses the
nearshore shallow areas (less than 2 m
(6.6 ft)) where marine predators may be
less likely to forage. The 20-m (65.6-ft)
depth contour also has considerable
overlap with the nearshore (<100 m
(328.1 ft)) areas where otters can escape
predators by hauling out on land. Areas
of shallow water less than 20 m (65.6 ft)
in depth that are not contiguous with
the mean high tide line may provide
less protection from marine predators.
Nearshore marine waters ranging from
mean high tide to 20 m (65.6 ft) in water
depth or that occur within 100 m (328.1
ft) of the mean high tide line (or both)
therefore contain the necessary PCEs for
protection from marine predators
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
76460
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
water areas, we believe that the areas
defined by PCEs 1–3 also contain
sufficient sea otter prey resources. We
have no reason to believe that any of the
areas within the proposed critical
habitat designation are unable to
support the energetic requirements of
this species.
When determining proposed critical
habitat boundaries within this proposed
rule, we made every effort to avoid
including developed areas that lack
PCEs for the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter. The scale of the
map we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed areas, such
as piers, docks, harbors, marinas, jetties,
and breakwaters. Any such structures
inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the map of this
proposed rule have been excluded by
text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical
habitat. Therefore, Federal actions
involving these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of
no adverse modification unless the
specific action would affect the PCEs in
the adjacent critical habitat.
management units, based on criteria
such as habitat type and population
trajectory. In the interest of clarity, we
propose designating critical habitat
units that correspond to the
management units proposed by the
Recovery Team. Only those areas within
each management unit that meet the
criteria identified above are being
proposed as critical habitat—namely,
those areas that contain one or more
PCEs and may require special
management considerations or
protection. Detailed, colored maps of
areas proposed as critical habitat in this
proposed rule are available for viewing
at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
seaotters/criticalhabitat.htm. Hard
copies of maps can be obtained by
contacting the Marine Mammals
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing five units as critical
habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter. In 2006, the
Service convened a Recovery Team to
develop a recovery plan for the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter. As of the publication date of
this proposed rule, the Recovery Team
has met five times, and a draft recovery
plan is in preparation. As the range of
the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter includes
approximately 18,000 km (11,184.7 mi)
of coastline, the team has proposed that
the DPS be subdivided into 5
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
EP16DE08.000
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(Figure 1). Based on numerous studies
of sea otter foraging depths, as well as
the distribution of the remaining sea
otter population in nearshore, shallow
76461
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Management Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the DPS.
Table 1 shows the occupied units. The
5 units we propose as critical habitat
are: (1) Western Aleutian Unit; (2)
Eastern Aleutian Unit; (3) South Alaska
Peninsula Unit; (4) Bristol Bay Unit; and
(5) Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula
Unit.
TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY OF NORTHERN SEA OTTERS BY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS
Estimated size
of unit in km2
(mi2)
State/Federal
ownership ratio
(percent)
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
1,551 (599)
893 (345)
4,945 (1,909)
1,080 (417)
31 (12)
337 (130)
712 (275)
6,757 (2,609)
100/0
100/0
85/15
96/4
77/23
100/0
94/6
89/11
..............................
15,226 (5,879)
90/10
Occupied at time
of listing?
Unit
1.
2.
3.
4.
Western Aleutian ..........................................................................
Eastern Aleutian ...........................................................................
South Alaska Peninsula ...............................................................
Bristol Bay ....................................................................................
4a. Amak Island ........................................................................
4b. Izembek Lagoon ..................................................................
4c. Port Moller/Herendeen Bay .................................................
5. Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula ...........................................
Total ...................................................................................
We present brief descriptions of all
proposed critical habitat units, and
reasons why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter, below.
Calculation of areas for units and
subunits that include the 20-m (65.6-ft)
depth contour as a criterion are
approximations estimated from GIS data
layers of hydrographic survey data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
............................
Currently
occupied?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
to 20 m (65.6 ft) should be used. For
users of NOAA nautical charts, the 10fathom (60-ft) depth contour is a
suitable approximation for the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour.
Although no lands above mean high
tide are proposed as critical habitat,
ownership of lands adjacent to critical
habitat may be of interest to reviewers
of this proposal (Table 2).
compiled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Service. Consultations under section 7
of the Act should use the best available
bathymetric data on a case-by-case
basis. In some instances, these data may
be based on other units of measurement
(such as feet or fathoms), in which case
the bathymetric contour that is closest
TABLE 2—OWNERSHIP STATUS OF LANDS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT
Federal
(percent)
Unit
1.
2.
3.
4.
State
(percent)
Private
(percent)
Alaska Native
(percent)
Western Aleutian .................................................................................
Eastern Aleutian ..................................................................................
South Alaska Peninsula ......................................................................
Bristol Bay ...........................................................................................
4a. Amak Island ................................................................................
4b. Izembek Lagoon .........................................................................
4c. Port Moller/Herendeen Bay ........................................................
5. Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula ..................................................
80.2
10.2
21.1
36.7
100.0
89.4
4.9
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
41.5
0.0
0.0
66.1
17.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
89.8
78.5
21.8
0.0
10.6
29.0
52.4
Total ..................................................................................................
37.9
8.5
0.0
53.6
Unit 1: Western Aleutian Unit
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
km2
Unit 1 consists of at least 1,551
(599 mi2), collectively, of the nearshore
marine waters ranging from the mean
high tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as well as waters occurring
within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high
tide line. Hydrographic survey data in
the vicinity of Atka and Amlia islands
is insufficient to delineate the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour, so our area
calculation may slightly underestimate
the total area of this unit. This unit
ranges from Attu Island in the west to
Kagamil Island in the east, was
occupied at the time of listing, and is
currently occupied. The majority (80.2
percent) of the lands bordering this unit
are federally owned within the Alaska
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. In
addition, all of the proposed critical
habitat within this unit is located within
State of Alaska waters (defined as those
within 3 mi (4.82 km) of mean high
tide).
The Western Aleutian Unit contains
all of the PCEs essential for the
conservation of the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter. Special
management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of oil and other hazardousmaterial spills from commercial
shipping within the region and along
the northern great circle route.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit 2: Eastern Aleutian Unit
Unit 2 consists of an estimated 893
km2 (345 mi2), collectively, of the
nearshore marine waters ranging from
the mean high tide line to the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the
mean high tide line. This unit ranges
from Samalga Island in the west to
Ugamak Island in the east, was occupied
at the time of listing, and is currently
occupied. The majority (89.8 percent) of
the lands bordering this unit are owned
or selected (but not yet conveyed) by
Alaska Natives. In addition, all of the
proposed critical habitat within this
unit is located within State of Alaska
waters.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
76462
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
The Eastern Aleutian Unit contains all
of the PCEs essential for the
conservation of the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter. Special
management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of oil and other hazardousmaterial spills from commercial
shipping within the region and along
the northern great circle route.
Unit 3: South Alaska Peninsula Unit
Unit 3 consists of an estimated 4,945
km2 (1,909 mi2), collectively, of the
nearshore marine waters ranging from
the mean high tide line to the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the
mean high tide line. Available
hydrographic survey data for this unit
have considerably lower spatial
resolution than the other units. This
unit ranges from Unimak Island in the
west to Castle Cape in the east, was
occupied at the time of listing, and is
currently occupied. The majority (78.5
percent) of the lands bordering this unit
are owned or selected (but not yet
conveyed) by Alaska Natives. The vast
majority (85 percent) of the proposed
critical habitat within this unit is
located within State of Alaska waters.
The South Alaska Peninsula Unit
contains all of the PCEs essential for the
conservation of the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter. Special
management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of oil and other hazardousmaterial spills from commercial
shipping within this region and along
the northern great circle route.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Unit 4: Bristol Bay Unit
Unit 4 consists of an estimated 1,080
km2 (417 mi2) of the nearshore marine
environment. This unit is further
subdivided into 3 subunits: (4a) Amak
Island; (4b) Izembek Lagoon; and (4c)
Port Moller/Herendeen Bay. With the
exception of Amak Island, the coastline
contained within this unit is relatively
simple and lacks kelp forests. For most
of this unit, the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour used as a criterion for critical
habitat in other units does not identify
features that provide protection from
marine predators, and is applicable only
to the Amak Island subunit. Other
criteria are used to identify the Izembek
Lagoon and Port Moller/Herendeen Bay
subunits, as described below. All three
subunits within the Bristol Bay unit
were occupied at the time of listing, and
are currently occupied. Additional
information about each subunit is
included below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Subunit 4a: Amak Island Subunit
Subunit 4a consists of an estimated 31
km2 (12 mi2), collectively, of the
nearshore marine waters ranging from
the mean high tide line to the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the
mean high tide line. This subunit
surrounds Amak Island in Bristol Bay,
was occupied at the time of listing, and
is currently occupied. Large groups of
sea otters have been observed within the
kelp forests within this subunit (USFWS
unpublished information). All of the
lands bordering this unit are federally
owned within the Alaska Maritime
National Wildlife Refuge. Most (77
percent) of the proposed critical habitat
within this subunit is located within
State of Alaska waters, a small portion
of which (1.2 km2, 0.46 mi2) is also
located within the boundaries of the
Izembek State Game Refuge.
