Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 77998-78022 [2014-30345]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77998-78022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30345]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 224

[Docket No. 130808698-4999-02]
RIN 0648-XC809


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month 
Finding on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone as Threatened or 
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and availability of a status review 
report.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding on two petitions to list 
the pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a 
comprehensive status review of the pinto abalone in response to these 
petitions. Based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we have determined that the species does not warrant listing 
at this time. We conclude that the pinto abalone is not currently in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The 
species will remain on the NMFS Species of Concern list, with one 
revision to apply the Species of Concern status throughout the species' 
range (Alaska to Mexico). We also announce the availability of the 
pinto abalone status review report.

DATES: This finding was made on December 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The pinto abalone status review report is available 
electronically at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/. You may 
also receive a copy by submitting a request to the Protected Resources 
Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, 
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attention: Pinto Abalone 12-month Finding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Neuman, NMFS, West Coast 
Region (562) 980-4115; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources (301) 427-8466.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) was added to the 
National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS') ``Species of Concern'' list 
on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). On July 1, 2013, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition from the Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that the pinto

[[Page 77999]]

abalone be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) and that critical habitat be designated for the 
species. On August 5, 2013, we received a second petition, filed by the 
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the pinto abalone under 
the ESA and designate critical habitat. On November 18, 2013, NMFS 
determined that the petitions presented substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for pinto 
abalone (a ``positive 90-day finding'') and published the finding in 
the Federal Register (78 FR 69033), pursuant to 50 CFR 424.14.
    In the fall of 2013, we assembled a Status Review Team (SRT) to 
compile and review the best available information, assess the 
extinction risk and threats facing the species, and produce an ESA 
status review report for pinto abalone. The status review report (NMFS 
2014) provides a thorough account of pinto abalone biology and natural 
history, and an assessment of demographic risks, threats and limiting 
factors, and overall extinction risk for the species. The status review 
report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the 
Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for 
Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The key background 
information and findings of the status review report are summarized 
below.

Species Description

    The pinto abalone is a marine gastropod of the genus Haliotis. It 
is one of seven species of abalone native to the west coast of North 
America and occurs in both rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from 
Baja California to Alaska (Geiger 1999). Like all abalone, pinto 
abalone are benthic, occurring on hard substrate, relatively sedentary, 
and generally herbivorous, feeding on attached or drifting algal 
material. The shell is scallop-edged, multi-colored (mottled red and/or 
green), and characterized by irregular lumps, with three to seven open 
respiratory pores that are slightly raised above the shell's surface 
and paralleling a deep groove (Stevick 2010). The pinto abalone's 
muscular foot is tan and is used to adhere to hard substrate and for 
locomotion. The epipodium (the circular fringe of skin around the foot) 
and tentacles are mottled yellow to dark tan with vertical banding 
patterns. The maximum recorded shell length for pinto abalone is 190 mm 
(see status review report). The maximum age is not known, but estimated 
longevity of at least 15-20 years is reasonable for pinto abalone 
(Shepherd et al. 2000, cited in Committee on the Status of Endangered 
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2009)

Distribution

    Of the seven species of abalone found along the west coast of North 
America (Geiger 1999), pinto abalone have the broadest latitudinal 
range, extending from Salisbury Sound, Sitka Island, Alaska to Bahia 
Tortugas, Baja California, Mexico (Campbell 2000), and are the 
predominant abalone found in Washington and Alaska, and in British 
Columbia, Canada. Other than a few observations on the Oregon coast, we 
are not aware of any records of pinto abalone along the outer coast of 
Washington from Neah Bay to Cape Mendocino in California, indicating a 
gap in the species distribution (Geiger 2000 and 2004 (ABMAP: https://www.vetigastropoda.com/ABMAP/NEPacific.html)).
    Two subspecies of pinto abalone have been recognized by 
taxonomists, based on differences in shell shape and pattern (McLean 
1966). The northern form (Haliotis kamtschatkana kamtschatkana) is 
generally distributed from Alaska south to Point Conception, 
California. The southern form, or ``threaded abalone'' (Haliotis 
kamtschatkana assimilis) is generally distributed from central 
California to Turtle Bay in Baja California, Mexico (Geiger 1999). As 
discussed below under ``the Species Question'' section of this notice, 
recent evidence suggests that the two subspecies overlap throughout 
their range, with examples of the northern form observed in Baja 
California and examples of the southern form in British Columbia and 
Washington.

 Population Structure and Genetics

    We are aware of only one published assessment of population 
structure in H. kamtschatkana to date, conducted by Withler et al. 
(2001). The assessment estimated variation at 12 microsatellite loci 
for abalone sampled at 18 sites located throughout coastal British 
Columbia and at one site in Sitka Sound, Alaska. The results indicated 
a lack of differentiation among sites and suggest historically high 
gene flow among populations within the region from British Columbia to 
Alaska. This study is limited in that it only examines populations in 
one part of the species range and uses one set of microsatellite loci; 
however, it represents the best available information to date regarding 
population structure.
    Other studies have examined whether there is a genetic basis for 
the delineation of two subspecies, which has been based entirely on 
differences in shell morphology. Studies thus far have examined the 
portions of the mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase subunit one 
(COI) and cytochrome b (Cyt b), as well as the reproductive proteins 
lysin and VERL (vitelline envelope receptor for lysin), and have found 
no genetic differentiation between the two purported subspecies 
(Gruenthal and Burton 2005, Straus 2010, Supernault et al. 2010, 
Schwenke and Park, unpublished data cited in the status review report). 
We discuss this further in the section of this notice titled ``the 
Species Question.''

Habitat

    Pinto abalone are generally found in rocky intertidal and subtidal 
habitats with ample algal cover. The specific depth ranges and habitats 
occupied vary across the species range, as described below. The species 
occurs in areas with little freshwater influence (salinity >= 30 parts 
per thousand), and can tolerate wide ranges in temperature, from 2 to 
24 degrees Celsius, based on laboratory experiments (Paul and Paul 
1998).
    In the northern part of its range (e.g., Alaska to Washington), the 
species occurs in shallower habitats ranging from the lower intertidal 
to 20m deep relative to mean lower low water (MLLW); they are most 
commonly found from the intertidal to 10m deep relative to MLLW 
(Rothaus et al. 2008). In Alaska, pinto abalone are primarily found in 
the lower intertidal and subtidal surge zones on the outer coast of 
Southeast Alaska, as well as in the Inside Passage of southern 
Southeast Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) comments 
to NMFS, 17 January 2014). In British Columbia, pinto abalone occur on 
rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats within areas ranging from 
sheltered bays to exposed coastlines (COSEWIC 2009). In Washington, the 
recorded depth range of pinto abalone is 3 to 20 m deep relative to 
MLLW. Occupied habitats vary with respect to exposure and contain hard 
substrate (bedrock and boulders/cobble) with ample quantities of 
benthic diatoms and micro- and macro-algae.
    In the southern part of the range, pinto abalone occur in deeper 
subtidal waters from approximately 12 to 40 m deep relative to MLLW 
(Geiger and Owen 2012) and are commonly found on open rock surfaces. 
Distribution in areas along the Southern California mainland is patchy 
and may be correlated with substrate type, relief, algal composition, 
and the presence of intermittent sand channels that may

[[Page 78000]]

accumulate drift kelp (an important food source). Pinto abalone appear 
to prefer flat rock over uneven rock, low relief with scattered rock 
and boulders over high relief habitats, and areas with Pelagophycus 
porra, Laminaria farlowii, Agarum fimbriatum, Pterygophora californica, 
and coralline algae (articulated and crustose) (unpublished data from 
Bill Hagey et al. and Melissa Neuman et al., cited in the status review 
report). A recent study reported that in Mexico, H. k. assimilis and H. 
sorenseni occurred at depths ranging from 11 to 25 m (relative to 
MLLW), with the majority found between 13 to 15 m and 19 to 21 m deep, 
although this may reflect a bias toward the depths that were visited 
most frequently (Boch et al. 2014).

