Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals, 32026-32063 [2011-13381]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32026-32063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13381]



[[Page 32025]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 106

June 2, 2011

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 226



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rulemaking To 
Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 32026]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 110207102-1136-01]
RIN 0648-BA81


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 
Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose 
revising the current critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal 
(Monachus schauinslandi) by extending the current designation in the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) out to the 500-meter (m) depth 
contour and including Sand Island at Midway Islands; and by designating 
six new areas in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), pursuant to section 4 
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specific areas proposed for the 
MHI include terrestrial and marine habitat from 5 m inland from the 
shoreline extending seaward to the 500-m depth contour around: Kaula 
Island, Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui Nui (including Kahoolawe, Lanai, 
Maui, and Molokai), and Hawaii (except those areas that have been 
identified as not included in the designation). We propose to exclude 
the following areas from designation because the national security 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and exclusion 
will not result in extinction of the species: Kingfisher Underwater 
Training area in marine areas off the northeast coast of Niihau; 
Pacific Missile Range Facility Main Base at Barking Sands, Kauai; 
Pacific Missile Range Facility Offshore Areas in marine areas off the 
western coast of Kauai; the Naval Defensive Sea Area and Puuloa 
Underwater Training Range in marine areas outside Pearl Harbor, Oahu; 
and the Shallow Water Minefield Sonar Training Range off the western 
coast of Kahoolawe in the Maui Nui area. We solicit comments on all 
aspects of the proposal, including information on the economic, 
national security, and other relevant impacts. We will consider 
additional information received prior to making a final designation.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
must be received no later than August 31, 2011. A public hearing will 
be held promptly if any person so requests by August 16, 2011. Notice 
of the date, location, and time of any such hearing will be published 
in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the hearing is 
held.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by 0648-BA81 by any one 
of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail or hand-delivery: Submit written comments to 
Regulatory Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani 
Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI, 96814, Attn.: Hawaiian monk seal 
proposed critical habitat.
    Instructions: Comments must be submitted to one of these two 
addresses to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and 
considered by NMFS. Comments sent to any other address or individual, 
or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. 
All comments received are a part of the public record and will 
generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All 
Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information. We will accept anonymous comments (enter ``NA'' in the 
required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to 
electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, 
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. The petition, 90-day 
finding, 12-month finding, draft biological report, draft economic 
analysis report, draft 4(b)(2) report, and other reference materials 
regarding this determination can be obtained via the NMFS Pacific 
Islands Regional Office Web site: https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_critical_habitat.html or by submitting a request to the Regulatory 
Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 
1110, Honolulu, HI 96814, Attn: Hawaiian monk seal proposed critical 
habitat. Background documents on the biology of the Hawaiian monk seal, 
the July 2, 2008, petition requesting revision of its critical habitat, 
and documents explaining the critical habitat designation process, can 
be downloaded from https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_critical_habitat.html, or requested by phone or e-mail from the NMFS staff in 
Honolulu (area code 808) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 
The October 3, 2008, 90-day finding (73 FR 57583), the public comments 
received on the 90-day finding, and the June 12, 2009, 12-month finding 
(74 FR 27988), can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov by searching 
for docket number ``NOAA-NMFS-2008-0290''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Higgins, NMFS, Pacific Islands 
Regional Office, (808) 944-2157; Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands 
Regional Office, (808) 944-2258; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) was listed as 
endangered throughout its range under the ESA in 1976 (41 FR 51611; 
November 23, 1976). In 1986, critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk 
seal was designated at all beach areas, sand spits and islets, 
including all beach crest vegetation to its deepest extent inland, 
lagoon waters, inner reef waters, and ocean waters out to a depth of 10 
fathoms (18.3 m) around Kure Atoll, Midway Islands (except Sand 
Island), Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, 
Gardner Pinnacles, French Frigate Shoals, Necker Island, and Nihoa 
Island in the NWHI (51 FR 16047; April 30, 1986). In 1988, critical 
habitat was expanded to include Maro Reef and waters around previously 
designated areas out to the 20 fathom (36.6 m) isobath (53 FR 18988; 
May 26, 1988).
    On July 9, 2008, we received a petition dated July 2, 2008, from 
the Center for Biological Diversity, Kahea, and the Ocean Conservancy 
(Petitioners) to revise the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat 
designation (Center for Biological Diversity, 2008) under the ESA. The 
Petitioners sought to revise critical habitat by adding the following 
areas in the MHI: key beach areas; sand spits and islets, including all 
beach crest vegetation to its deepest extent inland; lagoon waters; 
inner reef waters; and ocean waters out to a depth of 200 m. In 
addition, the Petitioners requested that designated critical habitat in 
the NWHI be extended to include Sand Island at Midway, as well as ocean 
waters out to a depth of 500 m (Center for Biological Diversity, 2008).

[[Page 32027]]

    On October 3, 2008, we announced in our 90-day finding that the 
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that a 
revision to the current critical habitat designation may be warranted 
(73 FR 57583; October 3, 2008). On June 12, 2009, in the 12-month 
finding, we announced that a revision to critical habitat is warranted 
because of new information available regarding habitat use by the 
Hawaiian monk seal, and we announced our intention to proceed toward a 
proposed rule (74 FR 27988; June 12, 2009). Additionally, in the 12-
month finding we identified the range of the species as throughout the 
Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll (74 FR 27988; June 12, 2009). 
Although petitioned to designate areas identified by specific 
boundaries or concepts (i.e., ``key'' areas), we evaluated habitat 
needs for the species, including all areas within the identified range 
to best realize the conservation goals and needs of the species. This 
proposed rule describes the proposed critical habitat designation, 
including supporting information on Hawaiian monk seal biology, 
distribution, and habitat use, and the methods used to develop the 
proposed designation.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, we must consider the economic 
impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts of 
designating any particular area as critical habitat. We have the 
discretion to exclude an area from designation as critical habitat if 
the benefits of exclusion (i.e., the impacts that would be avoided if 
an area was excluded from the designation) outweigh the benefits of 
designation (i.e., the conservation benefits to the Hawaiian monk seal 
if an area was designated), so long as exclusion of the area will not 
result in extinction of the species. This evaluation process introduces 
various alternatives to the revision of designated critical habitat for 
the Hawaiian monk seal, all of which we considered. The alternative of 
not revising the designated critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals 
would impose no additional economic, national security, or other 
relevant impacts, but would not provide any additional conservation 
benefit to the species. This alternative was considered and rejected 
because such an approach does not meet the legal requirements of the 
ESA and would not provide for the conservation of the species based on 
the best available science. The alternative of designating all 
potential critical habitat areas (i.e., no areas excluded) also was 
considered and rejected because, for several areas, the national 
security benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of designation, 
and we determined that exclusion of these areas would not significantly 
impede conservation or result in extinction of the species.
    An alternative to designating critical habitat within all of the 
areas considered for designation is the designation of critical habitat 
within a subset of those areas. Exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 
ESA of one or more of the particular areas considered for designation 
would reduce the total impacts of designation. The determination of 
which particular areas and how many to exclude is subject to the 
Secretary's discretion after the impacts have been evaluated in 
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. This evaluation was 
conducted for each area and is described in detail in the draft ESA 
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2010b). Under this preferred alternative we 
propose to exclude 5 particular areas within the areas considered. We 
determined that the exclusion of these areas would not significantly 
impede the conservation of Hawaiian monk seals nor result in extinction 
of the species. We selected this as the preferred alternative because 
it results in a critical habitat designation that provides for the 
conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal while reducing the national 
security impacts. This alternative also meets ESA and joint NMFS and 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations concerning critical 
habitat at 50 CFR part 424.