The Amak Island Subunit contains all
of the PCEs essential for the
conservation of the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter. Special
management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of oil and other hazardousmaterial spills from commercial
shipping within Bristol Bay. In addition,
offshore oil and gas development are
under consideration in the Lease Sale
Area 92 in the North Aleutian Basin
region immediately offshore from this
unit. An environmental impact
statement is in preparation, and will be
completed prior to the lease sale.
Additional management considerations
and protections may be needed to
minimize the risk of crude-oil spills
associated with oil and gas development
and production that may impact this
subunit.
Subunit 4b: Izembek Lagoon Subunit
Subunit 4b consists of an estimated
337 km2 (130 mi2) of the nearshore
marine environment within the Izembek
Lagoon and Moffett Lagoon systems. Sea
otters are known to frequent the lagoon
system and regularly haul out on the
islands and sandbars that form the
northern boundary of these systems,
such as Glen, Operl, and Neumann
Islands (USFWS unpublished
information). Large numbers of otters
have also been observed hauling out
along the edges of the sea ice within the
lagoon in winter (USFWS unpublished
information). This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing, and is
currently occupied. The majority (89.4
percent) of the lands bordering this unit
are federally owned within the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed
critical habitat within this subunit is
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
located within State of Alaska waters,
most of which (99 percent) is also
within the boundaries of the Izembek
State Game Refuge.
The Izembek Lagoon Subunit contains
some of the PCEs (1, 2 and 4) essential
for the conservation of the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
Special management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of oil and other hazardousmaterial spills from commercial
shipping within Bristol Bay. In addition,
offshore oil and gas development are
under consideration in the Lease Sale
Area 92 in the North Aleutian Basin
region immediately offshore from this
subunit. Additional management
considerations and protections may be
needed to minimize the risk of crude-oil
spills associated with oil and gas
development and production that may
impact this subunit.
Subunit 4c: Port Moller/Herendeen Bay
Subunit
Subunit 4c consists of an estimated
712 km2 (275 mi2) of the nearshore
marine environment within the Port
Moller and Herendeen Bay systems.
This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing, and is currently occupied.
Aerial surveys conducted in 2000 and
2004, as well as additional reported
observations, indicate that these areas
may contain several thousand sea otters
at any given time (Burn and Doroff
2005, p. 277; USFWS unpublished
information). The seaward boundary of
this subunit extends from Point Edward
on the Alaska Peninsula to the western
tip of Walrus Island, and from Wolf
Point on the eastern tip of Walrus Island
to Entrance Point on the Alaska
Peninsula. The majority (66.1 percent)
of the lands bordering to this unit are
owned or selected (but not yet
conveyed) by the State of Alaska. Most
(94 percent) of the critical habitat within
this subunit is located within State of
Alaska waters, with a portion (140.8
km2 (54.4 mi2)) located within the
boundaries of the Port Moller State
Critical Habitat area.
The Port Moller/Herendeen Subunit
contains some of the PCEs (1,2, and 4)
essential for the conservation of the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter. Special management
considerations and protections may be
needed to minimize the risk of oil and
other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within Bristol Bay.
In addition, offshore oil and gas
development are under consideration in
the Lease Sale Area 92 in the North
Aleutian Basin region immediately
offshore from this subunit. Additional
management considerations and
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
protections may be needed to minimize
the risk of crude-oil spills associated
with oil and gas development and
production that may impact this
subunit.
Unit 5: Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska
Peninsula Unit
Unit 5 consists of an estimated 6,757
km2 (2,609 mi2), collectively, of the
nearshore marine environment ranging
from the mean high tide line to the 20m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as
waters occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft)
of the mean high tide line. Available
hydrographic survey data for parts of
this unit have considerably lower
spatial resolution than the other units.
This unit ranges from Castle Cape in the
west to Tuxedni Bay in the east, and
includes the Kodiak archipelago. This
unit was occupied at the time of listing,
and is currently occupied. Slightly more
than half (52.4 percent) of the lands
bordering this unit are either owned or
selected (but not yet conveyed) by
Alaska Natives. The majority (89
percent) of the proposed critical habitat
within this unit is located within State
of Alaska waters, a small portion which
(41.0 km2, 15.8 mi2) is also located
within the boundaries of the Tugidak
Island State Critical Habitat area.
The Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska
Peninsula Unit contains all the PCEs
essential for the conservation of the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter. Special management
considerations and protections may be
needed to minimize the risk of oil and
other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within this region.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th
Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our definition of
‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)
and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service et. al., 245 F.3d 434,
442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the PCEs
to be functionally established) to serve
its intended conservation role for the
species.
In addition, under section 7(a)(4) of
the Act, Federal agencies must confer
with the Service on any agency action
that is likely to result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat.
If a species is listed or critical habitat
is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical
habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. We
define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent
alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
• Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
• Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
• Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
• Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the listed species or
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can
vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with
implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76463
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter or its designated critical habitat
require section 7 consultation under the
Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands requiring a Federal permit
(such as a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) or a permit from us under section
10 of the Act) or involving some other
Federal action (such as funding from the
Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration, or the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency) are subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions
not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that are not
federally funded or authorized do not
require section 7 consultations.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or would retain its current
ability for the PCEs to be functionally
established. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the PCEs to an extent
that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for
the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and
therefore should result in consultation
for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter include, but are not
limited to:
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
76464
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) Actions that would directly impact
the PCEs that provide protection from
marine predators. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, dredging,
filling, and construction of docks,
seawalls, pipelines, or other structures.
Loss of the PCEs could result in
increased predation pressure on the
remaining sea otter population, and
potentially affect the conservation of the
DPS.
(2) Actions that would reduce the
availability of sea otter prey species.
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, dredging, filling,
construction of docks, seawalls,
pipelines, or other structures, and
development of new fisheries for sea
otter prey species. Otters that are using
critical habitat for protection from
marine predators must also be able to
feed in these areas. Activities that
reduce availability of prey may cause
otters to forage outside of these
protective areas, thus increasing their
vulnerability to predators.
(3) Actions that would render critical
habitat areas unsuitable for use by sea
otters. Such activities could include, but
are not limited to, human disturbance or
pollution from a variety of sources,
including discharges from oil and gas
drilling and production or spills of
crude oil, fuels, or other hazardous
materials from vessels, primarily in
harbors or other construction ports for
marine vessels. While it is not legal to
discharge fuel or other hazardous
materials, it does happen more often in
these areas than in other areas. These
activities could displace sea otters from
areas that provide protection from
marine predators.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Exemptions and Exclusions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
• An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
• A statement of goals and priorities;
• A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
• A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must,
to the extent appropriate and applicable,
provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
Eareckson Air Station, located on
Shemya Island within the western
Aleutian unit has a completed INRMP
that was last updated in 2007. This
INRMP recognizes the importance of
kelp beds to sea otters (U.S. Air Force
2007, p. 39), and notes that the only
impacts to kelp may be from occasional
barge traffic. In addition to Eareckson,
the Air Force has a completed INRMP
for 4 inactive sites (Nikolski, Driftwood
Bay, Port Moller, and Port Heiden)
within the range of the southwest
Alaska DPS (U.S. Air Force 2001). All of
these sites were deactivated between
1977 and 1978, and either demolished
or removed between 1988 and 1994. Of
these, the Port Heiden site is the only
one that includes shoreline areas. All
critical habitat described in this
proposal occurs below the mean high
tide line and is therefore not within the
boundaries of the Department of
Defense facility. Therefore, there are no
Department of Defense lands with a
completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate and revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
must identify the benefits of including
the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If, based on this
analysis, we make the determination
that the benefits of excluding a
particular area outweigh the benefits of
including it in the designation, then we
can exclude the area only if such
exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider all relevant impacts,
including economic impacts. We
consider a number of factors in a section
4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense (DOD) where a national security
impact might exist. We also consider
whether the landowners have developed
any habitat conservation plans (HCPs)
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense,
there are currently no HCPs for the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter, and the proposed designation
does not include any tribal lands or
trust resources.