Movement

    Little is known about movement patterns of larval or juvenile pinto 
abalone anywhere in their range. The planktonic larval stage is short 
(approximately 5-6 days; Olsen 1984, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988), 
and thus dispersal is likely to be limited and almost certainly 
determined primarily by patterns of water movement in nearshore 
habitats near spawning sites. Larval settlement and metamorphosis in 
pinto abalone is likely to be associated with chemical cues present in 
crustose red algae, as has been found for red abalone (H. rufescens) 
(Morse and Morse 1984). Small juvenile (<10 mm) pinto abalone are 
difficult to find in the field, but are occasionally observed under 
boulders and on smooth bedrock or boulders that are bare or encrusted 
with coralline algae, mostly at deeper depths (e.g., -5 to -15 m) than 
adults are typically found (Breen 1980a). Other grazers (e.g., sea 
urchins, chitons, limpets, and adult abalone) may be important in 
maintaining encrusting coralline algae (Sloan and Breen 1988).
    To our knowledge there is no published information on direct 
observations of movement behavior of small (<20 mm) juvenile pinto 
abalone in the field. However, distribution patterns of juveniles and 
adults indicate an ontogenetic shift in habitat use, with small 
juveniles (<10 mm shell length) occupying highly cryptic habitats in 
deeper waters and migrating to shallower depths and more exposed 
habitats as they increase in size (Sloan and Breen 1988). This shift 
may be associated with changes in diet (Sloan and Breen 1988) and 
predation risk (Griffiths and Gosselin 2004) with size.
    Movement generally decreases as individuals grow in size and age. 
Tagging studies and observational surveys conducted in British Columbia 
indicate that although adult pinto abalone have the ability to move 
several meters a day and tens of meters in a year, they typically 
exhibit minimal movement, likely staying within close proximity to 
their settlement habitat (Sloan and Breen 1988). Laboratory and field 
observations indicate that individuals tend to be more active at night 
(Sloan and Breen 1988) and during the spawning season (spring through 
summer months). Observations of spawning behavior in the wild (Breen 
and Adkins 1980a) and in the laboratory (Quayle 1971) indicate that 
pinto abalone form aggregations, stack on top of each other, and 
migrate to the highest point available during spawning events. The 
reason for this behavior is unknown, but may serve to increase 
fertilization rates by aggregating spawners and increasing the chances 
for the eggs to encounter sperm (which tend to be in the water column) 
before they land on the bottom (Sloan and Breen 1988).

Diet

    After a short 5-6 day lecithotrophic (non-feeding) larval phase 
(Olsen 1984, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988), juveniles settle and 
immediately begin feeding (Morse 1984; Morse and Morse 1984, cited in 
Sloan and Breen 1988). Laboratory observations and gut content analyses 
of hatchery-reared juveniles show that post-metamorphic juveniles graze 
on minute benthic diatoms, microalgae, and bacteria associated with 
encrusting coralline algae and rock surfaces (Olsen 1984, Norman-
Boudreau et al. 1986, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Juveniles may 
also feed on the crustose coralline algae itself (Garland et al. 1985, 
cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). These observations are consistent with 
the microhabitats within which small juveniles are found in the wild 
(smooth or crustose coralline encrusted bedrock and boulders) (Breen 
1980a).
    Juveniles shift to feeding on macroalgae as they grow in size and 
age. Adults have been observed to feed directly on attached macroalgae 
(Sloan and Breen 1988), but drift macroalgae is believed to be the 
primary food resource (Breen 1980a). Laboratory studies indicate that 
adults prefer Macrocystis and Nereocystis, but will feed on diatoms and 
brown, red, and green algae, including Laminaria, Pterygophora, and 
Costaria (Paul et al. 1977; unpublished data by Breen and unpublished 
student reports by P. Gee and J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, cited in 
Sloan and Breen 1988). Adults avoided Fucus distichus and Agarum 
cribrosum (Paul et al. 1977; unpublished student reports by P. Gee and 
J. Lee, Simon Fraser University, cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Diet 
composition likely varies by location within the species range, 
depending on what is available.

Reproduction and Spawning Density

    Although size at maturity can vary by location (depending on 
factors such as water temperature and food availability and quality), 
pinto abalone become emergent and are generally reproductively mature 
at a size of about 50 mm shell length (SL) (about 2-5 years in age), 
with all abalone mature at a size of about 70 mm SL (Leighton 1959, 
Ault 1985, Campbell et al. 1992). Pinto abalone have separate sexes and 
are ``broadcast'' spawners. Gametes from both parents are released into 
the water, and fertilization is entirely external. Resulting embryos 
and larvae are minute and defenseless, receive no parental care or 
protection, and are subject to a broad array of physical and biological 
sources of mortality. Like other species with a broadcast-spawning 
reproductive strategy, abalone produce large numbers of gametes (e.g., 
millions of eggs or sperm per individual per year) to overcome high 
mortality in early life stages and survive across generations. As 
broadcast spawners, pinto abalone are also subject to selection for 
other reproductive traits, such as spatial and temporal synchrony in 
spawning and mechanisms to increase the probability of fertilization.
    An important factor in successful reproduction is the density of 
spawning adults. A reduction in adult density could result in increased 
growth, survival, and gamete production due to decreased intraspecific 
competition; however, for broadcast spawners, these advantages may be 
countered by decreases in the rate of successful fertilization if 
individuals are sparsely distributed (Levitan 1995, Levitan and Sewell 
1998, Gascoigne and Lipcius 2004). A critical distance of 1 m has been 
identified for abalone species; that is, it is estimated that 
individuals of the opposite sex need to be within 1 m of one another to 
increase the chances of successful fertilization (Babcock and Keesing 
1999). Evidence for critical adult density thresholds below which 
recruitment failure occurs has been found for broadcast-spawning 
species across a broad taxonomic range, and a few estimates have been 
developed for abalone species. Babcock and Keesing (1999) estimated 
critical density thresholds at 0.15-0.20 per square meter (sq m) for 
Haliotis laevigata Donovan, 1808. Shepherd et al. (2001) and Shepherd 
and Rodda (2001) noted that these density thresholds can vary according 
to coastal topography. For

[[Page 78001]]

example, coastal topography can create larval retention areas where 
threshold density may be lower than in areas where larvae are more 
easily dispersed. Neuman et al. (2010) reviewed recruitment patterns in 
three long-term data sets for black abalone (H. cracherodii) in 
California. In each case, recruitment failed when declining population 
densities fell below 0.34 per sq m.
    Critical density thresholds have not been estimated for pinto 
abalone, but evidence suggests that the aggregative nature of the 
species may facilitate successful reproduction despite low overall mean 
densities. In 2009, Seamone and Boulding (2011) studied aggregation 
characteristics during the spawning season at three sites in Barkley 
Sound, BC. Mean densities at the study sites were 0.12, 0.48, and 0.64 
abalone per sq m. Based on critical density thresholds estimated for 
other abalone species, recruitment failure would be expected at the 
site with a density of 0.12 per sq m. However, Seamone and Boulding 
(2011) found that the mean distance between individual pinto abalone at 
all three study sites was significantly less than 1.0 m, indicating 
aggregation. These aggregations were independent of sex, and therefore, 
the probability of encountering an individual of the opposite sex 
increased with increasing overall mean density. Nonetheless, pinto 
abalone at all three sites were sufficiently aggregated during the 
spawning season to potentially increase fertilization rates and 
compensate for low densities.
    Populations at the San Juan Islands Archipelago in Washington do 
appear to be experiencing recruitment failure (Rothaus et al. 2008). 
There, the mean density of emergent abalone has declined from 0.18 per 
sq m in 1992 to 0.01 per sq m in 2013 (Rothaus et al. 2008, Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014), and the percentage of 
emergent juveniles (<90mm SL) has also declined from 31.9 percent in 
1979 to 7.1 percent in 2013 (WDFW 2014). However, there is evidence of 
recent recruitment events in all other areas throughout the species' 
range, despite low densities that are, in most areas, below the 
critical density thresholds that have been estimated for other abalone 
species (i.e., 0.15 to 0.34 adults per sq m).
    In Alaska, density data are not available but ADF&G has observed 
mixed age classes in some areas in Southeast Alaska, including 
juveniles, indicating recent recruitment (pers. comm. with S. Walker, 
ADF&G, cited in status review report). In British Columbia, recurring 
and recent recruitment has been observed in several areas. Mean adult 
densities at index sites have declined since the fishery closed in 
1990, from 0.41 to 0.23 per sq m between 1989 and 2006 along the 
Central Coast and from 0.27 to 0.15 per sq m between 1990 and 2007 at 
Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). However, observations of small, immature 
pinto abalone (<70 mm SL) indicate that recruitment has been occurring 
despite low densities. In fact, densities of immature pinto abalone 
have increased, from 0.14 to 0.18 per sq m between 1989 and 2006 along 
the Central Coast and from 0.20 to 0.27 per sq m between 1990 and 2007 
at Haida Gwaii (COSEWIC 2009). The 2011 surveys along the Central Coast 
and 2012 surveys at Haida Gwaii show increases in both immature and 
mature pinto abalone densities, with overall densities at most of the 
sites meeting or exceeding the short-term recovery goal of 0.32 per sq 
m established by Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2007) 
(pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). The most recent 
data for other areas in British Columbia indicate that mean densities 
of emergent abalone (all sizes) vary greatly from 0.0098 per sq m on 
the south coast of Vancouver Island in 2005 (DFO 2007) to 0.15 per sq m 
at the Broken Group Islands in Barkley Sound in the early 2000s 
(Tomascik and Holmes 2003). Tomascik and Holmes (2003) noted evidence 
of recruitment, with juveniles making up 42 percent of the sampled 
population.
    In northern California, mean densities exceeded the critical 
density thresholds estimated for other abalone species (Babcock and 
Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010) in Sonoma County (data from 2007-
2012) and in Mendocino County (data from 2007-2013) at survey sites 
deeper than 10 m (unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 24 April 2014). In addition, 
smaller size classes of pinto abalone (15 to 49mm SL) were well 
represented at the Mendocino County sites, indicating recent 
recruitment (unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014). 
In southern California, data from directed pinto abalone surveys as 
well as opportunistic observations while surveying other abalone 
species show low densities, ranging from 0.0002 per sq m at San Miguel 
Island to 0.0286 per sq m at Point Loma in 2006-2012 (unpublished data, 
I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 24 April 2014) and from 0 to 0.15 per sq m off San 
Diego in pinto abalone surveys conducted in 2014 (unpublished data, A. 
Bird, CSUF). Observations of small pinto abalone at Santa Cruz Island, 
Point Loma, and at several other sites off San Diego indicate recent 
recruitment events occurring despite low mean densities. In Mexico, 
density data are generally not available except for a recent survey 
conducted in 2012 on the El Rosario Coast (Boch et al. 2014). The 
estimated density of pinto abalone was 0.0139 per sq m (NMFS 2014), 
with the majority being small abalone 40-80mm SL, indicating that 
recent recruitment has occurred (Boch et al. 2014).
    Overall, although the available data indicate that mean densities 
of pinto abalone in most areas are presently below the critical density 
thresholds (as estimated for other abalone species), recurring and/or 
recent recruitment events continue to be observed in areas throughout 
the species' range. The ``Abundance'' section of this notice provides 
more detail regarding pinto abalone abundance and trends. We note that 
abalone appear to experience natural fluctuations in abundance and 
reproductive success, which may be partly driven by environmental 
variables. For example, Breen (1986) presents several examples of 
natural declines and recovery in unfished stocks of pinto abalone and 
other abalone species. Thus, we might expect population abundance and 
recruitment levels to vary from year to year and across longer time 
frames.