Hawaiian Monk Seal Natural History and Ecology

    In the following sections, we describe the natural history of the 
Hawaiian monk seal as it relates to the habitat needs of the species. 
Hawaiian monk seals are members of the Phocidae family, also known as 
the true seals, which are characterized by a lack of external ear and 
an inability to draw the hind-flippers under the body for movement on 
land. The Hawaiian monk seal falls within the primitive genus Monachus. 
Only two other species of seal occur in this genus, the recently 
extinct Caribbean monk seal (M. tropicalis) and the critically 
endangered Mediterranean monk seal (M. monachus). These three monk seal 
species were widely dispersed geographically (i.e., in the Hawaiian 
Archipelago, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean), and disagreement 
remains regarding the historical biogeography of the monachine seals' 
origin and dispersal (Repenning and Ray, 1977; Fyler et al., 2005; 
Arnason et al., 2006). Regardless of the debate over geographic origin 
or chronology, the closure of the Central American Seaway would 
indicate that Hawaiian monk seals were separated from the Caribbean 
species at least 3 million years ago (mya) (Fyler et al., 2005). At 
this time period geologically, Hawaiian monk seals would have been able 
to exploit habitat in the NWHI as well as utilize some habitat in the 
MHI, including Kauai and Niihau, which were forming as early as 5 and 
4.9 mya, respectively (Juvik and Juvik, 1998).
    Hawaiian monk seals are wide-ranging, air-breathing aquatic 
carnivores that spend a majority of their time in the ocean, but 
continue to rely on terrestrial habitat. Monk seals utilize aquatic 
habitat for foraging, socializing, mating, resting, and traveling. 
Adept at propulsion in the water, individual monk seals may travel 
hundreds of miles in a few days (Littnan et al., 2006) and dive to more 
than 500 m (1,600 ft) (Parrish et al., 2002). Although a majority of 
its time is spent in the water, like many other pinnipeds, the Hawaiian 
monk seal utilizes terrestrial habitat to rest, avoid predators, molt, 
pup (give birth), and nurse. In contrast to commonly recognized 
pinnipeds such as sea lions, walrus, and harbor seals, which often haul 
out in groups of larger numbers, the Hawaiian monk seal is considered 
solitary, often hauling out individually. The solitary nature extends 
both on land and in the water; however, monk seals may congregate in 
small numbers (e.g., males may haul out with and guard females, or 
several animals may be found hauled out in relative proximity to one 
another) in favorable haul-out areas (Antonelis et al., 2006).
    Adult monk seals reach a length of 2.3 m (7.5 ft) and weigh up to 
273 kg (600 lb). On average the adult males are smaller in size than 
females (NMFS, 2007a). It is thought that Hawaiian monk seals have a 
lifespan of up to 30 years in the wild (NMFS, 2007a). Females reach 
breeding age at about 5 to 11 years of age (NMFS, 2010d) depending on 
their condition. Little is known regarding the sexual maturation of 
males of the species, but behavior and size suggest similar maturation 
rates to that of the females (Antonelis et al., 2006). Mating occurs at 
sea, and gestation is thought to be approximately 11 months. Females 
typically will haul out on land near the birth site and give birth to a 
single pup (Johanos et al., 1994). Monk seal births are most common 
between February and August, but births have been documented at all 
times of the year (NMFS, 2007a). Upon birth the female will nurse the 
pup for

[[Page 32028]]

approximately 6 weeks; throughout this time period the mother remains 
with the pup usually fasting and decreasing in mass (Kenyon and Rice, 
1959). The nursing period concludes with an abrupt weaning when the 
mother returns to the marine environment to forage, leaving the pup on 
its own (Johanos et al., 1994). Females will mate about 3-4 weeks after 
weaning her pup, and 5-6 weeks after mating she will haul out to molt 
(NMFS, 2007a). The weaned pups are left to teach themselves to 
successfully forage. While their foraging skills develop, they depend 
on fat stores built up during the nursing period, resulting in 
considerable weight loss (NMFS, 2007a). Juveniles (up to 3 years old) 
are typically longer but thinner than recently-weaned pups, and 
juveniles in the NWHI typically do not regain their post-weaning weight 
until approximately 2 years of age (Johanos et al., 1994).
    Adult seals appear silvery white ventrally with dark silvery tinged 
brown or slate gray pelage (fur) dorsally, and as the hair ages, the 
ventral pelage takes on a yellow tinge while the dorsal pelage may 
appear dull brown or darker (Kenyon and Rice, 1959). When monk seals 
stay at sea for an extensive period, they may develop a red or green 
tinge from algal growth on their pelage (Kenyon and Rice, 1959). Monk 
seals undergo an annual molt, which is termed a catastrophic molt 
because the entire layer of pelage (skin and hair) is shed, leaving a 
new silvery grey coat underneath. During their annual molt, Hawaiian 
monk seals may haul out on land, staying ashore 10-14 days or more 
(NMFS, 2007a). At birth, pelage is black and may occasionally be marked 
with small white patches, referred to as natural bleaches (Kenyon and 
Rice, 1959). The black pelage is lost during the postnatal molt, which 
occurs around the time of weaning.