We anticipate no impact to national
security, Tribal lands, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation.
Based on the best available information,
we believe that all of these proposed
critical habitat units contain the features
essential to the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter. At this time, we
have not analyzed areas for which the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
benefits of inclusion; therefore we are
not identifying any specific exclusions
for the final rule designating critical
habitat for the DPS. However, during the
development of a final designation, we
will be considering economic and other
relevant impacts and additional
conservation plans, if available, public
comments, and other new information
such that areas may be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Economics
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the
Secretary to exclude areas from critical
habitat for economic reasons if the
Secretary determines that the benefits of
such exclusion exceed the benefits of
designating the area as critical habitat.
However, this exclusion cannot occur if
it will result in the extinction of the
species concerned.
In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, we are preparing an analysis of
the economic impacts of proposing
critical habitat for the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter to evaluate
the potential economic impact of the
designation. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at
which time we will seek public review
and comment. At that time, copies of
the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
or from the Marine Mammals
Management Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). We may exclude
areas from the final rule based on the
information in the economic analysis.
receive any requests for hearings. We
must receive your request for a public
hearing within 45 days of the date of
publication of this proposal (see the
DATES section). Send your request to the
person named in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the first hearing.
Editorial Changes to the Table at 50 CFR
17.11(h)
We also propose certain editorial
changes to the northern sea otter’s entry
in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
First, we would update the entry to
accurately reflect the citation of the
special rule for this DPS, which was
published on August 15, 2006, at 71 FR
46864. In that final rule, we
inadvertently neglected to update the
entry to note the special rule at 50 CFR
17.40(p). Second, we are providing the
‘‘When Listed’’ date for the entry. That
date was not included when we
published the final rule listing the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter as threatened (70 CFR 46366).
These editorial changes would help
ensure the entry for the northern sea
otter in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h)
is complete and accurate.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are
obtaining the expert opinions of at least
three appropriate independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this proposed
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during this
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases
its determination upon the following
four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more
public hearings on this proposal, if we
Regulatory Flexibility Act
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76465
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency must
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
At this time, we lack the available
economic information necessary to
provide an adequate factual basis for the
required RFA finding. Therefore, we
defer the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis prepared
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O.
12866. This draft economic analysis will
provide the required factual basis for the
RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will
announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation in the Federal Register and
reopen the public comment period for
the proposed designation. We will
include with this announcement, as
appropriate, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis or a certification that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities accompanied
by the factual basis for that
determination. We have concluded that
deferring the RFA finding until
completion of the draft economic
analysis is necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of the RFA.
Deferring the RFA finding in this
manner will ensure that we make a
sufficiently informed determination
based on adequate economic
information and provide the necessary
opportunity for public comment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule would not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private
sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
76466
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or [T]ribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and [T]ribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and
Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal
private sector mandate’’ includes a
regulation that ‘‘would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private
sector, except (i) a condition of Federal
assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the areas
being proposed for critical habitat
designation occur within State of Alaska
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
waters. The State of Alaska does not fit
the definition of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ Waters adjacent to Nativeowned lands are still owned and
managed by the State of Alaska. In most
cases, development around Native
villages is happening with funding from
Federal or State sources (or both).
Therefore, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis, and
review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the designation.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects.
A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical
habitat designation with appropriate
State resource agencies in Alaska. The
designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter
imposes no additional restrictions to
those currently in place and, therefore,
has little incremental impact on State
and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have
some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the
features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined,
and the primary constituent elements of
the habitat necessary to the conservation
of the species are specifically identified.
This information does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities
may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule
does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Tenth Circuit, we
do not need to prepare environmental
analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This determination was
upheld by the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. 1995)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
76467
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
As all the proposed critical habitat units
occur seaward from the mean high tide
line, we have determined that there are
no tribal lands occupied at the time of
listing that contain the features essential
for the conservation, and no tribal lands
essential for the conservation, of the
southwest Alaska DPS of the northern
sea otter. Therefore, we have not
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter on tribal lands.
We do not expect the proposed
critical habitat to have any impact on
tribal subsistence activities. All
subsistence hunting would take place in
or on State lands or waters. Unless
subsistence hunting is determined to be
‘‘materially and negatively impacting
the DPS,’’ then harvest would not be
regulated.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements
of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Offshore oil and gas
development are under consideration in
the Lease Sale Area 92 in the North
Aleutian Basin region immediately
offshore from the three subunits of the
Bristol Bay proposed critical habitat
unit. We do not expect this proposed
rule to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution (including
shipping channels), or use because most
oil and gas development activities
would not overlap with the habitats
used by northern sea otters, and we
would not expect the activities to cause
significant alteration of the PCEs. Any
proposed development project likely
would have to undergo section 7
consultation to ensure that the actions
would not destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat.
Consultations may entail modifications
to the project to minimize the potential
adverse effects to northern sea otter
critical habitat. A spill-response plan
would have to be developed to
minimize the chance that a spill would
have negative effects on sea otters or
critical habitat. However, we conduct
thousands of consultations every year
throughout the United States, and in
almost all cases, we are able to
accommodate both project and species’
needs. We expect that to be the case
here. Therefore, this action is not a
Species
Common name
Historic
range
Vertebrate population
where endangered
or threatened
*
U.S.A., (AK,
WA).
*
Southwest Alaska, from
Attu Island to Western
Cook Inlet, including
Bristol Bay, the Kodiak
Archipelago, and the
Barren Islands.
Scientific name
significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this proposed rulemaking is available
upon request from the Field Supervisor,
Marine Mammals Management Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is
the Marine Mammals Management
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK
99503.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for
‘‘Otter, northern sea’’ under
‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
*
When listed
Critical
habitat
*
August 9,
2005.
Special
rules
17.95(a)
MAMMALS
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
*
Otter, northern
sea.
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
Enhydra lutris kenyoni ....
*
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
*
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
*
T ............
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
*
16DEP2
*
17.40(p)
*
76468
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
§ 17.95
*
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
*
*
*
*
Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris
kenyoni), Southwest Alaska Distinct
Population Segment
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(1) Critical habitat units are in Alaska,
as described below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for the southwest
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Alaska distinct population segment
(DPS) of the northern sea otter are:
(i) Shallow, rocky areas where marine
predators are less likely to forage, which
are in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in
depth;
(ii) Nearshore waters within 100 m
(328.1 ft) from the mean high tide line;
and
(iii) Kelp forests, which occur in
waters less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth.
(iv) Prey resources within the areas
identified by PCEs 1–3 that are present
in sufficient quantity and quality to
support the energetic requirements of
the species.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (including, but not
limited to, docks, seawalls, pipelines, or
other structures) and the land on which
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
they are located existing within the
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Boundaries of critical habitat were
derived from GIS data layers of
hydrographic survey data developed by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. To estimate the size of
each critical habitat unit, the data were
projected into Alaska Standard Albers
Conical Equal Area on the North
American Datum of 1983. Given the
large geographic range of this DPS, some
two-dimensional areas appear as onedimensional features at these map
scales.
(5) Note: Index Map for critical habitat
for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter follows:
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
EP16DE08.001
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Northern Sea Otter
(Enhydra lutris kenyoni), Southwest
Alaska Distinct Population Segment,’’ in
the same alphabetical order that the
species appears in the table at
§ 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(6) Unit 1: Western Aleutian. All
contiguous waters from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as well as waters within 100 m
(328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line that
occur adjacent to the following islands:
Adak, Agattu, Alaid, Amatignak,
Amchitka, Amlia, Amukta, Anagaksik,
Asuksak, Atka, Attu, Aziak, Bobrof,
Buldir, Carlisle, Chagula, Chuginadak,
Chugul, Crone, Davidof, Elf, Gareloi,
Great Sitkin, Herbert, Igitkin, Ilak,
Kagalaska, Kagamil, Kanaga, Kanu,
Kasatochi, Kavalga, Khvostof, Kiska,
Koniuji, Little Kiska, Little Sitkin, Little
Tanaga, Nizki, Ogliuga, Oglodak, Rat,
Sadatanak, Sagchudak, Salt, Seguam,
Segula, Semisopochnoi, Shemya,
Skagul, Tagadak, Tagalak, Tanaga,
Tanaklak, and Ulak.