Larval Dispersal

    Effective methods for marking and direct tracking of larval 
movements do not exist (e.g., McShane et al. 1988). As a result, larval 
dispersal distances are estimated using indirect methods, including (a) 
examination of spatial relationships of newly recruited cohorts to 
known aggregations of breeding adults (Prince et al. 1988); (b) the use 
of molecular tools to evaluate the relatedness of adult populations and 
newly recruited cohorts (Hamm and Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 2006); 
and (c) the use of objects such as drift cards or drift bottles as 
surrogates for larvae and collecting data on recovery times and 
locations (e.g., Tegner and Butler 1985, Chambers et al. 2005, Hurn et 
al. 2005). Each of these methods includes biases and sources of error 
that must be considered when interpreting the results.
    Because specific studies for pinto abalone are limited, we look to 
the information that is available regarding dispersal distances for 
other abalone species. Studies using the three methods discussed above 
give consistent results indicating limited larval dispersal

[[Page 78002]]

distances in abalone species, including Haliotis cracherodii, rubra, 
and rufescens (Prince et al. 1987 and 1988, McShane et al. 1988, 
McShane 1992, Hamm and Burton 2000, Chambers et al. 2005 and 2006, 
Gruenthal 2007, Gruenthal et al. 2007). Given that most abalone larvae 
are in the plankton for a period of about 3-10 days before settlement 
and metamorphosis (e.g., McShane 1992), it seems clear that abalone in 
general have limited capacity for dispersal over distances beyond a few 
kilometers and are able to do so only rarely. Available information on 
the genetic structure of pinto abalone populations suggests that long-
distance dispersal events occur frequently enough to maintain high gene 
flow among populations over distances of at least 1000 km (Withler et 
al. 2001).

Larval Settlement and Recruitment

    Studies on abalone settlement cues suggest that availability of 
crustose coralline algae in appropriate habitats may be significant to 
the success of the larval recruitment process in pinto abalone (Morse 
and Morse 1984, Morse 1990, Morse 1992). Crustose coralline algae is 
ubiquitous in rocky benthic habitats along the west coast of North 
America, but an understanding of the processes that sustain these algal 
populations has not been established to our knowledge. Field 
observations along the British Columbia coast indicate differential 
distribution of juveniles and adults, with juveniles observed at deeper 
depths, suggesting that settlement of larvae occurs in deeper habitats 
(Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, settlement may be influenced by other 
environmental factors in addition to the presence of crustose coralline 
algae.
    Recruitment is defined here as the appearance in one or more 
locations of measurable numbers of new post-metamorphic individuals. 
Prince et al. (1987, 1988), McShane et al. (1988), and McShane (1992) 
have presented evidence that recruitment of abalone is most likely to 
occur in relatively close spatial proximity to aggregations of breeding 
adults, at least in part a consequence of the relatively short duration 
of the planktonic larval phase. Other data suggest that abalone 
recruitment may be influenced by distribution of breeding adults, 
densities of adults on a local scale, availability of benthic 
recruitment substrata that provide appropriate chemical cues for 
settlement and metamorphosis of larvae, regional and local flow regimes 
that control larval dispersal from natal sites, and possibly predation 
and starvation of larvae (Strathmann 1985, McShane et al. 1988, McShane 
1992).
    As discussed above (see ``Reproduction and Spawning Density'' 
section of this notice), data from index site surveys indicate that 
populations in Washington are experiencing recruitment failure, whereas 
populations in areas throughout the rest of the species' range have had 
successful recruitment despite continued declines and low overall 
densities in most areas. A study by Zhang et al. (2007) estimating 
stock recruitment relationships for populations at Haida Gwaii and 
along the Central Coast found that poaching, rather than lack of 
recruitment, is an important factor limiting recovery in British 
Columbia. This is corroborated by preliminary results from 2011 and 
2012 surveys in these areas, showing an increase in population 
densities that is most likely due to reduced poaching within these 
areas (pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). There 
is also evidence of recent recruitment events in northern California 
(unpublished data, L. Rogers-Bennett, CDFW, 24 April 2014), southern 
California (unpublished data, I. Taniguchi, CDFW, 24 April 2014; 
unpublished data, A. Bird, CSUF, and E. Parnell, UCSD/Scripps, cited in 
status review report), and Mexico (Boch et al. 2014) from surveys 
targeting pinto abalone as well as opportunistic observations on 
surveys for other abalone species. ADF&G has observed mixed age classes 
in some areas in Southeast Alaska, including juveniles (S. Walker, 
pers. comm., cited in status review report).
    We note that the cryptic nature of juvenile pinto abalone make the 
detection of recruitment events difficult. Small juveniles (< 10 mm SL) 
have occasionally been observed under boulders and on smooth bedrock or 
boulders that are bare or encrusted with coralline algae (Breen 1980a). 
Juveniles tend to occupy highly cryptic habitats in deeper waters 
compared to adults (Sloan and Breen 1988). In surveys along the coast 
of British Columbia, only 60 percent of juveniles 10-70 mm in size were 
exposed, compared to 90 percent of individuals 70-90 mm size and almost 
all individuals greater than 90 mm in size (Boutillier et al. 1985, 
cited in Sloan and Breen 1988). Thus, recruitment events may be 
occurring but going undetected in regions that are not surveyed on a 
regular, consistent basis.

Growth

    Because young post-metamorphic abalone are often cryptic in 
coloration and habitat use, direct measurements of growth rate in the 
field are difficult. As a result, much of the information available on 
growth in pinto abalone come from lab studies and growth models.
    Available data on pinto abalone growth in captive settings suggest 
that young animals reach sizes of about 22 mm SL (range 8-32 mm SL) in 
their first year (Olsen 1984), then grow at rates of approximately 18 
mm per year for the next several years (Sloan and Breen 1988). Growth 
begins to slow at lengths of about 50 mm SL, corresponding to the onset 
of sexual maturity. Growth appears to vary based on many factors 
besides age, including location, water temperature, season, food 
availability and quality, and exposure to wave action. The maximum 
recorded shell lengths for pinto abalone are 165 mm (Breen 1980a) and 
190 mm (see status review report).

Mortality

    The status review report provides a detailed review of mortality in 
abalone, taken largely from Shepherd and Breen's (1992) review. We 
summarize the information here. Early life stages of abalone, 
particularly the larval stages, likely experience high mortality rates 
even in pristine settings. For larval stages, factors contributing to 
mortality include inappropriate oceanographic conditions (e.g., 
temperature, salinity) and habitats as well as predation. Little is 
known regarding mortality for newly-metamorphosed and small (<40-50 mm 
shell length) abalone, but habitat disturbances and predation may 
contribute to mortality (see status review report).
    Larger, emergent abalone (>40-50 mm shell length) face mortality 
from human removal, disease, predation, variation in food supply, 
physical disturbance, and pollution. Human removal of pinto abalone 
occurs through commercial, recreational, and subsistence harvest; 
purposeful illegal harvest; and accidental lethal injury. We discuss 
fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for commercial, recreational, and 
subsistence purposes in more detail under the ``Abundance'' section of 
this notice. Predation by sea otters has been highlighted as an 
important factor contributing to the continued decline of pinto abalone 
populations in places like Alaska where sea otter populations are 
increasing (ADF&G comments to NMFS, 17 January 2014). Other sources of 
natural mortality include diseases such as withering syndrome, 
ganglioneuritis (and the related amyotrophia), vibriosis, and shell 
deformities (sabellidosis). These sources of mortality and their impact 
on the species are discussed in more detail in the ``Summary of Factors

[[Page 78003]]

Affecting the Species'' section later in this document.