Range

    In the 12-month finding (74 FR 27988; June 12, 2009), we identified 
the range of the Hawaiian monk seal to include habitat throughout the 
Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. This determination was based 
on pupping (birth) and sighting data from the Hawaiian Archipelago 
collected by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), 
Protected Species Division (PSD). Verified past accounts from Johnston 
Atoll were used to determine that the Atoll may be considered as part 
of the geographical area occupied by the species (NMFS, 2001). 
Unconfirmed sightings of Hawaiian monk seals from Palmyra Atoll (1,800 
km south of NWHI); Wake Island (2,000 km southwest of NWHI); Bikini 
Atoll and Mejit Island in the Marshall Islands (2,400 km southwest of 
NWHI) (NMFS, 2010c) were recognized, but substantial evidence was not 
found to incorporate these areas into the species' range. In discussing 
the range of the species, we also acknowledged that animals have been 
historically relocated to manage serious threats to the population or 
individual animals. Relocations include: 21 males from the NWHI to the 
MHI, three females from the MHI to the NWHI, 11 males from the NWHI to 
Johnston Atoll, and 1 male from the MHI to Johnston Atoll. Female 
Hawaiian monk seals have not been relocated to the MHI.

Population Status and Trends

    The current Hawaiian monk seal population is estimated at 1,161 
individuals (NMFS, 2009). The estimate includes the sum of estimated 
abundances at the six main NWHI breeding subpopulation sites, an 
extrapolation of counts at Necker and Nihoa Islands, and an estimate of 
minimum abundance in the MHI (NMFS, 2009). Minimum population estimates 
for 2008 based on the number of seals identified from the six main NWHI 
subpopulations was 913 seals, and for the MHI, 113 seals (NMFS, 2009). 
Additional information regarding the methods used to determine 
estimates may be found in the NMFS annual stock assessment reports. The 
breeding subpopulations identified are geographically separated, but 
re-sights of identified animals indicate seal movement among the NWHI, 
among the MHI, and, on rare occurrence, from the NWHI to the MHI 
(Littnan et al., 2006; NMFS, 2009). The complete history of Hawaiian 
monk seal population status and trends is unknown; however, data and 
historical accounts do indicate impacts to population trends from human 
exploitation and disturbance. The following is a review of pertinent 
information and trends with regard to population status.
    The first beach counts of Hawaiian monk seals in the NWHI occurred 
in the late 1950s, but prior to that time period human-influenced 
declines in population can be inferred from historical accounts. The 
first written accounts during Lisianski's exploration in the 1800s 
indicated seals of the NWHI being exploited for oil, pelts, or food 
(Ragen, 1993). Reports from the end of the same century highlight the 
impact of early human exploitation on the seal population, with 
accounts of no seals being seen on extended visits to Midway and 
Laysan, areas where numerous seal sightings were indicated in the past 
(Ragen, 1999). Following the period of exploitation in the 1800s, areas 
in the NWHI were settled for entrepreneurial and military reasons. 
Descriptions of seal sightings at this time indicate behavioral 
changes, including seals showing a habitat preference for sites less 
accessible to human inhabitants (Ragen, 1999). Starting in the late 
1950s, counts were made at the islands almost every year, with a high 
count of 1,206 seals recorded in the spring of 1958 (NMFS, 1983). 
Although these counts do not provide a total population estimate 
(because the proportion of the total included in the count was not 
determined), the beach counts do demonstrate a decline between the late 
1950s and mid-to-late 1970s. Counts in the 1970s ranged from 500-600 
seals, less than half the high counts from the late 1950s (NMFS, 1983). 
This decrease was most evident in the western portions of the range and 
has been associated with human disturbance related to military 
settlement (Kenyon and Rice, 1959; Ragen, 1993). Military activities 
and presence eventually ceased at these sites, and the islands have 
been managed as a refuge; in 2006 the islands and surrounding waters 
were incorporated into the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine 
National Monument, now renamed Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 
Monument. Periods of decline and stability have been documented since 
the area has been managed as a refuge, with the most recent period of 
decline beginning in 2001 (NMFS, 2007a). In 2008, beach counts of 
juveniles and adults (i.e., all seals except pups) were 68 percent 
lower than those of the late 1950s (NMFS, 2009). Total abundance at the 
six primary NWHI sites (French Frigate Shoals, Laysan, Lisianski, Pearl 
and Hermes, Midway, and Kure) is declining at a rate of about 4.5 
percent per year (NMFS, 2009). While the earlier declines are marked by 
human exploitation and disturbance, the current declines in the NWHI 
may be driven by food limitations and other sources of mortality, which 
disproportionally impact juvenile seal survival and consequently reduce 
recruitment into breeding age classes. With fewer adults of breeding 
age, the current age structures of the NWHI subpopulations indicate 
that declines are likely to continue for at least the next decade 
(Baker et al., 2010). A detailed account of the Hawaiian monk seal 
population status and trends in the NWHI is provided in the recovery 
plan (NMFS, 2007a).

[[Page 32029]]

    It is generally accepted that Hawaiian monk seals are native to the 
islands of the northwest, as discussed earlier; however, conflicting 
views remain regarding Hawaiian monk seal historical use of the MHI. 
The lack of seal references in the Hawaiian oral tradition has led some 
to believe that Hawaiian monk seal use of this region is a recent 
phenomenon. However, fossil remains of seal bones discovered at an 
archeological site from the Island of Hawaii dating from 1,400-1,760 
years ago (Rosendahl, 1994) has led support to an alternate view 
suggesting that Hawaiian monk seals may have been forced to peripheral 
habitat by exploitation or disturbance during early Polynesian 
settlement (Ragen, 1993; Baker, 2004; Baker and Johanos, 2004). 
Anecdotal evidence, including the Polynesian extirpation of other avian 
species during early settlement (Olson and James, 1982; Diamond et al., 
1989), the availability of coastal habitat (Juvik and Juvik, 1998), and 
the monk seal presence in the Pacific basin well before the Polynesian 
settlement, lends additional credence to this theory (Olson and James, 
1982; Diamond et al., 1989; Juvik and Juvik, 1998; Athens et al., 2002; 
Kirch et al., 2004; Fyler et al., 2005). Thus, Polynesian settlement of 
the MHI may have driven Hawaiian monk seals to the NWHI, where human 
settlements were limited by the availability of fresh water (Ragen, 
1999; Baker and Johanos, 2004). In summary, this view presents the 
current growth and dispersal of the Hawaiian monk seal population in 
the MHI as a re-colonization event.
    More recent MHI history provides the historical accounts of seal 
sightings indicating the occasional presence of seals, including 
sightings from as early as 1900 and later accounts spanning into the 
1950s throughout the MHI (Bailey, 1952; Kenyon and Rice, 1959). Niihau 
residents reported that seals appeared regularly after 1970 (Baker and 
Johanos, 2004), and NMFS PIFSC's records from 1980-1986 reveal 125 seal 
sightings recorded throughout the MHI (NMFS, 2010e). These sightings do 
not represent a discrete number of seals, because the sightings are 
incidental and seal identification is unknown; however, it does reveal 
the presence of seals throughout the islands in the early 1980s prior 
to the first critical habitat designation. By as early as 1994, a small 
naturally-occurring population of male and female monk seals was 
present in the MHI. Since the mid-1990s, an increasing number of 
documented sightings and annual births of monk seal pups have occurred 
in the MHI. Estimates using systematic surveys or sightings of uniquely 
identified individuals within the MHI indicate an increase in numbers 
as demonstrated by the following estimates: 45 individuals reported in 
2000, 77 individuals in 2005, and 113 individuals in 2008 (NMFS, 2007b; 
NMFS, 2009). The growth in numbers in the MHI is not likely to be a 
consequence of increased migration from the NWHI, since only 5 seals 
have been documented to have migrated from the NWHI to the MHI since 
the 1980s when regular tagging efforts began (Baker et al., 2010). It 
is likely that seals in the MHI are growing in numbers due to the 
increase in births and have been dispersing from under-documented areas 
(such as Niihau) to the rest of the chain (Baker and Johanos, 2004).