(7) Unit 2: Eastern Aleutian. All
contiguous waters from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as well as waters within 100 m
(328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line that
occur adjacent to the following islands:
Aiktak, Akutan, Amaknak, Arangula,
Atka, Avatanak, Baby Islands, Bogoslof,
Egg, Hog, Kaligagan, Rootok, Samalga,
Sedanka, Tigalda, Ugamak, Umnak,
Unalaska, Unalga, and Vsevidof.
(8) Unit 3: South Alaska Peninsula.
All contiguous waters from the mean
high tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as well as waters within 100 m
(328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line that
occur adjacent to the Alaska Peninsula
from False Pass (54.242° N, 163.363° W)
to Castle Cape (56.242° N, 158.117° W),
and adjacent to the following islands:
Andronica, Atkins, Big Koniuji, Bird,
Brother, Caton, Chankliut, Chernabura,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Dec 15, 2008
Jkt 217001
Cherni, Chiachi, Deer, Dolgoi, Egg,
Goloi, Guillemot, Inner Iliask, Jacob,
Karpof, Korovin, Little Koniuji,
Mitrofania, Nagai, Near, Outer Iliask,
Paul, Peninsula, Pinusuk, Poperechnoi,
Popof, Road, Sanak, Shapka, Simeonof,
Spectacle, Spitz, Turner, Ukolnoi,
Ukolnoi, Unga, and Unimak Island from
Scotch Cap (54.390° N, 164.745° W) to
False Pass.
(9) Unit 4: Bristol Bay. This unit
contains three subunits:
(i) Subunit 4a: Amak Island. All
contiguous waters from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as well as waters within 100 m
(328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line that
occur adjacent to Amak Island.
(ii) Subunit 4b: Izembek Lagoon. All
waters from mean high tide line that
occur within the polygon bounded by
Glen, Operl, and Neumann Islands to
the north and the Alaska Peninsula to
the south, and further defined by the
following latitude/longitude
coordinates: 55.249° N, 162.990° W;
55.255° N, 162.984° W from Cape
Glazenap to Glen Island; 55.324° N,
162.901° W; 55.333° N, 162.888° W from
Glen Island to Operl Island; 55.409° N,
162.683° W; 55.408° N, 162.621° W from
Operl Island to Neumann Island; and
55.447° N, 162.582° W; 55.447° N,
162.577° W from Neumann Island to
Moffet Point.
(iii) Subunit 4c: Port Moller/
Herendeen Bay. All waters from mean
high tide line that occur within the
polygon bounded by Walrus Island to
the north and the Alaska Peninsula to
the south, and further defined by the
following latitude/longitude
coordinates: 56.000° N, 160.877° W;
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76469
56.020° N, 160.854° W from Point
Edward to Walrus Island; and 56.020°
N, 160.805° W; 55.979° N, 160.584° W
from Wolf Point to Entrance Point.
(10) Unit 5: Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska
Peninsula. All contiguous waters from
the mean high tide line to the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high
tide line that occur adjacent to the
Alaska Peninsula from Castle Cape (56°
14.5′ N, 158° 7.0′ W) eastward to Cape
Douglas (58.852° N, 153.250° W), and
northward in Cook Inlet to Redoubt
Point (60.285° N, 152.417° W), and
adjacent to the following islands:
Afognak, Aghik, Aghiyuk, Aiaktalik,
Akhiok, Aliksemik, Amook, Anowik,
Ashiak, Atkulik, Augustine, Ban, Bare,
Bear, Central, Chirikof, Chisik, Chowiet,
Dark, David, Derickson, Dry Spruce,
Eagle, East Amatuli, East Channel,
Garden, Geese, Hartman, Harvester,
Hydra, Kak, Kateekuk, Kiliktagik,
Kiukpalik, Kodiak, Kulik, Long,
Marmot, Miller, Nakchamik, Ninagiak,
Nord, Nordyke, Poltava, Raspberry,
Sally, Shaw, Shuyak, Sitkalidak,
Sitkanak, Spruce, Sud, Sugarloaf,
Suklik, Sundstrom, Sutwick, Takli,
Terrace, Tugidak, Twoheaded, Ugak,
Ugalushik, Uganik, Unavikshak,
Ushagat, West Amatuli, West Augustine,
West Channel, Whale, and Woody.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 1, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E8–28897 Filed 12–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\16DEP2.SGM
16DEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76454-76469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28897]
[[Page 76453]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the
Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 16, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76454]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R7-ES-2008-0105; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
RIN 1018-AV92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment
of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the southwest Alaska Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 15,225 square kilometers (km\2\) (5,879 square miles
(mi\2\)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation. The proposed critical habitat is located in Alaska.
DATES: We will accept comments received on or before February 17, 2009.
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by January
30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R7-ES-2008-0105; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
Detailed, colored maps of areas proposed as critical habitat in
this proposed rule are available for viewing at https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/seaotters/criticalhabitat.htm. Hard copies of maps can be
obtained by contacting the Marine Mammals Mangement Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas M. Burn, Marine Mammals
Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone 907/786-3800; facsimile 907/786-
3816. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether the benefit of designation would outweigh
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of habitat of the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter,
What areas occupied at the time of listing and that
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we
should include in the designation and why, and
What areas not occupied at the time of listing are
essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding
areas that exhibit these impacts.
(5) Any areas that might be appropriate for exclusion from the
final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(6) Special management considerations or protections that the
proposed critical habitat may require.
(7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more
information on the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter,
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on
August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46366). More detailed information on northern sea
otter biology and ecology that is directly relevant to designation of
critical habitat is discussed under the Primary Constituent Elements
section below.
Description and Taxonomy
Sea otters are the only completely marine species of the aquatic
lutrinae, or otter subfamily of the family Mustelidae (skunks, weasels,
minks, badgers, and honey badgers) (Wozencraft 1993, pp. 310). In an
exhaustive systematic review and analysis of sea otter skull
morphology, Wilson et al. (1991, p. 33-34) concluded there were three
subspecies, the Russian sea otter (Enhydra lutris lutris) from Asia to
the Commander Islands, southern sea otter (E. l. nereis) from
California, and a newly described subspecies, the northern sea otter
(E. l. kenyoni), from Alaska.
Currently there are three population stocks of sea otters
recognized in Alaska, as defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.): (1) Southeast Alaska; (2) southcentral
Alaska; and (3) southwest Alaska (Gorbics and Bodkin 2001, p. 632). The
southwest Alaska population
[[Page 76455]]
stock (DPS) is listed as threatened under the Act.
The sea otter is one of the largest mustelids, and the sexes are
moderately dimorphic (two distinct forms). Adult males attain weights
of 45 kilograms (kg) (99.2 pounds (lbs)) and total lengths of 148
centimeters (cm) (58.3 inches (in)), and adult females attain weights
of 36 kg (79.4 lbs) and total lengths of 140 cm (55.1 in). Size appears
to vary among populations and to a large extent may represent the
status of the population relative to available food resources.
Fur and the air trapped within it provide the primary source of
insulation and buoyancy for the sea otter, and in contrast to most
other marine mammals (which rely on a thick blubber layer), there is
little or no subcutaneous fat. The ability of the sea otter to
thermoregulate is dependent on maintaining the integrity of the pelage
(fur), in conjunction with an extremely high metabolic rate (as
discussed below). This requires a nearly constant, yet gradual, molt,
as well as frequent and vigorous grooming. The color of the pelage
ranges from light brown to nearly black. As animals age, they may
attain a grizzled appearance, with whitening occurring in the head,
neck, and torso regions. Newborn pups have a pale brown, woolly natal
pelage until about 3 months of age.
Distribution and Habitat
The southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter ranges from Attu
Island at the western end of Near Islands in the Aleutians, east to
Kamishak Bay on the western side of lower Cook Inlet, and includes
waters adjacent to the Aleutian Islands, the Alaska Peninsula, the
Kodiak archipelago, and the Barren Islands.
As a species, sea otters occur only in the North Pacific Ocean. The
historical range includes coastal habitats around the Pacific Rim
between central Baja California and northern Japan. The range currently
occupied extends from southern California to northern Japan, with
extralimital sightings in central Baja California and near Wrangel
Island in the Chukchi Sea. The northward limits in distribution appear
related to the southern limits of sea ice, which can preclude access to
foraging habitat. Seasonal and inter-annual variation in the southern
extent of sea ice results in constriction and expansion of the sea
otter's northern range. During periods of advancing winter sea ice
along their northern range, sea otters occasionally become trapped and
sometimes die (Nikolaev 1965, p. 35; Schneider and Faro 1975, p. 91).