Abundance

    There are two types of data that can be examined to provide a 
better understanding of variation in pinto abalone abundance over time: 
fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Due to the general lack 
of formal data, we also include observations reported by individuals or 
groups of people. We summarize the available information by region 
(Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Mexico), 
because both species abundance and the level of information available 
vary by geographic region. The status review report provides a more 
detailed account of the available information for each region.

Alaska

    Several fisheries for pinto abalone have existed in Alaska, 
including a commercial fishery and sport fishery (both of which are now 
closed) and personal use and subsistence fisheries (both of which are 
still in operation). Data are not available on the number of pinto 
abalone taken in the fisheries, but trends in commercial fisheries 
harvest levels indicate a decline in pinto abalone, with harvest in 
Southeast Alaska falling from a peak of 378,685 lbs in 1979/1980 to a 
low of 14,352 lbs in 1995/1996 (the fishery closed in 1995; Rumble and 
Hebert 2011). Between the 1993/1994 season and 1994/1995 season, 
harvest per unit effort for the fishery was estimated to have declined 
by 64 percent (Rumble and Hebert 2011).
    Commercial harvest of pinto abalone in Southeast Alaska began in 
the 1960s with a significant increase in effort and harvest in the late 
1970s and early 1980s, followed by a steep decline in catch in the late 
1980s and 1990s (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The increase in effort can be 
attributed in large part to an increase in value from less than one 
dollar per pound in the early 1970s to greater than six dollars per 
pound in 1993-1994 (Woodby et al. 2000). Harvest peaked at 378,685 
pounds in 1979-1980, followed by a decline in harvest that was likely 
due in part to declines in pinto abalone abundance as well as changes 
in regulations to limit the fishery, including harvest limits and area 
and seasonal closures (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The commercial fishery 
for pinto abalone was closed in 1995 and remains closed (Woodby et al. 
2000). Commercial harvest was primarily conducted using scuba or hookah 
dive gear in the subtidal zone, though pinto abalone can be picked by 
hand in the intertidal zone during extreme low tides (Rumble and Hebert 
2011).
    Data from the subsistence abalone fishery are available from 1972 
to 1997 and indicate a significant decline (98 percent decrease) in the 
subsistence harvest from an average of 350-397 pinto abalone per 
household in 1972 to an average of 3-9 pinto abalone per household in 
1997 (Bowers et al. 2011). Subsistence harvest of pinto abalone in 
Alaska is believed to remain low (ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January 
2014). In 2012, the Alaska Board of Fisheries reduced the daily bag 
limit for subsistence harvest to 5 abalone, with no closed season and 
no annual limit (Bowers et al. 2011). Prior to 2012, the daily bag 
limit for subsistence harvest was 50 abalone. The minimum size limit is 
3.5 inches and legal harvest methods include snorkel equipment, abalone 
irons, or collection by hand. Scuba and hookah diving for subsistence 
abalone harvest has been prohibited since 1996.
    Abalone harvest has also occurred in the sport abalone fishery (for 
non-residents) and personal use abalone fishery (for state residents), 
but data on trends in harvest are not available. In the sport fishery, 
the daily bag limit was 5 abalone per day (minimum size: 3.5 inches), 
with no closed season. Scuba and hookah gear were allowed until 1996. 
The Alaska Board of Fisheries closed the sport abalone fishery in 2012 
and it remains closed to present. In the personal use abalone fishery, 
the daily bag limit was 50 abalone per person (except in one area 
around Sitka where the daily bag limit was 20 abalone per person), with 
a minimum size limit of 3.5 inches and no closed season. In 2012, the 
Alaska Board of Fisheries reduced the daily bag limit to 5 abalone per 
person. Scuba and hookah diving were allowed until 1996. The personal 
use abalone fishery remains open, but harvest is believed to be low 
(ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January 2014).
    There are limited fishery-independent data on pinto abalone 
populations in Alaska. No long-term monitoring of pinto abalone 
populations in Alaska has been conducted. However, observations of 
pinto abalone have been made by ADF&G biologists while conducting dive 
surveys to monitor other benthic invertebrate species for management 
purposes. From 1996 to 2000, about 125 to almost 250 pinto abalone were 
observed per year during red sea urchin dive surveys; in 2001, the 
number observed dropped to about 50 pinto abalone, and in 2002-2011, 
fewer than 20 pinto abalone were observed per year (ADF&G comments to 
NMFS, 17 January 2014). These observations suggest a continued decline 
in pinto abalone populations since closure of the commercial fishery. 
ADF&G noted an increase in empty abalone shells observed on red sea 
urchin survey transects in Southeast Alaska between 2001 and 2012 
(pers. comm. with K. Hebert, ADF&G). These observations are coincident 
with increased sea otter abundance in Southeast Alaska and suggest that 
sea otters are having an impact on pinto abalone abundance where the 
two species overlap (pers. comm. with K. Hebert, ADF&G). The one 
exception to this observed pattern is in Sitka Sound, where sea otters 
and a small population of pinto abalone appear to co-exist (pers. comm. 
with K. Hebert, ADF&G). ADF&G has observed mixed age classes in some 
areas in Southeast Alaska, including juveniles (S. Walker, pers. 
comm.).

British Columbia

    Although also limited, data are available from both fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent sources regarding the abundance of 
pinto abalone in British Columbia, making this region relatively data 
rich compared to other regions of the coast. The available data 
indicate a decline in pinto abalone populations during and even after 
closure of abalone fisheries, with signs of increases in abundance in 
the past five years attributed to a reduction in poaching.
    Harvest of pinto abalone has a long history in British Columbia. 
Pinto abalone were harvested in commercial, recreational, and 
traditional First Nations food, social, and ceremonial fisheries. Prior 
to the advent of scuba gear around 1960, abalone harvest by First 
Nations and recreational fishers occurred primarily at low tide by 
shore picking (Farlinger and Campbell 1992), although some First 
Nations used a two-pronged spear to take abalone as deep as 2 m below 
the lowest tide (Jones 2000). After the advent of scuba gear, the 
recreational fishery became widespread along the coast (Farlinger and 
Campbell 1992). No landing statistics are available for either the 
First Nations or recreational fisheries (Sloan and Breen 1988, 
Farlinger and Campbell 1992). However, during the recreational fishery 
in 1983, McElderry and Richards (1984) estimated that scuba divers in 
the Strait of Georgia collected 1,172 pinto abalone per thousand sport 
dives and that between 76,000 and 172,000 recreational dives occurred 
in that year in the Canadian portion of the Strait of Georgia.

[[Page 78004]]