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands vs. Main Hawaiian Islands

    There is no genetic evidence suggesting monk seals occurring in any 
part of the archipelago are genetically distinct from monk seals 
elsewhere in the range (Schultz et al., 2009); thus, the Hawaiian monk 
seal consists of one population distributed throughout the Hawaiian 
Archipelago. While the population is not genetically distinct in the 
NWHI and MHI, differences between Hawaiian monk seal population status, 
habitat, research efforts, and threats to the seals utilizing these two 
regions support a separate approach to management and conservation 
efforts (Baker et al., 2010). The following discussion summarizes some 
of the differences identified between the two management areas and 
refers to the seals in these geographic areas as separate populations 
due to these differences.
    Recruitment trends differ between the NWHI and MHI. In the NWHI, 
many of the reproductive subpopulations are experiencing a decline in 
breeding subpopulations that is attributed primarily to food limitation 
(NMFS, 2007a). The impacts resulting from food limitation are most 
strongly expressed in poor juvenile condition and survival, and low 
age-specific reproductive rates (delayed maturity) (Antonelis et al., 
2006; NMFS, 2007a). High juvenile mortality rates result in fewer 
females achieving reproductive maturity, thereby causing an imbalanced 
age structure, which in turn contributes to the continued decline. In 
contrast, the MHI portion of the population is increasing. This is 
evident by the growing number of identified individuals and number of 
pups born annually (Baker and Johanos, 2004). In addition to the 
difference in population growth, monk seals in the MHI appear to be in 
better physical condition than those in the NWHI. In general, MHI 
females begin reproducing at a younger age, and attain higher birth 
rates than females in the NWHI (Baker et al., 2010). In 2008, a 4 year 
old MHI female became the youngest documented Hawaiian monk seal of 
known age to pup (NMFS, 2010f). The successfully reproducing females of 
the MHI are also producing robust pups. Measurements from axillary 
girths and standard lengths of weaned pups from the MHI were 
significantly greater in comparison to the same measurements from 
weaned pups from the NWHI, which are thought to have better foraging 
conditions for the mothers in the MHI (Baker and Johanos, 2004; Baker 
et al., 2006). Additionally, the estimated survival from weaning to age 
1 is 77 percent in the MHI, which is much higher than the 42-57 percent 
survival estimated for breeding subpopulations in the NWHI. This 
disparity in population status between the two regions is well 
reflected in recent efforts to estimate population growth and decline 
of monk seals in the separate areas. If demographic trends continued at 
the current rates, the MHI and NWHI portions of the population would 
equalize in 15 years (Baker et al., 2010).
    Factors influencing foraging success may explain the disparity 
between the two regions. These factors can be attributed to an inequity 
in ecological competition on several levels. First, low numbers of monk 
seals in the MHI may point to a greater per capita availability of prey 
than in the NWHI (Baker and Johanos, 2004). Specifically, the lower 
number of seals in the MHI across a large expanse of available foraging 
habitat allows for less intra-specific competition for food resources. 
Secondly, the NWHI is located within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine 
National Monument, one of the largest and best-protected marine areas 
in the world, where commercial fishing efforts have been minimized in 
past years and recently completely ceased. The protected ecosystem of 
the NWHI, in comparison to the MHI, has a greater number of large 
predators. The sharks, jacks, and other demersal fish that have been 
observed to compete directly with monk seals in the NWHI are much less 
abundant in the MHI. In other words, inter-specific competition is 
likely lower in the MHI (Baker and Johanos, 2004; Parrish, 2008). 
Additionally, competition between humans and monk seals may be limited 
in the MHI because seals prefer small (usually less than 20 cm, or 8 
in) eels, wrasses, and other benthic species not commonly sought

[[Page 32030]]