Sea otters attempting to travel tens of kilometers over the Alaska
Peninsula to access the ice-free Pacific were observed in 1971 and 1972
(Schneider and Faro 1975, pp. 93-96) and again in 1982, 1999, and 2000
(USGS unpub. data). Although some otters may succeed in such efforts,
many apparently die from starvation or predation by wolves (Canis
lupus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and wolverines (Gulo gulo). Southern
range limits are less well understood but appear to coincide with the
southern limits of coastal upwelling, associated canopy-forming kelp
forests, and the 20-22[deg] Celsius (68-72[deg] Fahrenheit) isotherm
(Kenyon 1969, p. 135; Estes 1980, p. 133).
Sea otters occupy and use all habitats within the nearshore marine
ecosystem, from protected bays and estuaries to exposed outer coasts
and offshore islands. Because they need to dive to the sea floor to
forage (Bodkin 2001, p. 2616), the seaward limit of their usual
distribution is defined by their diving ability and is approximated by
the 100 meter (m) (328.1 feet (ft)) depth contour. While sea otters may
be found at the surface in water deeper than 100 m (328.1 ft), either
resting or swimming, they are most commonly observed in waters within a
few km of shore (Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 22), and higher densities
are frequently associated with shallow water (Laidre et al. 2002, p.
1177). Bodkin and Udevitz (1999, p. 22) found 80 percent of the otters
in Prince William Sound (PWS) where water depths are less than 40 m
(131.2 ft), although the proportion of total habitat within this
bathymetric zone was about 33 percent. Where relatively shallow waters
or islands extend far offshore, sea otters can also be found in high
densities (Kenyon 1969, p. 57). While they periodically haul out on
intertidal or supratidal shores (flooded by very high tides),
particularly during winter months, and generally remain close to the
sea-land interface, no aspect of their life history requires leaving
the ocean (Kenyon 1969, pp. 59-104; Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 24).
Although sea otter habitat occurs in the nearshore marine environment,
it is important to note that activities that occur in the broader
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska ecosystems may affect their habitat and
populations (Estes et al. 1998, p. 475).
Sea otters forage in diverse bottom types, from fine mud and sand
to rocky reefs. Recent research employing archival time depth recorders
recovered from sea otters in southeast Alaska showed that 84 percent of
foraging occurred in depths between 2-30 m (6.6-98.4 ft), and that 16
percent of all foraging was between 30-100 m (98.4-328.1 ft) (Bodkin et
al. 2004, p. 305). Maximum foraging depths averaged 61 m (200.1 ft) and
ranged from 35-100 m (114.8-328.1 ft). Less than 2 percent of all
foraging dives were greater than 55 m (180.4 ft). Females dove to
depths less than 20 m (65.6 ft) on 85 percent of their foraging dives
while males dove to depths greater than 45 m (147.6 ft) on 50 percent
of their foraging dives. Recent research from California suggests these
patterns may be similar among populations (Tinker et al. 2006, p. 148).
Previous Federal Actions
The southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter was listed as
threatened on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46366). Critical habitat was
considered to be prudent, but not determinable, and therefore was not
designated for this DPS at the time of listing. When a not determinable
finding is made, we must, within one year of the publication date of
the final listing rule, designate critical habitat, unless the
designation is found to be not prudent. On December 19, 2006, the
Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the Service for
failure to designate critical habitat within the statutory time frame
(Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Kempthorne et al., No. 1:06-
CV-02151-RMC (D.D.C. 2007)). On April 11, 2007, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia entered an order approving a stipulated
settlement of the parties requiring the Service on or before November
30, 2008, to submit to the Federal Register a determination as to
whether designation of critical habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS is
prudent, and if so, to publish a proposed rule. We have subsequently
reaffirmed that critical habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter is prudent. This proposed rule complies with the
court order and section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For more information on
previous Federal actions concerning the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46366).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
[[Page 76456]]
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where the landowner seeks or
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an activity that
may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7 of the Act would apply. However, even in the
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's
obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
must contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to
the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat
areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on
which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)). Occupied habitat that contains the features essential to
the conservation of the species meets the definition of critical
habitat only if those features may require special management
considerations or protection. Under the Act, we can designate
unoccupied areas as critical habitat only when we determine that the
best available scientific data demonstrate that the designation of that
area is essential to the conservation needs of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designated critical
habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may eventually
determine, based on scientific data not now available to the Service,
are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a
critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may not be required for recovery of
the species.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and our other
wildlife authorities. They are also subject to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as
determined on the basis of the best available scientific information at
the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining areas occupied at the time of listing
that contain features essential to the conservation of the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter, and areas unoccupied at the time
of listing that are essential to the conservation of the DPS, or both.
In proposing critical habitat for the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter, we reviewed the relevant information available,
including peer-reviewed journal articles, unpublished reports, the
final listing rule, and unpublished materials (such as survey results
and expert opinions). In general, sea otters occupy the vast majority
of the available habitat within southwest Alaska. Exceptions include
portions of Kodiak Island where otters have yet to recolonize their
former range, and there may also be some individual islands in the
Aleutian archipelago where otters have disappeared (Doroff et al. 2003,
p. 58). We are not currently proposing any areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by the DPS because designating
only occupied areas is sufficient for the conservation of the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species including research published in
peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency
reports. We also discussed habitat requirements with members of the
southwest Alaska sea otter recovery team at several meetings. The sea
otter recovery team includes representatives from University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Fish and Wildlife Service, University of British Columbia,
Marine Conservation Alliance, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Alaska
Veterinary Pathology Services, Defenders of Wildlife, National Marine
Fisheries Service, The Alaska SeaLife Center, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, The Alaska Sea Otter
and Steller Sea Lion Commission, University of California Santa Cruz,
University of Alaska Sea Grant Program, and Sand Point, Alaska.
[[Page 76457]]
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied at
the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider areas
containing the physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and may require special management
considerations or protection. These features are the specific primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the
southwest Alaska DPS from its biological needs, as described in the
Background section of this proposed rule and the following information.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Sea otters exhibit complex movement patterns related to habitat
characteristics, social organization, and reproductive biology. It is
likely that movements differ among populations depending on whether a
population is at or near carrying capacity or has access to unoccupied
suitable habitat into which it can expand (Riedman and Estes 1990, p.
58). Most research into sea otter movements has been conducted where
unoccupied habitat is available to dispersing animals. Early research
in the Aleutian Islands by Kenyon (1969, p. 204) also found that males
have larger home ranges than females and described the female sea
otter's home range as including 8-16 km (5.0-9.9 mi) of contiguous
coastline. Male sea otter home ranges are highly variable. For
territorial (breeding) males, the area defended is smaller than that of
a female range, but the territory is not necessarily defended year-
round and may include larger scale movements to more productive feeding
grounds. Breeding may not occur until a male is older (7-10 years) and
in an established population. Little is known about the home range of
non-breeding males. In the listed region, where dramatic reduction in
numbers have occurred, even less is known about movement patterns and
home range sizes (A. Doroff, USFWS, pers. comm. 2008).
At present, sea otters occur throughout nearly all of their former
range in southwest Alaska, albeit at considerably lower densities than
were present prior to the recent population decline that led to the
listing of the DPS. Space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior does not appear to be a limiting factor for this DPS.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
The sea otter is a generalist predator, known to consume a wide
variety of different prey species (Kenyon 1969, p. 110; Riedman and
Estes 1990, p. 36; Estes and Bodkin 2002, p. 847). With few exceptions,
their prey consist of sessile, or slow-moving, benthic invertebrates
such as mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms, including sea urchins.
Foraging occurs in habitats with rocky and soft sediment substrates
between the high intertidal zone to depths slightly in excess of 100 m
(328.1 ft). Preferred foraging habitat is generally in depths less than
40 m (131.2 ft; Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 31), although studies in
southeast Alaska have found that some animals forage mostly at depths
from 40-80 m (131.2-262.5 ft; Bodkin et. al. 2004, p. 318).
The diet of sea otters is usually studied by observing prey items
brought to the surface for consumption, and therefore diet composition
is usually expressed as a percentage of all identified prey that belong
to a particular prey species or type. Although the sea otter is known
to prey on a large number of species, only a few tend to predominate in
the diet in any particular area. Prey type and size depends on
location, habitat type, season, and length of occupation.
Sea otters can be very diverse in their diets. Different habitats
offer different types of prey. There are about 200 known prey species
for sea otters, but the dominant ones that tend to sustain the
population are crab, clam, urchin, and mussel. The predominately soft-
sediment habitats of southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak
Island support populations of clams that are the primary prey of sea
otters. Throughout most of southeast Alaska, burrowing clams (species
of Saxidomus, Protothaca, Macoma, and Mya) predominate in the sea
otter's diet (Kvitek et al. 1993, p. 172). They account for more than
50 percent of the identified prey, although urchins (S. droebachiensis)
and mussels (Modiolis modiolis, Mytilus spp., and Musculus spp.) can
also be important. In Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, clams
account for 34-100 percent of the otter's prey (Calkins 1978, p. 127;
Doroff and Bodkin 1994, p. 202; Doroff and DeGange 1994, p. 706).