    The commercial abalone fishery began in British Columbia as early 
as 1889 as a small, local, and sporadic fishery (Mowat 1890), but 
expanded significantly in the 1970s when landings increased to nearly 
60 metric tons (mt) in 1972 and then to 273 mt in 1976 (Federenko and 
Sprout 1982). Commercial landings peaked at over 480 and 400 mt in 1977 
and 1978, but dropped to about 200 mt in 1979 when a quota was put in 
place for the first time. Landings leveled out to between 44 and 47 mt 
under quota management and numerous other management actions taken 
following 1977 (Sloan and Breen 1988). Reasons for the increase in 
abalone harvest in the 1970's include the advent of scuba and dry-
diving suits, allowing more diver submergence time; the advent of on-
board boat freezers; emergence of a market in Japan for pinto abalone; 
tripling of the price per pound between 1972 and 1976 to over three 
Canadian dollars per pound; restricted access to salmon and herring 
fisheries; and unrestricted access to the abalone fishery prior to 1977 
(Sloan and Breen 1988, Farlinger and Campbell 1992). All pinto abalone 
fisheries in British Columbia were closed in December 1990 due to 
observed declines and overall low population levels (Egli and Lessard 
2011) and remain closed to date.
    Breen (1986) estimated that at the beginning of 1976 the abalone 
stock stood at 1,800 mt in areas that were open to harvest (closed 
areas (Fedorenko and Sprout 1982): Juan Perez Sound, Lower Johnstone 
Strait, Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de Fuca). By the end of 
1980, the stock size had been reduced to an estimated 450 mt (Breen 
1986). The SRT attempted to estimate the number of individual pinto 
abalone landed each year from 1952-1990 in the commercial fishery, 
based on landed biomass and the predicted mean weight of legal-sized 
northern abalone (>= 90 mm from 1952-1976 and >= 100 mm after 1976). An 
estimated 2.5 million abalone were harvested in 1977, with at least a 
million abalone harvested each year from 1976 to 1979 and over 240,000 
harvested each year during the last decade of the fishery (see status 
review report). Most of the commercial harvest occurred at Haida Gwaii 
(formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands) and along the North 
Coast (Sloan and Breen 1988, Egli and Lessard 2011).
    Fishery-independent data for pinto abalone in British Columbia 
primarily consist of data from index site surveys conducted by the DFO 
since 1978, although some data exist for the period prior to the 1970s 
(i.e., prior to when the fishery expanded significantly). Surveys from 
the early 1900's indicate pinto abalone were present in sufficient 
numbers for harvesting around Haida Gwaii and in Queen Charlotte Sound 
(Thompson 1914). Exploratory surveys conducted in the same areas in 
1955 found few pinto abalone in southeastern Haida Gwaii, and many 
areas with no abalone, indicating a decline in the region's population 
(Quayle 1962, Sloan and Breen 1988). In contrast, surveys conducted in 
1978 in the same area found few sites with no abalone and an estimated 
density of 0.58 legal-sized abalone per sq m with an overall mean 
density of 2.5 abalone per sq m (Breen and Adkins 1979, Sloan and Breen 
1988). Breen (1986) attributed these differences between surveys in 
1914, 1955, and 1978 to natural variation in pinto abalone abundance, 
rather than to differences in survey methods or observer experience. 
Pinto abalone were previously not thought to occur in the Strait of 
Georgia (formerly known as the Gulf of Georgia) (Thompson 1914), but 
have since been found there, though relatively scarce compared to other 
areas in British Columbia and only at depths of 7m or greater (Quayle 
1962, Sloan and Breen 1988).
    DFO index site surveys for pinto abalone have been conducted every 
4-5 years since 1978, providing valuable time series and size frequency 
data. Surveys at Haida Gwaii and along the North and Central Coast 
began in 1978, and on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, Queen 
Charlotte Strait, and the Strait of Georgia in 2003 and 2004. The 
status review report summarizes the best available data on pinto 
abalone abundance and trends from these surveys. The data indicate that 
although recruitment is occurring, the density of mature adults 
(defined as pinto abalone [gteqt] 100 mm SL for the purposes of the 
index site surveys) has been declining, either due to a high rate of 
juvenile mortality before they reach maturity or due to a high rate of 
adult mortality that is offsetting juvenile survival (COSEWIC 2009). 
Densities of immature abalone have increased by 29 percent at the 
Central Coast sites since 1989 and by 35 percent at the Haida Gwaii 
sites since 1990, whereas densities of mature abalone have declined by 
about 44 percent since 1990 (the year the abalone fisheries closed) 
(COSEWIC 2009).
    Overall, the survey data from 1978 to 2009 indicate that mature 
abalone densities declined by 88-89 percent and total abalone densities 
have declined by 81-83 percent at the Central Coast and Haida Gwaii 
sites (COSEWIC 2009). However, preliminary results from more recent 
surveys in 2011 and 2012 indicate signs of increasing populations, 
potentially due to reductions in illegal take. In 2009, abalone were 
found at 41 percent of the 34 sites surveyed in Queen Charlotte Strait, 
with an overall density of 0.109 per sq m and a mature abalone density 
of 0.072 per sq m (Lessard and Egli 2011). These densities were four 
times greater than the densities found in 2004 and indicate that 
abalone populations in Queen Charlotte Strait are stable (Lessard and 
Egli 2011). Results from the 2011 surveys along the Central Coast show 
an increase in the mean density of abalone (all sizes) and a decrease 
in the estimated mortality rate between 2006 and 2011 (pers. comm. with 
J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). The density of mature abalone (>= 
70 mm shell length) was at or above the short-term recovery objective 
of 0.32 abalone per sq m (as defined in DFO's 2007 Recovery Strategy 
for pinto abalone) at 6 of the 8 index survey sites and above the long-
term goal of one abalone per sq m at one site (pers. comm. with J. 
Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). Similarly, results from the 2012 
surveys at Haida Gwaii indicate an increase in the mean density of both 
immature and mature abalone and a decrease in the estimated mortality 
rate between 2007 and 2012, as well as densities of mature abalone (>= 
70 mm shell length) at or above the recovery objective of 0.32 abalone 
per sq m at 5 of the 9 index survey sites (pers. comm. with Joanne 
Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). Evidence of successful juvenile 
recruitment throughout the years and these recent increases in adult 
abundance and density indicate that removing or reducing illegal 
harvest to minimal levels would likely allow populations to rebuild. 
However, with the continued spread of sea otters in the region, 
populations are not expected to return to levels observed during the 
1970s when sea otters were absent from the region (COSEWIC 2009).

Washington

    Data on abundance and trends in pinto abalone populations in 
Washington are limited to fishery-independent data from timed swim and 
index site surveys. Although estimates of recreational harvest are 
available, they do not provide information on trends in abundance over 
time. Overall, the survey data indicate that populations in Washington 
have declined over time, despite closure of the fisheries in 1994, and 
local recruitment failure may be occurring.
    Fishery-dependent data for Washington are limited. Washington has 
never had a commercial fishery for pinto abalone. Subsistence harvest 
by

[[Page 78005]]

indigenous peoples and early residents reportedly occurred, but the 
magnitude and extent of the fishery are not well documented (WDFW 
2014). Pinto abalone were first recognized as a recreationally 
harvestable shellfish with a daily possession limit of 3 abalone by 
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) orders first published in 1959. 
Between 1959 and when the recreational fishery was closed in 1994, the 
possession limit fluctuated between 3 and 5 abalone per day and several 
other measures, including minimum size limits and gear restrictions, 
were imposed to manage the fishery.
    Although recreational harvest records were not collected, some 
estimates of annual harvest are available from compilations of 
recreational sport diver interviews, returned questionnaires, diver 
logbook records, and information from dive clubs (Bargmann 1984, 
Gesselbracht 1991). In the early 1980s, approximately 91 percent of 
pinto abalone harvest occurred in the North Puget Sound region, 
including the San Juan Islands Archipelago, and the remainder occurred 
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and just north of Admiralty Inlet 
(Bargmann 1984). Bargmann (1984) estimated that sport divers harvested 
34,800 and 3,400 pinto abalone annually from the North Sound and the 
Strait/Admiralty regions, respectively, based on data over the period 
from April 1982 to March 1983. Gesselbracht (1991, cited in WDFW 2014) 
estimated that 40,934 pinto abalone were harvested annually, based on 
interviews with sport divers from September 1989 to August 1990.
    Fishery-independent data are available from timed swim and index 
site surveys in the San Juan Islands Archipelago. Both sets of data 
indicate continuing declines in pinto abalone populations since the 
fisheries closed in 1994. From 1979-1981, WDFW conducted timed swim 
surveys (designed to quantify pinto abalone abundance) at 30 sites, 
with a mean encounter rate of about 1.1 pinto abalone per minute or 
25.5 pinto abalone per dive (WDFW 2014). These were likely 
underestimates of pinto abalone abundance, because swim times were not 
adjusted for the time taken to measure abalone size (WDFW 2014). In 
contrast, WDFW divers encountered an average of about 1.1 abalone per 
dive across all 30 sites in 2010-2011, indicating a reduction in 
encounter rate of about 96 percent (WDFW 2014). This reduction in the 
encounter rate of pinto abalone per dive indicates a decline in pinto 
abalone density among the 30 survey sites. In 2005, Rogers-Bennett et 
al. (2007 and 2011) surveyed 10 sites in the San Juan Islands 
Archipelago where pinto abalone populations were abundant in the past, 
and found only 17 pinto abalone (range in shell length = 75-142 mm); 14 
of those abalone were found at just two sites. This number was 
substantially lower than the number of pinto abalone found at the sites 
in 1979 by WDFW (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2011). Index site surveys show 
similar declines in pinto abalone densities around the San Juan Islands 
Archipelago. From 1992 to 2013, WDFW has conducted periodic surveys at 
10 index sites, originally selected in areas known to have high pinto 
abalone abundance. The mean density at the 10 index sites declined from 
0.18 abalone per sq m in 1992 to 0.04 abalone per sq m in 2006 (Rothaus 
et al. 2008) and 0.01 abalone per sq m in 2013 (WDFW 2014).
    Recent data suggests limited recruitment is occurring in the San 
Juan Islands Archipelago. The proportion of emergent juvenile pinto 
abalone (shell length < 90mm) seen during index site surveys has 
declined from 31.8 percent in 1979 to 17.4 percent in 1992, and most 
recently to 7.1 percent in 2013 (WDFW 2014). In addition, only four 
emergent and three juvenile abalone were observed on 60 abalone 
recruitment modules deployed in August and September 2004 (Bouma et al. 
2012). The mean size of pinto abalone has also increased by an average 
of 0.5 mm per year, from about 97.6 mm in 1979 (measured during timed 
swim surveys; n=755) to about 118.4 mm in 2013 (measured during index 
site surveys; n=56) (WDFW 2014). This increase indicates a trend in the 
populations from smaller, young abalone to a higher proportion of 
larger and presumably older individuals, again suggesting that little 
to no recruitment has occurred in recent years.
    Pinto abalone have been observed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but 
no data are available regarding trends in abundance (WDFW 2014). We are 
also not aware of any documented observations of pinto abalone on the 
outer coast of Washington, south of Portage Head (located just south of 
Cape Flattery).