by fishermen (Parrish et al., 2000). All of these factors appear to 
positively influence the population status of monk seals in the MHI at 
this time, but these favorable dynamics may shift as the population 
grows in the MHI.
    Additional differences between the two regions are further 
reflected in the threats to the species, and, consequently, in the 
management priorities and activities for each population, which are 
discussed in detail in the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan (NMFS, 
2007a). One of the threats discussed includes that of habitat loss 
(NMFS, 2007a). The low-lying islets and islands of the NWHI are 
particularly susceptible to sea level rise, an impact that results from 
several factors associated with climate change, including thermal 
expansion of the warming oceans and melting of glaciers and ice caps 
(Baker et al., 2006). In the 20th century sea levels rose 15 cm, and 
increases are expected to continue (Baker et al., 2006). As a result of 
sea level rise, important pupping and haul-out habitat may be lost 
(Baker et al., 2006). While the threat of sea level rise may be 
accelerated by anthropogenic forces, human activities which influence 
this threat are considered to be of a complex global scale. Management 
efforts in the NWHI area would more likely focus on the preservation of 
specific areas for pupping and hauling out and may include regular 
monitoring for changes in elevation at the various islets and islands. 
Long-term mitigation planning at specific sites may also play a role in 
conserving habitat in the NWHI (Baker, 2006). In the MHI, habitat loss 
is equally a threat, but in the MHI, coastal anthropogenic development 
plays a pronounced role by exacerbating the threat to coastal habitat. 
Like most other coastal states, Hawaii's dependence on coastal 
resources has led to increased development of shorelines. In response 
to natural erosion processes, urban shorelines were often hardened to 
protect assets. Efforts to harden shorelines alter the natural 
hydrodynamic system of waves and currents, affecting sand transport 
rates that control the erosion-accretion process of beaches (Defeo et 
al., 2009). Consequences of armoring vary depending on the placement of 
the structure and the surrounding hydrodynamics, but have included 
passive erosion on the armored beach, flanking erosion of shorelines 
adjacent to engineered structures, and possibly the enhanced erosion on 
protected coasts (Venter et al., 2006). On Oahu past reliance on 
shoreline armoring to mitigate coastal erosion has resulted in 
widespread beach narrowing and sand loss (Fletcher et al., 1997). 
Current management measures in the MHI are aimed at coastal setbacks 
(i.e., planning development inland from the water's edge and the threat 
of erosion), but the increased demand for the use of coastal areas for 
industry, recreation, and private use may put continued pressure on 
developers to increase access to ``new'' beach areas. In the future, 
remote beaches may be squeezed between seaward directed development and 
rising sea levels, leaving no room for natural sediment dynamics (Defeo 
et al., 2009). As the number of Hawaiian monk seals increases in the 
MHI and development continues, available habitat for hauling out and 
pupping will become increasingly important.
    Direct anthropogenic threats from activities within the 
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument have been minimized through 
management measures aimed at protecting the unique resources within the 
NWHI. Despite being located in this highly protected area, the Hawaiian 
monk seals continue to face threats in the NWHI that require 
management. Twenty years of robust population monitoring data in the 
NWHI aids in making these management decisions. Data reflecting poor 
juvenile survival has focused management efforts towards positively 
influencing population trajectories by increasing efforts which support 
monk seal health during the fragile first years. Conversely, the MHI 
population is only in the early stages of scientific monitoring 
efforts, as previous research efforts were concentrated towards NWHI. 
Currently, a great deal of information regarding MHI seals is received 
from a growing volunteer network, and management efforts in the MHI 
have been focused on threats centered on anthropogenic influences. 
Growth in seal numbers in the MHI has increased human and seal 
interaction, and many coastal residents and visitors are unfamiliar 
with the specific needs of the species. This increased overlap in use 
of coastal and marine habitat has led to fishery interactions (hookings 
and entanglements), disturbance and harassment of seals, and sometimes 
injuries to humans (Baker et al., 2010). Impacts from pollution and 
runoff into the aquatic environment also pose health hazards to the 
species in the MHI; these threats are not factors considered in the 
NWHI (Littnan et al., 2006). In addition to these unintentional 
anthropogenic threats, three seals were recently documented shot and 
killed in the MHI.
    As discussed above, differences between the NWHI and MHI portions 
of the population present unique research and management challenges for 
the Hawaiian monk seal. With the continued decline in numbers and the 
fragile status of reproductive classes in the NWHI, the survival of the 
species as a whole may become increasingly dependent on the success of 
the portion of the population in the MHI along with management efforts 
taken to ensure that success.

Habitat

    The Hawaiian monk seal depends on aquatic environments as well as 
terrestrial environments for survival. While Hawaiian monk seals spend 
a majority of their time in the water, the terrestrial component of 
their habitat plays a vital role throughout all life stages. Monk seals 
utilize terrestrial habitat to haul out for resting, molting, pupping, 
nursing and avoiding predators. Since monk seals may remain at sea for 
several days or more at a time, resting on land is essential to 
conserve energy. Resting commonly occurs on sandy beaches, but may also 
occur on rocky shores, rock ledges, emergent reefs, and even shipwrecks 
(Antonelis et al., 2006). While on shore, monk seals may take shelter 
from wind and rain under shoreline vegetation. When ocean conditions 
are rough, monk seals may spend a greater proportion of time resting on 
land. Resting on land may be for a few hours to several days at a time 
(Antonelis et al., 2006).
    Terrestrial habitat is essential for pupping and nursing of pups. 
Pupping and nursing areas are usually sandy beaches adjacent to shallow 
protected water (Westlake and Gilmartin, 1990). Individual females 
appear to favor certain pupping locations, returning to them year after 
year. Pregnant females come ashore a few days before giving birth to a 
pup weighing approximately 16 kg (35 lb). Pups nurse for 5 to 6 weeks 
(Johanos et al., 1994) and weigh 50-100 kg (110-220 lb) at weaning. 
During nursing, mother and pup remain in close proximity to each other, 
and the mother is protective of her pup. Although the pup is able to 
swim at birth, nursing is done on land and the mother-pup pair usually 
remains on land for the first few days after the pup is born. The 
mother gradually begins swimming with her pup in the shallows, 
returning to the general area around the pupping site. As weaning 
approaches, the mother-pup pair spends more time in the water, 
venturing further away from the pupping site. After weaning, pups 
typically remain in the shallows near their nursing areas for several

[[Page 32031]]