Mussels (Mytilus trossulus) apparently become more important for sea
otters as a prey base as the length of occupation by sea otters
increases, ranging from 0 percent of their prey base at newly occupied
sites at Kodiak to 22 percent of their prey base in long-occupied areas
(Doroff and DeGange 1994, p. 709). Crabs (C. magister) were once
important sea otter prey in eastern Prince William Sound, but
apparently have been depleted by otter foraging and are no longer eaten
in large numbers (Garshelis et al. 1986, p. 642). Sea urchins are minor
components of the sea otter's diet in Prince William Sound and the
Kodiak archipelago. In contrast, the diet in the Aleutian, Commander,
and Kuril Islands is dominated by sea urchins and a variety of fin fish
(Kenyon 1969, p. 116; Estes et al. 1982, p. 250). Sea urchins tend to
dominate the diet of low-density sea otter populations, whereas more
fishes are consumed in populations near equilibrium density (Estes et
al. 1982, p. 250). For unknown reasons, fish are rarely consumed by sea
otters in regions east of the Aleutian Islands.
As the population has declined in the past 20 years throughout much
of the range of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter,
prey species such as sea urchins have increased in both size and
abundance (Estes et al. 1998, p. 474). Recent studies of sea otter body
condition indicate improved overall health and suggest that limited
nutritional resources were not the cause of the observed population
decline (Laidre et al. 2006, p. 987). Although food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements do not
appear to be a limiting factor, availability of sufficient prey
resources and areas in which to forage is essential to the conservation
of the DPS.
Cover or Shelter
Estes et al. (1998, p. 473) believe the decline of sea otters in
southwest Alaska is the result of increased predation, most likely by
killer whales (Orcinus orca). These authors examined a suite of
information and concluded that the recent population decline was likely
not due to food limitation, disease, or
[[Page 76458]]
reduced productivity. Several lines of evidence, including increased
frequency of killer whale attacks and significantly higher mortality
rates in Kuluk Bay on Adak Island, as compared to Clam Lagoon, a
protected area that is inaccessible to killer whales, also support this
conclusion (Estes et al. 1998, p. 473).
A shift in distribution toward the shoreline has also been observed
in the western and central Aleutian Islands, which may allow otters
easier escape onto the land. In August 2007, the Service and USGS
conducted skiff-based surveys in the Near and Rat Island groups in the
western Aleutians. In addition to recording the number and approximate
location of every otter sighting, observers also recorded the
approximate distance to the nearest shore. The median distance to shore
for 811 sea otters observed was 10 m (32.8 ft); 90 percent of all
otters observed were within 100 m (328.1 ft) (USFWS unpublished
information). Aerial survey data indicate that in some areas, the
majority of the remaining sea otter population inhabits sheltered bays
and coves, which may also provide protection from marine predators
(USFWS unpublished information).
Canopy-forming kelps (including species of Macrocystis, Alaria, and
to a lesser extent Nereocystis), provide resting habitat (Kenyon 1969,
p. 57; Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 23), and may also provide protection
from marine predators (C. Matkin, personal communication). Kelp forests
occur primarily in waters less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth (O'Clair
and Lindstrom 2000, pp. 41, 57). In addition, killer whales may be less
likely to forage in shallow, constricted areas less than 2 m (6.6 ft)
in depth (C. Matkin, personal communication).
Based on our understanding of threats to the southwest Alaska DPS,
we believe that features that provide protection from marine predators,
especially killer whales, are essential to the conservation of the DPS.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
There appears to be a positive relationship between shoreline
complexity and sea otter density (Riedman and Estes 1990, p. 23).
Although not obligatory, headlands, coves, and bays appear to offer
preferred resting habitat, particularly to females with pups,
presumably because they provide protection from high wind and sea
conditions. Surveys of sea otters in southwest Alaska do not indicate
that pup production is a limiting factor for the DPS (USFWS and USGS
unpublished information).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Within the range of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea
otter, the vast majority of sea otter habitats are undisturbed, and are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of the species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Southwest Alaska DPS of the
Northern Sea Otter
Within the geographical area occupied by the southwest Alaska DPS
of the northern sea otter at the time of listing, we must identify the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the
DPS (i.e., the essential physical and biological features) that may
require special management considerations or protections.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of the species, we have determined that
the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter's PCEs are:
(1) Shallow, rocky areas where marine predators are less likely to
forage, which are waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in depth,
(2) Nearshore waters that may provide protection or escape from
marine predators, which are those within 100 m (328.1 ft) from the mean
high tide line and
(3) Kelp forests that provide protection from marine predators,
which occur in waters less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth.
(4) Prey resources within the areas identified by PCEs 1-3 that are
present in sufficient quantity and quality to support the energetic
requirements of the species.
We propose units for designation because each of these units
contains sufficient PCEs to support at least one of the species' life
history functions. Some units contain all of these and support multiple
life processes, while some units contain only a portion of PCEs,
necessary to support the species' particular use of that habitat.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied
areas contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protections. The range of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea
otter is sparsely populated by humans. There are only 31 populated
communities located within an area that contains approximately 18,000
km (11,184 mi) of coastline. The human population within the range of
the DPS is approximately 17,000 persons living in 31 communities (State
of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Database 2006). The scale of human activities that occur within the
proposed critical habitat areas is exceedingly small. Potential
activities that could harm the identified physical and biological
features include, but are not limited to, dredging or filling
associated with construction of airports, seaports, and harbors;
commercial shipping; and oil and gas development and production.
Pollution from various potential sources, including oil spills from
vessels, or discharges from oil and gas drilling and production, could
render areas containing the identified physical and biological features
unsuitable for use by sea otters, effectively negating the conservation
value of these features. Because of the vulnerabilities to pollution
sources, these features may require special management or protection
through such measures as placing conditions on Federal permits or
authorizations to stimulate special operational restraints, mitigative
measures, or technological changes.
The shipping industry transports various types of petroleum
products both as fuel and cargo within the range of the southwest
Alaska DPS. Information about the types and quantities of both
persistent and non-persistent oil has been summarized in a report on
vessel traffic within the Aleutians subarea (Nuka Research and Planning
Group 2006). Persistent fuels such as 6 bunker oil, bunker C,
and IFO 380 have low dissipation and evaporation rates, and will remain
on the surface of marine waters or along shorelines much longer than
non-persistent fuel such as diesel, gasoline, and aviation fuel.
Approximately 3,100 ship voyages occur through the Aleutians each year.
Most of these voyages are by bulk and general freight ships (1,300) and
container ships (1,200). The median fuel capacity for bulk and general
freight ships is 470,000 gallons of persistent fuel oil; for container
ships, the median capacity is 1.6 million gallons of persistent fuel
oil. In addition, there are about 265 voyages by motor vehicle carriers
with an estimated average fuel capacity of 500,000 gallons of
persistent fuel oil.
[[Page 76459]]
There are also approximately 22 voyages by tanker ships transporting
about 400 million gallons of refined oil. The figures quoted above are
for the Aleutians subarea only, which includes the North Pacific great
circle route from the west coast of North America to Asia. Information
about shipping traffic that occurs in other parts of the southwest
Alaska DPS is not well-documented, though it is presumably on a much
smaller scale compared to what occurs through the Aleutians.
Numerous instances of vessel incidents have been documented in the
Aleutians over the past 15 years, including loss of maneuverability,
grounding, and oil spills (Nuka Research and Planning Group 2006, p.
29). Nearly 500 incidents affecting the seaworthiness of U.S. vessels
were reported in the Aleutians from 1990 through July 2006. U.S.
vessels reporting incidents were usually smaller than foreign vessels,
and were primarily fishing vessels. An additional 48 incidents
affecting seaworthiness of foreign vessels were reported between 1991
and July 2006. The bulk grain ship M/V Selendang Ayu which ran aground
on Unalaska Island in December 2004, is known to have resulted in the
death of two sea otters. The long-term impacts of that spill on sea
otter habitat use are not yet known.