Oregon

    Little information is available on pinto abalone presence along the 
Oregon coast. Recreational harvest of abalone is allowed in Oregon 
(limits: One abalone per day and five abalone per year), but the 
minimum size limit of 8 inches (203.2 mm) essentially excludes pinto 
abalone from this fishery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW) recreational shellfish regulations at https://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/regulations.asp, accessed: 27 August 
2014). Pinto abalone are believed to be naturally rare in Oregon, with 
only occasional shells being found (Reimers and Snow 1975). The first 
confirmed live pinto abalone in Oregon was observed in 2009 at Orford 
Reef by an urchin diver (pers. comm. with Scott Groth, ODFW, cited in 
NMFS 2009). The animal was about 100 mm in size, found at a depth of 20 
m with no other abalone observed nearby (pers. comm. with Scott Groth, 
ODFW, on 26 June 2014). Since 2009, the same urchin diver has spotted 
about four more live pinto abalone on Orford Reef and another urchin 
diver found one live pinto abalone in Nellies Cove, near Port Orford 
(pers. comm. with Scott Groth, ODFW, on 26 June 2014). No directed 
surveys for pinto abalone have been conducted in Oregon, and we are not 
aware of any other information on pinto abalone presence or abundance 
in Oregon waters.

California

    In California, estimates of baseline (i.e., abundance prior to 
overfishing) and modern pinto abalone abundances have been made using 
both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Both indicate a 
decline in population abundance from the 1970s to 2000s. As noted 
below, however, there is some uncertainty associated with these 
estimates. Data from surveys focused on pinto abalone are limited, but 
recent efforts are providing preliminary data on population abundances 
and densities along the California coast.
    Harvest of abalone in California has occurred for thousands of 
years, with modern commercial and recreational fisheries beginning in 
the late 1890s and early 1900s, respectively. CDFW (formerly CDFG) 
landings records indicate that pinto abalone were landed at the 
Farallon Islands, Point Montara, Point Buchon, Point Conception, the 
Northern and Southern Channel Islands, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and 
the offshore banks from 1950-1997 (CDFG 2005). Pinto abalone is not 
considered a major component of the commercial or recreational abalone 
catch (CDFW 2005); however, fishing pressure led to decreased landings 
from a peak of approximately 10,000 pounds (4.5 mt) in 1974 to less 
than 500 pounds (0.2 mt) by the 1980s. If a dozen pinto abalone weighed 
about 15 pounds (Pinkas 1974, cited in Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002), 
then 10,000 pounds would equal about 8,000 pinto abalone and 500 pounds 
would equal about 400 pinto abalone. CDFW closed all commercial and 
recreational abalone fisheries south of San Francisco

[[Page 78006]]

in 1997. In 1999, CDFW effectively excluded pinto abalone from the red 
abalone recreational fishery north of San Francisco by increasing the 
minimum legal size limit to 178 mm for all species (Rogers-Bennett et 
al. 2002). CDFW has since revised their regulations to specifically 
prohibit harvest of pinto abalone in this fishery.
    Rogers-Bennett et al. (2002) estimated baseline abundance for H. k. 
assimilis using landings data from the peak of the commercial and 
recreational fisheries (1971-1980). The baseline minimum estimate of 
abundance for H. k. assimilis prior to overexploitation was 21,000 
animals. After 1980, only 66 pinto abalone were landed, suggesting a 
decline of 99.6 percent over a 10-year period. This baseline abundance 
estimate of 21,000 animals provides a historical perspective on 
patterns in abundance. However, it is important to note that this 
estimate was based on data from a time period when pinto abalone 
abundances may have been higher than usual due to the decline of sea 
otters along the California coast. Thus, this estimate may overestimate 
the true baseline abundances that existed prior to the abalone fishery 
and the exploitation of sea otters.
    Using estimated densities and suitable rocky habitat derived from 
data collected in 1971 and 1975, Rogers-Bennett et al. (2002) also 
estimated baseline abundance for H. k. kamtschatkana in northern 
California as 153,000 animals. This estimate had large 95 percent 
confidence intervals (CIs; upper = 341,000; lower = 29,000) because of 
the patchy nature of the abundance data and limited sampling. A modern 
estimate of 18,000 abalone (95 percent CI: 13,000-22,000) was derived 
from data collected in 1999-2000 at five sites in Mendocino County and 
indicates an estimated 10-fold decline in abundance between the 1970s 
and 1999-2000 (Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002).
    CDFW conducted dive surveys at multiple sites in Mendocino County 
from 2007-2013 and in Sonoma County from 2007-2012 (L. Rogers-Bennett, 
CDFW, unpublished data, 24 April 2014). At sites deeper than 10 m, the 
mean densities exceeded the critical density thresholds for successful 
reproduction that have been estimated for other abalone species 
(Babcock and Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010). Smaller size classes 
were observed, indicating that recent recruitment has occurred, despite 
limited observations of juveniles in abalone recruitment modules 
deployed from 2001-2014 in northern California.
    In Southern California, there have been few reports of pinto 
abalone from 1970-2000. In 1974, CDFW conducted timed SCUBA surveys at 
the Northern Channel Islands (focusing on all abalone species) and 
found 53 individuals at San Miguel Island, 10 at Santa Rosa Island, and 
18 off Santa Cruz Island (Ian Taniguchi, CDFW, unpublished data, 24 
April 2014). The National Park Service, which has been conducting 
surveys at the Channel Islands since 1982, observed pinto abalone for 
the first time in 2001 (pers. comm. with David Kushner, NPS, cited in 
Rogers-Bennett et al. 2002). From 2006-2012, a number of entities 
observed pinto abalone during surveys that did not necessarily focus on 
pinto abalone but occurred in habitats suitable for them. These 
observations indicate that densities are low (ranging from 0.0002 to 
0.0286 pinto abalone per sq m), but that recent recruitment has 
occurred in at least two locations (Santa Cruz Island and Point Loma) 
(Ian Taniguchi, CDFW, unpublished data, 24 April 2014).
    Recently, reports of pinto abalone off San Diego have been more 
common. In most areas that are surveyed, reports range from a few 
individuals to up to several dozen abalone, including a wide size range 
(see status review report). Preliminary data from surveys conducted off 
San Diego in summer 2014 indicate densities of 0 to 0.015 pinto abalone 
per sq m, including animals ranging in size from 13 to 151 mm SL 
(Amanda Bird, CSUF, unpublished data). Densities are well below the 
estimated threshold values needed for successful recruitment (Babcock 
and Keesing 1999, Neuman et al. 2010). However, the presence of small 
animals and observations of most (> 50 percent) of animals in pairs 
within four meters of one another indicate that the species is 
extremely patchy, and that densities recorded on a per sq m basis may 
not be the best metric for evaluating population viability.

Mexico

    Little information is available on pinto abalone distribution and 
abundance in Mexico. Because pinto abalone and white abalone overlap in 
range and are difficult to distinguish morphologically, the two species 
are often grouped and reported on together. In Mexico, the abalone 
fishery has been operating since the 1860s (Croker 1931) and is still 
operating, but modern commercial harvests did not develop until the 
1940s. Historically, the fishery primarily harvested H. fulgens and H. 
corrugata, but H. kamtschatkana/sorenseni were also considered 
relatively abundant and harvested.
    A recent collaborative study was conducted in August 2012 as a 
preliminary assessment of abalone species in the nearshore at El 
Rosario, Baja California, and provided density data on pinto and white 
abalone in five survey areas (Boch et al. 2014). Pinto and white 
abalone were grouped and referred to as a two species complex in the 
study, due to similarities in shell morphology and possibly 
misidentification by observers. However, the authors estimated that 75 
percent of the abalone in this group were pinto abalone (H. k. 
assimilis) (pers. comm. with C. Boch, Stanford University). The survey 
included twenty-four transects, each covering a 400 sq sq m area within 
depths of 11-25 m. A total of 178 H. k. assimilis/sorenseni were found, 
ranging in size from 40 to 240 mm SL, with the majority ranging in size 
from 40 to 180 mm. Assuming that 75 percent of these were likely H. k. 
assimilis, the estimated density of H. k. assimilis for the study area 
would be 0.0139 per sq m. Recent recruitment was evident in at least 
one area where the population consisted primarily of animals ranging 
from 40 to 80 mm in size.