weeks before venturing into deeper foraging areas (Kenyon and Rice, 
1959; Henderson, 1988). Hauling out on land is also required for 
molting, when old pelage is shed. Monk seals usually remain on land 
during the annual molting; the process lasts approximately 1 to 2 weeks 
(Kenyon and Rice, 1959).
    Hawaiian monk seals utilize the aquatic components of their 
environment for thermoregulating, resting, interacting, mating, and 
foraging. Observation of 24 adult male monk seals wearing animal-borne 
video cameras showed that greater than 50 percent of the time spent 
underwater was spent resting or interacting with other seals and that 
much of these activities were spent in shallower depths (Parrish, 2000; 
Parrish, 2004). Resting may also occur at sea or in shallow, submerged 
caves. Little has been observed regarding monk seals' mating behavior 
in the marine environment; however, gains in foraging research provide 
new insight into monk seal foraging since the time of the previous 
critical habitat designation.
    Previous understandings of monk seal foraging assumed monk seals 
were feeding on localized prey species on near shore coral reef 
structures and on offshore banks surrounding the haul-out areas in the 
NWHI (NMFS, 1983). Although transit and deeper diving behavior was 
acknowledged in the 1983 recovery plan, little was known regarding monk 
seal foraging behavior at deeper depths, and the extent and frequency 
of foraging transits were not well understood. Information from 
satellite transmitter studies began to transform these concepts by 
regularly demonstrating seals transiting to neighboring banks (Parrish 
and Littnan, 2007). Additionally, digestion studies began to illustrate 
that scat found on the beach might only represent prey from close reefs 
and not the seals' entire diet (Goodman-Lowe, 1998; Goodman-Lowe et 
al., 1999; Parrish and Littnan, 2007). Later, Crittercam footage (or 
head-mounted cameras) revealed seals ignoring reef fish in the coral 
shallows in favor of foraging on deeper atoll slopes and neighboring 
banks. Additionally, depth recordings from these animals demonstrated 
foraging at depths greater than previously recognized (Parrish et al., 
2000; Stewart, 2006). These data combined have reshaped the knowledge 
of how seals utilize their foraging habitat and where seals are 
feeding.
    Today monk seals are considered to be foraging generalists 
consuming a wide variety of prey species. Goodman and Lowe (1998) 
identified inshore, benthic, and offshore teleosts as the most 
represented prey items in monk seal scat, followed by cephalopods and 
crustaceans. From the 940 scats sampled, the study was able to identify 
31 families of teleosts and 13 families of cephalopods (Goodman and 
Lowe, 1998). Additionally, fatty acid analysis of the monk seal diet 
has begun to identify an even broader number of prey species consumed 
by the Hawaiian monk seal (Iverson, 2006). Fatty acid analysis studies 
have also demonstrated substantial variation in diet among individuals, 
demographic groups (between juveniles and adults/sub adults), and 
locations (Iverson, 2006), indicating that individual monk seal 
foraging preferences and capabilities play a role in selection of 
foraging habitat. Recently increased resolution of regurgitation 
samples has identified the remains of morid cod, which are a species 
typically found at subphotic depths or depths greater than 95 m 
(Longnecker et al., 2006). These dietary analyses, that indicate 
individual seal foraging preferences and seals foraging at greater 
depths, are consistent with seal foraging ecology studies discussed 
below.
    Recent studies using new advances in technology have demonstrated 
that Hawaiian monk seals forage in marine habitats anywhere from a 
meter to several hundred meters in depth. Time-depth recorders from 
several studies revealed a large portion of effort at depths between 50 
and 300 m (164-984 ft), which coincides with the bank and slope 
habitats used by prey species often detailed in monk seals' diets 
(Parrish 2004; Parrish and Abernathy 2006). Foraging studies by Parrish 
describe these preferred foraging habitat as low-relief substrates such 
as sand and talus in areas of habitat uniformity at greater depths than 
previously considered for critical habitat (Parrish and Littnan, 2007; 
Parrish, 2008), where adult seals are able to move large, loose talus 
fragments found in the premium foraging habitat to reach the prey 
hiding underneath (Parrish et al., 2000). Although these sites are 
often greater distances from haul-out sites, it appears that the less 
sheltered prey in the uniform habitat may make this area energetically 
preferable to the seals (Parrish et al., 2000). Studies in the NWHI 
(Parrish et al., 2002; Stewart, 2006) have also shown that adult monk 
seals may forage at 300-500 m (1,000-1,600 ft), sometimes visiting 
patches of deep corals (Parrish 2004; Parrish et al., 2002). A summary 
of telemetry data from 37 male and female adults tagged throughout the 
NWHI revealed that 17 seals appeared to be specializing in subphotic 
foraging (Parrish 2004). This calculates out to 46% of the adults 
tracked, which Parrish (2004) extrapolated out to be about a fourth of 
the entire population. The use of these deeper habitats may reflect 
monk seals taking advantage of readily available prey in a habitat with 
decreased inter-specific competition (Parrish, 2008). The maximum depth 
at which seals have been documented to forage is around 500 m (1640 ft) 
(Parrish 2004); however, monk seals are almost certainly capable of 
exceeding depths of 550 m and the extent of foraging depth may still be 
unknown (Parrish 2004; Stewart et al. 2006).
    Foraging studies with instrumented juvenile monk seals (1-3 years 
old) in the NWHI illustrated foraging behavior similar to that of adult 
monk seals. Feeding occurred both within shallow atoll lagoons 10-30 m 
(33-98 ft) and on deep reef slopes (50-100 m/160-325 ft), usually over 
sand rather than talus (Parrish et al., 2005). Video footage of 
juvenile seal foraging showed seals moving along the bottom, flushing 
prey with a variety of techniques, including probing the bottom with 
their nose, using their mouth to squirt streams of water at the 
substrate, and flipping small rocks with their heads and shoulders 
(Parrish et al., 2005). While juvenile seals are able to dive to depths 
similar to adults, the smaller seals likely do not yet have the size or 
experience to engage in the successful large talus-foraging behavior 
exhibited by adults (Parrish et al., 2005). In addition to the 
preferred habitat, limited data also indicate that juvenile seals may 
occasionally forage at the deeper ranges used by adults (Parrish 2004).
    Although much less information is available regarding monk seals 
foraging in the MHI, 11 juvenile and adult monk seals were tracked in 
2005 using satellite-linked radio transmitters showing location and 
summaries of dive depths. This study indicated that seals usually 
remained in near shore waters within the 200 m (650 ft) isobath 
(Littnan et al., 2006). Since that study, recent tracking of Hawaiian 
monk seals with cell phone tags in the MHI demonstrates some diving 
depths up to 489 m (1,555 ft) (NMFS, 2010g).
    In general, the selection of foraging habitat by monk seals may be 
influenced by many factors, including environmental conditions that 
influence abundance and composition of prey assemblages; conditions 
that influence prey availability and capture success such as intra-
specific and inter-specific competition; as well as individual 
circumstance including size and age class, preferred prey, and 
individually

[[Page 32032]]

favored foraging tactics. These variables all influence where and how 
Hawaiian monk seals utilize foraging habitat within the marine 
environment.
    In summarizing monk seal habitat, features that support resting, 
reproduction, molting, predator avoidance, and foraging are essential 
for the conservation of this species. Therefore, Hawaiian monk seal 
critical habitat must include terrestrial and marine areas. Terrestrial 
areas include a sanctuary for hauling out for resting, molting, 
pupping, nursing, and avoiding predators. Terrestrial habitat consists 
of near shore or emergent surfaces where monk seals can haul out. Those 
areas preferred for pupping consist of a subset of haul-out habitat and 
are usually on sandy beaches adjacent to shallow marine areas. These 
shallow marine areas provide protection for pups while they become 
accustomed to unaccompanied life in the marine environment and begin 
learning to forage on their own. The marine habitat includes areas used 
for thermoregulating, resting, interacting, mating, and foraging. 
Foraging habitat for Hawaiian monk seals has been demonstrated to be at 
depths as great as 500 m in the NWHI. Recent declines in the Hawaiian 
monk seal population point to food limitations in the NWHI, especially 
for juvenile monk seals, making marine foraging areas particularly 
critical components of monk seal habitat.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate critical 
habitat for threatened and endangered species ``on the basis of the 
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.'' This section also grants the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) discretion to exclude any area from critical habitat if he 
determines ``the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat.'' However, the 
Secretary may not exclude areas that ``will result in the extinction of 
the species.''
    The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) as: ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed * * *, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed * * 
* upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.''
    Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires 
Federal agencies to insure they do not fund, authorize, or carry out 
any actions that will destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This 
requirement is additional to the section 7 requirement that Federal 
agencies insure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of listed species.

Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In the following sections, we describe the relevant definitions and 
requirements in the ESA, our implementing regulations, and the key 
information and criteria used to prepare this proposed critical habitat 
revision. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 
implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 424), this proposed rule is based 
on the best scientific information available.
    To assist with the revision of Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 
we convened a critical habitat review team (CHRT) consisting of seven 
biologists from NMFS PIFSC and the Pacific Islands Regional Office 
(PIRO). The CHRT members had experience and expertise in Hawaiian monk 
seal biology, distribution and abundance, and management. The CHRT used 
the best available scientific data and their best professional judgment 
to: (1) Identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species that may require special management 
considerations or protection; (2) identify specific areas within the 
occupied area containing those essential physical and biological 
features; (3) evaluate the conservation value of each specific area; 
and (4) identify activities that may affect any designated critical 
habitat. The evaluations and conclusions are described in detail in the 
following sections. We concur with these conclusions.

Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation

    Joint NMFS-USFWS regulations (50 CFR 424.12(b)) state that in 
determining what areas are critical habitat, the agencies ``shall 
consider those physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of a given species and that may require special 
management considerations or protections.'' Features to consider may 
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, rearing of 
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and generally; (5) habitats 
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the 
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.'' The 
regulations require the agencies to ``focus on the principal biological 
or physical constituent elements within the defined area that are 
essential to the conservation of the species. Known primary constituent 
elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description. Primary 
constituent elements may include, but are not limited to, the 
following: roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, 
seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species or 
plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and 
specific soil types.'' For the purposes of this proposed rule, the 
essential features are the same as primary constituent elements.
    In the 12-month finding (74 FR 27988; June 12, 2009), we identified 
five preliminary essential features in order to identify to the public 
areas that may be under consideration for the critical habitat. For 
this proposed rule, we used the best available scientific information 
to modify and supplement the essential features announced in the 12-
month finding to best describe those elements or areas essential for 
the conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal. The following six essential 
features were identified.
(1) Areas With Characteristics Preferred by Monk Seals for Pupping and 
Nursing
    Hawaiian monk seals have been observed to give birth and nurse in a 
variety of terrestrial coastal habitats; however, certain beaches may 
be preferred for pupping at the various atolls and islands within the 
range. Preferred pupping areas generally include sandy, protected 
beaches located adjacent to shallow, sheltered aquatic areas (Westlake 
and Gilmartin, 1990). Terrestrial pupping habitat may include various 
substrates such as sand, shallow tide-pools, coral rubble, or rocky 
substrates, as long as these substrates provide accessibility for seals 
for hauling out. Characteristics of preferred sites may also 
incorporate areas with low lying vegetation utilized by the pair for 
shade or cover (Antonelis et al., 2006). Preferred coastal areas may 
attract multiple mothers to the same area year after year for birthing 
(Antonelis et al., 2006); however, due to

[[Page 32033]]