Various safeguards have been established since the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill to minimize the likelihood of another spill of
catastrophic proportions in Prince William Sound. Tankers, other
vessels, fuel barges, and onshore storage facilities are potential
sources of oil and fuel spills that could affect sea otters in the
southwest Alaska DPS. A review of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation database indicates no crude-oil spills were
reported within the range of the southwest Alaska DPS during the 10-
year period from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 2005. Of the 520 reported
spills of refined products, 82 percent were from vessels; most of these
(70 percent) involved quantities smaller than 10 gallons. The majority
of vessel spills occurred in the western Aleutian (149), eastern
Aleutian (107), and Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula (130) management
units. Only 7 spills were reported where the quantity was greater than
5,000 gallons of material. The largest was the M/V Selendang Ayu, which
spilled 321,052 gallons of IFO 380 fuel and an additional 14,680
gallons of diesel.
In 2006, the U.S. Coast Guard, the State of Alaska, and the
National Academies of Science met to begin plans for the development of
a comprehensive risk assessment for the Aleutian Islands. Although the
probability of occurrence of a catastrophic oil spill may be relatively
small, the potential for disastrous consequences suggest that measures
to prevent or respond to spills may be important to the recovery of the
southwest Alaska DPS. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
of 2004 (H.R. 2443) requires oil-spill contingency plans for vessels
over 400 gross tons that call on U.S. ports. In addition to contingency
plans for vessels of this size class, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has both a unified spill-response
plan as well as 10 Subarea plans. The southwest Alaska DPS is covered
by the Aleutian, Bristol Bay, Kodiak, and Cook Inlet Subarea plans. In
addition, ADEC is developing Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) that
are designed to be a supplement to the Subarea Contingency Plans for
Oil and Hazardous Substances Spills and Releases. The GRS are the
current standard for site-specific oil-spill-response planning in
Alaska.
The first and primary phase of an oil-spill response is to contain
and remove the oil at the scene of the spill or while it is still on
the open water, thereby reducing or eliminating impacts on shorelines
or sensitive habitats. If some of the spilled oil escapes the first-
phase containment and removal, the second, but no less important, phase
is to intercept, contain, and remove the oil in the nearshore area. The
intent of phase two is the same as phase one: remove the spilled oil
before it affects sensitive environments. If phases one and two are not
fully successful, a third phase (GRS) is designed to protect sensitive
areas in the path of the oil. The purpose of phase three is to protect
selected sensitive areas from the impacts of a spill or to minimize
that impact to the maximum extent practical. Proposed critical habitat
for the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter will be
incorporated into the GRS system to facilitate this additional level of
spill response.
Existing commercial fishing activities, and their target species
(which are not considered prey for sea otters), within southwest Alaska
primarily occur outside of the areas proposed as critical habitat in
this rule (Funk 2003, p. 2). With the exception of oil spills from
shipwrecks, we do not believe that existing commercial fishing
activities in southwest Alaska have the potential to harm the
identified physical and biological features for the southwest Alaska
DPS of the northern sea otter.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We are proposing to designate critical habitat for the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter in areas that were occupied at the
time of listing and contain sufficient PCEs: (1) To support life
history functions essential to the conservation of the DPS, and (2)
which may require special management considerations or protection. Much
of the range of the DPS occurs within the Aleutian archipelago, and
although it is possible that otters have disappeared from some of the
small islands since the time of listing, we have no information that
indicates any portion should be considered unoccupied habitat. As a
result, we consider the Aleutian archipelago to be occupied habitat.
Unlike habitats for terrestrial species, some of the various
characteristics of sea otter habitat are poorly mapped. Although
shoreline boundaries are reasonably well-documented, the bathymetric
data for southwest Alaska exist at a variety of spatial resolutions.
Benthic substrate types are also poorly mapped. Other features, such as
the distribution and abundance of sea otter prey species, and the
spatial extent of kelp beds, may be dynamic over time. This lack of
specificity makes it difficult to explicitly identify and map areas
that contain the PCEs for this DPS beyond a certain geographic scale.
Areas that provide protection from marine predators are likely the
most essential to the conservation of this DPS. Despite the absence of
information necessary to map these areas with precision, we can define
criteria that will contain the essential PCEs. Kelp forests that
provide resting habitat and protection from marine predators occur
primarily in waters less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth (O'Clair and
Lindstrom 2000, pp. 41, 57). In addition to identifying an approximate
seaward extent of kelp forests, the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour also
encompasses the nearshore shallow areas (less than 2 m (6.6 ft)) where
marine predators may be less likely to forage. The 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour also has considerable overlap with the nearshore (<100 m (328.1
ft)) areas where otters can escape predators by hauling out on land.
Areas of shallow water less than 20 m (65.6 ft) in depth that are not
contiguous with the mean high tide line may provide less protection
from marine predators. Nearshore marine waters ranging from mean high
tide to 20 m (65.6 ft) in water depth or that occur within 100 m (328.1
ft) of the mean high tide line (or both) therefore contain the
necessary PCEs for protection from marine predators
[[Page 76460]]
(Figure 1). Based on numerous studies of sea otter foraging depths, as
well as the distribution of the remaining sea otter population in
nearshore, shallow water areas, we believe that the areas defined by
PCEs 1-3 also contain sufficient sea otter prey resources. We have no
reason to believe that any of the areas within the proposed critical
habitat designation are unable to support the energetic requirements of
this species.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE08.000
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas
that lack PCEs for the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
The scale of the map we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed areas, such as piers, docks, harbors, marinas, jetties,
and breakwaters. Any such structures inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the map of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving
these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the PCEs in the adjacent critical
habitat.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing five units as critical habitat for the southwest
Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter. In 2006, the Service convened a
Recovery Team to develop a recovery plan for the southwest Alaska DPS
of the northern sea otter. As of the publication date of this proposed
rule, the Recovery Team has met five times, and a draft recovery plan
is in preparation. As the range of the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter includes approximately 18,000 km (11,184.7 mi) of
coastline, the team has proposed that the DPS be subdivided into 5
management units, based on criteria such as habitat type and population
trajectory. In the interest of clarity, we propose designating critical
habitat units that correspond to the management units proposed by the
Recovery Team. Only those areas within each management unit that meet
the criteria identified above are being proposed as critical habitat--
namely, those areas that contain one or more PCEs and may require
special management considerations or protection. Detailed, colored maps
of areas proposed as critical habitat in this proposed rule are
available for viewing at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/
criticalhabitat.htm. Hard copies of maps can be obtained by contacting
the Marine Mammals
[[Page 76461]]
Management Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the DPS. Table 1 shows the occupied units. The 5 units we propose
as critical habitat are: (1) Western Aleutian Unit; (2) Eastern
Aleutian Unit; (3) South Alaska Peninsula Unit; (4) Bristol Bay Unit;
and (5) Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula Unit.
Table 1--Occupancy of Northern Sea Otters by Proposed Critical Habitat Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated size State/Federal
Unit Occupied at time of Currently occupied? of unit in ownership ratio
listing? km\2\ (mi\2\) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Aleutian............... Yes................. Yes................. 1,551 (599) 100/0
2. Eastern Aleutian............... Yes................. Yes................. 893 (345) 100/0
3. South Alaska Peninsula......... Yes................. Yes................. 4,945 (1,909) 85/15
4. Bristol Bay.................... Yes................. Yes................. 1,080 (417) 96/4
4a. Amak Island............... Yes................. Yes................. 31 (12) 77/23
4b. Izembek Lagoon............ Yes................. Yes................. 337 (130) 100/0
4c. Port Moller/Herendeen Bay. Yes................. Yes................. 712 (275) 94/6
5. Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Yes................. Yes................. 6,757 (2,609) 89/11
Peninsula.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... .................... .................... 15,226 (5,879) 90/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all proposed critical habitat
units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for
the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter, below. Calculation
of areas for units and subunits that include the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth
contour as a criterion are approximations estimated from GIS data
layers of hydrographic survey data compiled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Service. Consultations under section 7 of the Act should use the best
available bathymetric data on a case-by-case basis. In some instances,
these data may be based on other units of measurement (such as feet or
fathoms), in which case the bathymetric contour that is closest to 20 m
(65.6 ft) should be used. For users of NOAA nautical charts, the 10-
fathom (60-ft) depth contour is a suitable approximation for the 20-m
(65.6-ft) depth contour.
Although no lands above mean high tide are proposed as critical
habitat, ownership of lands adjacent to critical habitat may be of
interest to reviewers of this proposal (Table 2).