the solitary nature of the species, some mothers may prefer to return 
to a lesser used location year after year. As discussed in the natural 
history of the species, female Hawaiian monk seals nurse their pups for 
approximately 6 weeks, then abruptly abandon the pup (Johanos et al., 
1994). This dramatic weaning leaves the pup independent, subsisting on 
fat stores until it learns to successfully forage on its own (NMFS, 
2007a). The preferred habitat for pupping and nursing provides area 
necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival through the time 
period when pups are dependent on the mothers for sustenance and 
protection. These areas also provide a familiar sanctuary for the 
weaned pup during its transition to independence.
(2) Shallow, Sheltered Aquatic Areas Adjacent to Coastal Locations 
Preferred by Monk Seals for Pupping and Nursing
    Preferred pupping and nursing sites are often adjacent to shallow, 
sheltered aquatic areas (Westlake and Gilmartin, 1990). These sheltered 
marine areas provide protection for the mom and pup pair from predators 
and extreme weather events, as well as habitat for thermoregulatory 
cooling and swimming (Westlake and Gilmartin, 1990; NMFS, 2007a). Upon 
weaning, the newly independent pup will utilize the sheltered marine 
area to acclimate to life on its own, utilizing the habitat for 
swimming, exploring, socializing, thermoregulatory cooling, and the 
first attempts at foraging. Characteristics of the sheltered aquatic 
sites may include reefs, tide pools, gently sloping beaches, and 
shelves or coves that provide refuge from storm surges and predators. 
Marine habitat adjacent to preferred pupping and nursing areas provides 
area necessary for the normal behavior, growth, and survival during 
early juvenile development for the Hawaiian monk seal.
(3) Marine Areas From 0 to 500 m in Depth Preferred by Juvenile and 
Adult Monk Seals for Foraging
    Food limitation is identified in the recovery plan as a critical 
threat to the Hawaiian monk seal; therefore, foraging grounds within 
the marine environment are an essential component in the recovery and 
conservation of the species. As identified in the habitat section of 
this report, Hawaiian monk seals forage in marine habitat anywhere from 
0 to 500 m. This habitat includes barrier reefs of atolls, leeward 
slopes of reefs and islands, sites along the Hawaiian Islands 
Archipelago's submarine ridge, nearby seamounts, and submerged reefs 
and banks (Stewart, 2006). Preferred foraging habitat of adult monk 
seals is characterized by sand terraces and talus slopes that may range 
in depths of 50-100 m (160-325 ft) deep around their home atoll or 
island (Parrish and Littnan, 2007). These habitats provide substrate 
and materials for preferred benthic and cryptic prey species to hide. 
While the slopes are characterized as preferred feeding areas, recent 
diving, camera, and fatty acid analysis studies demonstrate that seals 
are feeding at depths greater than previously believed (300 m-500 m) 
(Parrish et al., 2002; Iverson, 2006; Stewart, 2006). The use of these 
deeper habitats may reflect monk seals taking advantage of readily 
available prey in a habitat with decreased inter-specific competition 
(Parrish, 2008). Habitat at these greater depths may be comprised of 
deep water coral beds or the barren habitats prey species move between 
(Parrish et al., 2002). Fatty acid analysis studies have demonstrated 
substantial variation in diet among individuals, demographic groups 
(between juveniles and adults/sub adults), and locations (Iverson, 
2006). Thus, individual monk seal foraging preferences and capabilities 
play a role in selection of foraging habitat. The steady decline of the 
species (attributed mainly to food limitation) coupled with individual 
foraging tactics and prey preferences, reveals a need for protection 
that incorporates the features found in these foraging areas for this 
species.
(4) Areas With Low Levels of Anthropogenic Disturbance
    Hawaiian monk seals utilize terrestrial habitat to haul out for 
resting, pupping and nursing, molting, and as a refuge from predators 
(NMFS, 2007a). The high energetic demands of life in the marine 
environment make resting behavior essential to the fitness of 
individual animals and the overall population. Human interactions with 
monk seals have the potential to cause disturbance and subsequent 
abandonment of a favored haul-out site or pupping area for less 
suitable locations. New locations may lack refuge characteristics, 
leaving the seals more vulnerable to predation or other environmental 
threats. Generally, Hawaiian monk seals seek areas that are undisturbed 
by large numbers of humans or human induced interactions (such as 
interactions with dogs or vehicles). Hawaiian monk seal intolerance of 
human disturbance is best documented in the NWHI following human 
settlement on specific islands throughout the various atolls (NMFS, 
2007a). Kenyon (1972) documented changes in seal haul-out patterns at 
the human settled islands at Midway Islands, French Frigate Shoals, and 
Kure Atoll. Changes observed included seals avoiding human inhabited 
islands during day time hours and seals hauling out on the islands or 
islets less frequented by humans (Kenyon, 1972). At Kure Atoll the 
population experienced depressed rates of reproduction and decreased 
juvenile survival during this period of human settlement. Kenyon (1972) 
related the poor juvenile survival to female adults either selecting 
inferior pupping habitat prior to birth or prematurely abandoning or 
weaning young, as a response to human disturbance. The preference for 
less disturbed areas is also evident in monk seal selection of many of 
the favored haul-out sites in the MHI, which consequently are located 
in the less populated areas (Baker and Johanos, 2004).
(5) Marine Areas With Adequate Prey Quantity and Quality
    Food limitation is identified in the recovery plan as a critical 
threat to the Hawaiian monk seal; therefore, prey quantity and quality 
within the marine foraging habitat is an essential component in the 
recovery and conservation of the species. Monk seals are considered 
foraging generalists, feeding on a wide variety of prey species. 
Goodman and Lowe (1998) identified inshore, benthic, and offshore 
teleosts as the most represented prey items in monk seal scat, followed 
by cephalopods and crustaceans. From the 940 scats sampled, the study 
was able to identify 31 families of teleosts and 13 families of 
cephalopods (Goodman and Lowe, 1998). Additionally, fatty acid analysis 
of the monk seal diet has identified a broad number of prey species 
consumed by the Hawaiian monk seal (Iverson, 2006). While the broad 
number of prey species makes identifying an individual prey species for 
specific protections difficult, the foraging habits of seals help to 
identify areas and habitat types that are regularly utilized, including 
the sand terraces, talus slopes, submerged reefs and banks, nearby 
seamounts, barrier reefs, slopes of reefs and islands, and deep coral 
beds. Within these habitats, conditions, such as water quality, 
substrate composition, and available habitat, should support growth and 
recruitment of prey species to the extent that monk seal populations 
are supported. Current evidence from shrinking seal subpopulations in 
the NWHI indicates that prey quantity and quality are essential to 
recovery, but further research is necessary to identify direct 
correlations to specific threats to the

[[Page 32034]]

prey species as well as to identify appropriate management actions.
(6) Significant Areas Used by Monk Seals for Hauling Out, Resting, or 
Molting
    Hawaiian monk seals utilize terrestrial habitat to haul out for 
resting, pupping and nursing, molting, and as a refuge from predators 
(NMFS, 2007a). Energetic requirements of life in the marine environment 
make resting behavior important, and, consequently, terrestrial haul-
out areas are an essential component for conservation. These haul-out 
sites are generally characterized by sandy beaches, sand spits, or low 
shelving reef rocks accessible to seals, but many substrates may be 
used including emergent reef (Antonelis et al., 2006). Favored sites 
may also reflect areas remote in nature or with low levels of human 
disturbance. Although Hawaiian monk seals are considered to be a 
solitary species (in comparison to other gregarious pinnipeds, such as 
sea lions), they may still haul out in small numbers (Antonelis et al., 
2006) and are likely to frequent general areas utilized by other seals 
due to the preferences for accessible and remote habitat.

Geographical Area Occupied and Specific Areas

    One of the first steps in the critical habitat revision process was 
to define the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing and to identify specific areas within this geographically 
occupied area that contain at least one of the essential features that 
may require special management considerations or protection. As 
discussed in the Range section above, the range of the Hawaiian monk 
seal was defined in the 12-month finding on June 12, 2009 (74 FR 27988; 
June 12, 2009), as throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago and on Johnston 
Atoll. Using the identified range, we identified ``specific areas'' 
within the geographical area occupied by the species that may be 
eligible for critical habitat designation under the ESA. For an 
occupied area to meet the criteria of critical habitat, it must contain 
specific areas with one or more of the essential features that may 
require special management or protection. We identified areas that met 
the criteria of critical habitat within the range of the species, 
including areas in the NWHI and the MHI. Johnston Atoll was considered 
for potential critical habitat, but we determined that the lack of 
recent seal use, the remote nature of the atoll from the Hawaiian 
Archipelago, and the hazardous conditions associated with past human 
use (including contamination, erosion, and debris (communication with 
USFWS staff)) rendered the features in this area inadequate for seal 
conservation. Each specific area was selected to reflect current seal 
use as well as anticipated habitat needs for recovery for the species. 
These specific areas are identified across the range, but areas have 
been grouped according to the NWHI and MHI management units to express 
similarities in population status, essential features present, and the 
activities that may affect the essential features such that special 
management considerations or protections are needed. The draft 
Biological Report (NMFS, 2010a; available via our Web site at 
http:[sol][sol]www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_critical_habitat.html, via 
the Federal eRulemaking Web site at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, 
or upon request (see ADDRESSES)) describes in detail the methods used 
to assess the specific areas and provides the biological information 
supporting the assessment. The following paragraphs provide a brief 
description of the essential features in each area and additional 
detail regarding the methods for delineating the specific areas.

Specific Areas in the NWHI