Table 2--Ownership Status of Lands Adjacent to Proposed Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Private Alaska Native
Unit (percent) State (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Aleutian......................... 80.2 0.0 0.0 19.8
2. Eastern Aleutian......................... 10.2 0.0 0.0 89.8
3. South Alaska Peninsula................... 21.1 0.4 0.0 78.5
4. Bristol Bay.............................. 36.7 41.5 0.0 21.8
4a. Amak Island......................... 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4b. Izembek Lagoon...................... 89.4 0.0 0.0 10.6
4c. Port Moller/Herendeen Bay........... 4.9 66.1 0.0 29.0
5. Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula....... 30.2 17.4 0.0 52.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 37.9 8.5 0.0 53.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Western Aleutian Unit
Unit 1 consists of at least 1,551 km\2\ (599 mi\2\), collectively,
of the nearshore marine waters ranging from the mean high tide line to
the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters occurring within 100
m (328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line. Hydrographic survey data in
the vicinity of Atka and Amlia islands is insufficient to delineate the
20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour, so our area calculation may slightly
underestimate the total area of this unit. This unit ranges from Attu
Island in the west to Kagamil Island in the east, was occupied at the
time of listing, and is currently occupied. The majority (80.2 percent)
of the lands bordering this unit are federally owned within the Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, all of the proposed
critical habitat within this unit is located within State of Alaska
waters (defined as those within 3 mi (4.82 km) of mean high tide).
The Western Aleutian Unit contains all of the PCEs essential for
the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
Special management considerations and protections may be needed to
minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within the region and along the northern great
circle route.
Unit 2: Eastern Aleutian Unit
Unit 2 consists of an estimated 893 km\2\ (345 mi\2\),
collectively, of the nearshore marine waters ranging from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line. This unit
ranges from Samalga Island in the west to Ugamak Island in the east,
was occupied at the time of listing, and is currently occupied. The
majority (89.8 percent) of the lands bordering this unit are owned or
selected (but not yet conveyed) by Alaska Natives. In addition, all of
the proposed critical habitat within this unit is located within State
of Alaska waters.
[[Page 76462]]
The Eastern Aleutian Unit contains all of the PCEs essential for
the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
Special management considerations and protections may be needed to
minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within the region and along the northern great
circle route.
Unit 3: South Alaska Peninsula Unit
Unit 3 consists of an estimated 4,945 km\2\ (1,909 mi\2\),
collectively, of the nearshore marine waters ranging from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line. Available
hydrographic survey data for this unit have considerably lower spatial
resolution than the other units. This unit ranges from Unimak Island in
the west to Castle Cape in the east, was occupied at the time of
listing, and is currently occupied. The majority (78.5 percent) of the
lands bordering this unit are owned or selected (but not yet conveyed)
by Alaska Natives. The vast majority (85 percent) of the proposed
critical habitat within this unit is located within State of Alaska
waters.
The South Alaska Peninsula Unit contains all of the PCEs essential
for the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea
otter. Special management considerations and protections may be needed
to minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within this region and along the northern great
circle route.
Unit 4: Bristol Bay Unit
Unit 4 consists of an estimated 1,080 km\2\ (417 mi\2\) of the
nearshore marine environment. This unit is further subdivided into 3
subunits: (4a) Amak Island; (4b) Izembek Lagoon; and (4c) Port Moller/
Herendeen Bay. With the exception of Amak Island, the coastline
contained within this unit is relatively simple and lacks kelp forests.
For most of this unit, the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour used as a
criterion for critical habitat in other units does not identify
features that provide protection from marine predators, and is
applicable only to the Amak Island subunit. Other criteria are used to
identify the Izembek Lagoon and Port Moller/Herendeen Bay subunits, as
described below. All three subunits within the Bristol Bay unit were
occupied at the time of listing, and are currently occupied. Additional
information about each subunit is included below.
Subunit 4a: Amak Island Subunit
Subunit 4a consists of an estimated 31 km\2\ (12 mi\2\),
collectively, of the nearshore marine waters ranging from the mean high
tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line. This
subunit surrounds Amak Island in Bristol Bay, was occupied at the time
of listing, and is currently occupied. Large groups of sea otters have
been observed within the kelp forests within this subunit (USFWS
unpublished information). All of the lands bordering this unit are
federally owned within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.
Most (77 percent) of the proposed critical habitat within this subunit
is located within State of Alaska waters, a small portion of which (1.2
km\2\, 0.46 mi\2\) is also located within the boundaries of the Izembek
State Game Refuge.
The Amak Island Subunit contains all of the PCEs essential for the
conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the northern sea otter.
Special management considerations and protections may be needed to
minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material spills from
commercial shipping within Bristol Bay. In addition, offshore oil and
gas development are under consideration in the Lease Sale Area 92 in
the North Aleutian Basin region immediately offshore from this unit. An
environmental impact statement is in preparation, and will be completed
prior to the lease sale. Additional management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize the risk of crude-oil spills
associated with oil and gas development and production that may impact
this subunit.
Subunit 4b: Izembek Lagoon Subunit
Subunit 4b consists of an estimated 337 km\2\ (130 mi\2\) of the
nearshore marine environment within the Izembek Lagoon and Moffett
Lagoon systems. Sea otters are known to frequent the lagoon system and
regularly haul out on the islands and sandbars that form the northern
boundary of these systems, such as Glen, Operl, and Neumann Islands
(USFWS unpublished information). Large numbers of otters have also been
observed hauling out along the edges of the sea ice within the lagoon
in winter (USFWS unpublished information). This subunit was occupied at
the time of listing, and is currently occupied. The majority (89.4
percent) of the lands bordering this unit are federally owned within
the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed critical habitat
within this subunit is located within State of Alaska waters, most of
which (99 percent) is also within the boundaries of the Izembek State
Game Refuge.
The Izembek Lagoon Subunit contains some of the PCEs (1, 2 and 4)
essential for the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter. Special management considerations and protections
may be needed to minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material
spills from commercial shipping within Bristol Bay. In addition,
offshore oil and gas development are under consideration in the Lease
Sale Area 92 in the North Aleutian Basin region immediately offshore
from this subunit. Additional management considerations and protections
may be needed to minimize the risk of crude-oil spills associated with
oil and gas development and production that may impact this subunit.
Subunit 4c: Port Moller/Herendeen Bay Subunit
Subunit 4c consists of an estimated 712 km\2\ (275 mi\2\) of the
nearshore marine environment within the Port Moller and Herendeen Bay
systems. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing, and is
currently occupied. Aerial surveys conducted in 2000 and 2004, as well
as additional reported observations, indicate that these areas may
contain several thousand sea otters at any given time (Burn and Doroff
2005, p. 277; USFWS unpublished information). The seaward boundary of
this subunit extends from Point Edward on the Alaska Peninsula to the
western tip of Walrus Island, and from Wolf Point on the eastern tip of
Walrus Island to Entrance Point on the Alaska Peninsula. The majority
(66.1 percent) of the lands bordering to this unit are owned or
selected (but not yet conveyed) by the State of Alaska. Most (94
percent) of the critical habitat within this subunit is located within
State of Alaska waters, with a portion (140.8 km\2\ (54.4 mi\2\))
located within the boundaries of the Port Moller State Critical Habitat
area.
The Port Moller/Herendeen Subunit contains some of the PCEs (1,2,
and 4) essential for the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of
the northern sea otter. Special management considerations and
protections may be needed to minimize the risk of oil and other
hazardous-material spills from commercial shipping within Bristol Bay.
In addition, offshore oil and gas development are under consideration
in the Lease Sale Area 92 in the North Aleutian Basin region
immediately offshore from this subunit. Additional management
considerations and
[[Page 76463]]
protections may be needed to minimize the risk of crude-oil spills
associated with oil and gas development and production that may impact
this subunit.
Unit 5: Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula Unit
Unit 5 consists of an estimated 6,757 km\2\ (2,609 mi\2\),
collectively, of the nearshore marine environment ranging from the mean
high tide line to the 20-m (65.6-ft) depth contour as well as waters
occurring within 100 m (328.1 ft) of the mean high tide line. Available
hydrographic survey data for parts of this unit have considerably lower
spatial resolution than the other units. This unit ranges from Castle
Cape in the west to Tuxedni Bay in the east, and includes the Kodiak
archipelago. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and is
currently occupied. Slightly more than half (52.4 percent) of the lands
bordering this unit are either owned or selected (but not yet conveyed)
by Alaska Natives. The majority (89 percent) of the proposed critical
habitat within this unit is located within State of Alaska waters, a
small portion which (41.0 km\2\, 15.8 mi\2\) is also located within the
boundaries of the Tugidak Island State Critical Habitat area.
The Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula Unit contains all the PCEs
essential for the conservation of the southwest Alaska DPS of the
northern sea otter. Special management considerations and protections
may be needed to minimize the risk of oil and other hazardous-material
spills from commercial shipping within this region.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critica