The ``Species'' Question

    The ESA defines a species as ``any species or subspecies of 
wildlife or plants, or any distinct population segment of any species 
of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' The 
pinto abalone is a marine invertebrate species that has been 
taxonomically subdivided into two subspecies: Haliotis kamtschatkana 
kamtschatkana (i.e., the northern form that is described as ranging 
from Sitka Island, Alaska to Point Conception, California), and 
Haliotis kamtschatkana assimilis (i.e., the southern form that is 
described as ranging from Monterey, California to Turtle Bay, Baja 
California, Mexico) (McLean 1966). The two subspecies were initially 
described as separate species by Jonas (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in 1845 
and Dall (Haliotis assimilis) in 1878. McLean (1966) argued that the 
two previously described species were unique forms, or subspecies, 
representing geographic extremes of a single species, with differences 
in shell morphology likely related to varying environmental conditions 
along a latitudinal gradient within the species' range. Geiger (1999) 
upheld the subspecies classification scheme based on the morphological 
descriptions of shells provided by McLean (1966) and also maintained 
the subspecies range descriptions as described above.
    More recently, two lines of evidence have raised uncertainty 
regarding the taxonomic structure of pinto abalone as

[[Page 78007]]

consisting of two subspecies. First, none of the genetic tools and 
analyses conducted to date have been able to confirm a discernible 
difference between H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. assimilis. Studies 
conducted thus far tend to indicate high intraspecific (within species) 
variability in pinto abalone, depending on the gene sequenced, but no 
genetic differentiation between subspecies. One highly conserved 
portion of the genome that has been investigated and that geneticists 
would have expected to be different between subspecies, is the area 
that controls the production of the reproductive proteins lysin and 
VERL (vitelline envelope receptor for lysin). Supernault et al. (2010) 
examined this portion of the genome for forensic analyses of 
northeastern Pacific abalone species. Results indicated that all 
species recognized on the basis of morphological differences have been 
confirmed to be distinct on the basis of genetic sequences, with only 
the two subspecies, H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. assimilis, 
indistinguishable through molecular analysis. Gruenthal and Burton 
(2005) had similar results, concluding H. k. kamtschatkana and H. k. 
assimilis were statistically indistinguishable at sequenced portions of 
the mitochondrial genes cytochrome oxidase subunit one (COI) and 
cytochrome b (CytB), as well as VERL, although the sample sizes were 
small. Straus (2010) also found no statistically significant 
differences in either COI or lysin, stating that the two subspecies 
share identical sequences at both mitochondrial and nuclear loci and 
cannot be differentiated. Most recently, Schwenke and Park (unpublished 
data, cited in the status review report) constructed bootstrapped 
neighbor-joining trees of new and archived mitochondrial COI and VERL 
sequences, finding that VERL is currently the best marker available to 
resolve the most closely related abalone species group found along the 
Northeastern Pacific coast (white, pinto, flat, and red), whereas COI 
separates this group from the remaining species (i.e. black, pink, and 
green; pers. comm. with P. Schwenke, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center, cited in status review report). Again, however, neither marker 
provided subspecies level resolution. Thus, to date, the subspecies 
remain indistinguishable at the molecular level, although future 
analyses using newer methods that search the entire genome (such as 
single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) may be able to find genetic 
support for the delineation of the two putative subspecies.
    Second, collections from several shell collectors contain multiple 
examples of the southern form (H. k. assimilis) in British Columbia and 
Washington and of the northern form (H. k. kamtschatkana) in Baja 
California, Mexico, as well as multiple specimens collected from both 
the northern and southern portion of the species' range that exhibit 
morphologies representative of both subspecies (pers. comm. with B. 
Owen and A. Rafferty, cited in status review report). We recognize that 
shell collections may not represent a random sample of shells from the 
population and that these shells may constitute a relatively small 
population of outliers in the wild. Despite this, these examples 
suggest that the range overlap between the two putative subspecies is 
much more extensive than was previously thought (Canada to Mexico, 
rather than just along the central California coast) and that this 
degree of overlap (approximately 80 percent of the species' range) does 
not meet the definition of subspecies as allopatric populations 
(Futuyma 1986).
    The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the pinto abalone should 
be considered as one species throughout its range for the purposes of 
the status review. This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence 
for species divergence at the molecular level, the degree of overlap 
between the subspecies, and the fact that there are other examples of 
marine invertebrate species with broad geographic ranges (e.g., ochre 
and bat stars) and/or pronounced morphological plasticity (e.g., 
periwinkle snails) extending on the order of 1,000s of kilometers. We 
do not reject the possible existence of pinto abalone subspecies. 
However, the lack of genetic, geographic, or ecological justification 
for treating the two subspecies as separate species led the SRT to 
consider the status of the species and its extinction risk throughout 
its range from Alaska to Mexico.

Assessment of Risk of Extinction

Approach to Extinction Risk Assessment

    The ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' A threatened species is ``any species which is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, we interpret an 
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of 
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not 
presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the 
primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered 
species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, 
either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    To evaluate whether the pinto abalone meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered, we considered the best available information 
and applied professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced 
by the species. We evaluated both demographic risks, such as low 
abundance and productivity, and threats to the species including those 
related to the factors specified by the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E). In 
a separate evaluation (see the ``Efforts Being Made to Protect the 
Species'' section below), we also considered conservation efforts being 
made to protect the species.
    As described above, we convened an SRT, comprised of nine fishery 
biologists and abalone experts from the NMFS West Coast and Alaska 
Regions, the NMFS Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, 
NMFS Office of Science and Technology, the National Park Service, and 
the U.S. Geological Survey/University of Washington. The SRT was asked 
to review the best available information on the species and to evaluate 
the overall risk of extinction facing pinto abalone now and in the 
foreseeable future. The ability to measure or document risk factors for 
pinto abalone is limited and the available information is often not 
quantitative, or less than ideal. Therefore, in assessing risk, we 
included both qualitative and quantitative information and modeled the 
assessment on the approaches used in previous NMFS status reviews to 
organize and summarize the professional judgment of the SRT members.
    The SRT first performed a threats assessment for pinto abalone by 
scoring the severity and scope of threats to the species, as well as 
the time frame over which the threats are affecting the species and the 
level of data that is available regarding the threats and their 
effects. The SRT considered past factors for decline, as well as 
present and future threats faced by the species. Detailed definitions 
of these risk scores can be found in the status review report. The 
results of this threats assessment are summarized below under ``Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species.''
    The SRT then assessed the demographic risks for pinto abalone. The 
SRT considered demographic

[[Page 78008]]

information reflecting the past and present condition of pinto abalone 
populations. This information is detailed in the status review report 
and summarized above under the ``Background'' section of this notice, 
and included the best available information on population abundance or 
density, population trends and growth rates, the number and 
distribution of populations, exchange rates of individuals among 
populations, and the ecological, life history, or genetic diversity 
among populations. In some cases, information was not available or 
severely limited.
    As in previous NMFS status reviews, the SRT analyzed the collective 
condition of individual populations at the species level according to 
four demographic risk criteria: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, 
spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These four general 
viability criteria, reviewed in McElhany et al. (2000), reflect 
concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology, are generally 
applicable to a wide variety of species, and describe demographic risks 
that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of 
extinction risk. The SRT's methods and conclusions for the demographic 
risk assessment are described in more detail below in the ``Analysis of 
Demographic Risk'' section of this notice.
    The SRT members were then asked to make an overall extinction risk 
determination for pinto abalone now and in the foreseeable future. For 
this analysis, the SRT considered the best available information 
regarding the status of the species along with the results of the 
threats assessment and demographic risk analysis. The SRT defined five 
levels of overall extinction risk: No/Very Low risk, Low risk, Moderate 
risk, High risk, and Very High risk. To allow individuals to express 
uncertainty in determining the overall level of extinction risk facing 
the species, the SRT adopted the ``likelihood point'' (Forest Ecosystem 
Management Assessment Team, or FEMAT, 1993) method, in which each SRT 
member distributed 10 `likelihood points' among the five levels of 
risks. The scores were then tallied and summarized. This approach has 
been used in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., for Pacific salmon, 
rockfish in Puget Sound, Pacific herring, black abalone, scalloped 
hammerhead) to structure the team's analysis and express levels of 
uncertainty when assigning risk categories.
    The SRT did not make recommendations as to whether the species 
should be listed as threatened or endangered, or if it did not warrant 
listing. Rather, the SRT drew scientific conclusions about the overall 
risk of extinction faced by pinto abalone under present conditions and 
in the foreseeable future (defined as 30 years and 100 years) based on 
an evaluation of the species' demographic risks and assessment of 
threats. NMFS considered the SRT's assessment of overall extinction 
risk, along with the best available information regarding the species 
status and ongoing and future conservation efforts, in making a final 
determination regarding whether the species meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    According to section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce 
determines whether a species is threatened or endangered because of any 
(or a combination) of the following factors: The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 
purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or other natural or man-made factors affecting its 
continued existence. We examined these factors for their historic, 
current, and/or potential impact on pinto abalone and considered them, 
along with current species distribution and abundance, to help 
determine the species' present vulnerability to extinction. When 
considering the effects of the threat into the foreseeable future, the 
time frame considered by the SRT varied based on the threat, but 
generally ranged from 30 to 100 years. A time frame of 30 years 
represents approximately 3 generation times for pinto abalone 
(McDougall et al. 2006, COSEWIC 2009) and was considered a reasonable 
period over which predictions regarding the threats and their effects 
on the species could be made. A time frame of 100 years was considered 
a reasonable period over which predictions regarding longer-term 
threats (e.g., ocean acidification, effects of climate change) have 
been or could be made. The time frames for foreseeable future are 
discussed in more detail under the ``SRT Assessment of Overall 
Extinction Risk'' section of this notice.
    For each of these factors, the SRT identified and evaluated several 
stressors that either have or may contribute to declines in pinto 
abalone. Overall, the SRT rated most of these stressors as low threats 
and several as moderate threats to pinto abalone, but did not identify 
any high or very high threats. Among the moderate threats, the SRT was 
most concerned about low densities that have resulted from past 
fisheries harvest of pinto abalone, the potential threat posed by ocean 
acidification, and illegal take due to poaching and inadequate law 
enforcement. The potential for reduced genetic diversity as a 
consequence of low population densities and the potential for predation 
(particularly by sea otters) to further reduce local densities were 
also identified as threats of greater concern. Finally, oil spills and 
disease outbreaks (through the spread of pathogens) were highlighted as 
highly uncertain risks that need to be addressed through careful 
planning, monitoring, and management. Below, we discuss the threats 
associated with each factor and our assessment of each factor's 
contribution to extinction risk to the species. Where relevant, we 
discuss the risks posed by a factor in combination with other factors 
(e.g., risks posed by disease and inadequate regulatory mechanisms).

Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range

    Most of the threats that result in substrate destruction or 
modification, such as coastal development, recreational access, cable 
repairs, nearshore military operations, and benthic community shifts, 
occur infrequently, have a narrow geographic scope, or have uncertain 
or indirect effects on pinto abalone. Some exceptions may exist in the 
cases of water temperature increases and reduced food quantity and 
quality associated with the ENSOs, PDOs, IPOs, and long-term climate 
change, as well as sea level rise due to long-term climate change, in 
that these threats have the potential to produce more widespread 
impacts, but the certainty in how these factors will affect pinto 
abalone is low. For example, increased water temperatures associated 
with climate change may be widespread throughout the U.S. West Coast, 
though the latest climate report suggests that impacts will be least 
felt in the Pacific Northwest (Mote et al. 2014). Increased water 
temperatures could affect the health and range of pinto abalone, 
particularly at the northern and southern extreme of the species range. 
However, pinto abalone have a wide temperature tolerance and may be 
able to adapt to changing temperatures over time, such as by seeking 
depth refuges. It is also not clear how El Ni[ntilde]o/Southern 
Oscillation (ENSO) events, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) events,

[[Page 78009]]

Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) events, and climate change may 
affect food quantity and quality for pinto abalone. Sea level rise may 
result in loss of suitable habitat in a preferred depth range because 
of increased erosion, turbidity and siltation; however, the effects on 
pinto abalone are uncertain because pinto abalone typically occupy 
subtidal habitats throughout much of their range. We are not aware of 
any studies that have examined the potential effects of sea level rise 
on abalone, and therefore, we currently lack information to determine 
whether these habitat changes will be important factors for species 
decline.
    Climate change impacts, such as ocean acidification, could affect 
settlement habitat by affecting the growth of crustose coralline algae, 
but the effects to pinto abalone are unclear. For example, McCoy (2013) 
and McCoy and Ragazzola (2014) found morphological changes (e.g., 
reduced thickness or density) in crustose coralline algal species in 
response to ocean acidification, with responses varying by species. 
However, Johnson et al. (2014) found that crustose coralline algal 
species exposed to varying carbon dioxide levels may be acclimatized to 
ocean acidification, with species-specific variation in the responses. 
North Pacific waters, including the California Current Ecosystem, have 
relatively low seawater pH values due to a variety of natural 
oceanographic processes (Feely et al. 2004, Feely et al. 2008, Feely et 
al. 2009, Hauri et al. 2009), and this may make crustose coralline 
algal species within the pinto abalone's range better able to adapt to 
the effects of ocean acidification. In addition, it is unclear how 
ocean acidification may affect the chemical cues that are believed to 
attract pinto abalone to settle on crustose coralline algae. Overall, 
climate change impacts such as ocean acidification could affect 
settlement habitat, but the effects are highly uncertain at this time.
    Oil spill and response activities were also identified as a concern 
for pinto abalone, for both the potential effects on habitat (substrate 
destruction or modification) and on the abalone themselves 
(environmental pollutant/toxins, under ``Other Natural or Man-made 
Factors''). These effects would be of particular concern where the 
species occurs in intertidal and shallower waters (e.g., Alaska and 
British Columbia). The threat of an oil spill is greater in areas with 
higher ship traffic and human development. If a spill were to occur, 
acute effects could be very damaging in the localized area of the 
spill. However, there is little information available on the effects of 
oil spills on subtidal habitats where pinto abalone tend to occur 
throughout most of their range, as well as little information available 
on the effects of oil on abalone.
    Overall, the best available information does not indicate that the 
threats discussed above have resulted in the destruction of or 
substantial adverse effects on pinto abalone habitat, or in curtailment 
of the species' range. Evaluations in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2009) 
and Washington (Vadopalas and Watson 2013) indicate that habitat does 
not appear to be a limiting factor for the species at this time. Future 
effects on the species' habitat and/or range may result from ENSOs/
PDOs/IPOs or the impacts of long-term climate change; however, the 
magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects are highly uncertain at 
this time. We conclude that the habitat threats discussed above are not 
contributing substantially to the species' risk of extinction now. The 
future impacts of climate- and/or oil spill-related habitat changes are 
highly uncertain, but based on past impacts our best judgment leads us 
to conclude that impacts will not contribute substantially to the 
species' risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational 
Purposes

    Fisheries harvest of pinto abalone for commercial and recreational 
purposes (i.e., prior to the fishery closures) has contributed to 
population declines and low densities throughout the species' range 
(see the ``Abundance'' section above). Harvest of pinto abalone is 
currently prohibited throughout the coast except in Alaska (i.e., for 
personal use and subsistence harvest) and Mexico. Data on harvest 
levels and the impacts on pinto abalone are not available for Alaska 
and Mexico. In Mexico, green and pink abalone are the focus of the 
abalone fishery, with other abalone species (including pinto abalone) 
making up only one percent of the abalone fishery (Boch et al. 2014). 
In Alaska, the daily limits for personal use and subsistence harvest 
were reduced in 2012 from 50 to 5 abalone per day. We do not have data 
to assess how this harvest level would affect pinto abalone populations 
in Alaska. ADF&G believes that personal use and subsistence harvest of 
pinto abalone is currently low (ADF&G comments to NMFS on 17 January 
2014). Bowers et al. (2011) found that the average subsistence harvest 
of pinto abalone ranged from 350-382 abalone per household in 1972 but 
decreased to 3-9 abalone per household in 1997. In recent interviews, 
local residents have indicated to ADF&G that they are not participating 
in the personal use fishery due to the lack of abalone (Bowers et al. 
2011). Based on this information, it is likely that personal use and 
subsistence harvest of pinto abalone in Alaska is low. The SRT 
expressed concern regarding the continued harvest of pinto abalone in 
Alaska and Mexico, but rated fisheries harvest as a Moderate threat 
overall, due to prohibitions on harvest throughout most of the species' 
range and what appears to be low levels of harvest in Alaska and Mexico 
presently. However, monitoring of harvest levels and pinto abalone 
populations is needed to obtain a better understanding of the impacts 
of these fisheries in Alaska and Mexico.
    The effects of past fisheries harvest on local densities still 
persist today throughout the species' range. Past harvest levels, 
particularly in commercial fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia, 
were not sustainable and reduced densities to very low or non-existent 
levels. Some populations (e.g., at the San Juan Islands Archipelago in 
Washington) appear to be experiencing recruitment failure. There are 
also a few areas where pinto abalone have not been observed in recent 
surveys in Washington and British Columbia. However, pinto abalone 
populations continue to persist throughout most survey sites. In 
addition, evidence of recent recruitment events have been observed at 
several areas throughout the species' range. Since the closure of 
abalone fisheries in British Columbia in 1990, small size classes of 
pinto abalone have been observed regularly during index site surveys at 
Haida Gwaii and along the Central Coast (two areas that once supported 
a large proportion of fisheries harvest) (COSEWIC 2009). Small pinto 
abalone have also been observed in surveys conducted within the last 10 
years off Alaska (pers. comm. with S. Walker, ADF&G, cited in status 
review report), California (pers. comm. and unpublished data from A. 
Bird, CSUF, and Ed Parnell, UCSD, cited in status review report), and 
Mexico (Boch et al. 2014), indicating recent recruitment events (see 
the ``Reproduction and Spawning Density'' section of this notice for 
more details). These observations show that densities at those 
locations remain high enough to support reproduction and recruitment, 
and also that we have much more to learn about the species' population 
dynamics and the factors influencing successful reproduction and

[[Page 78010]]

recruitment. For example, mean adult densities may not be an 
appropriate metric for predicting reproductive and recruitment success 
because it does not adequately represent the patchy distribution of 
abalone within an area. Fine-scale spatial distribution patterns (e.g., 
aggregations) may be more important for reproductive and recruitment 
success than the overall density of adults in an area.
    Reduced genetic diversity is a potential risk associated with low 
densities. Withler et al. (2001) provide the only published assessment 
of population structure in pinto abalone and found high levels of 
genetic variation in pinto abalone populations sampled at 18 sites 
throughout coastal British Columbia and at one site in Sitka Sound, 
Alaska. Unfortunately, research on populations throughout the remainder 
of the species' range has not been conducted, and thus the Wither et 
al. (2001) study represents the best available information. Based on 
this, the SRT expressed a moderate degree of concern, but most members 
felt that the species' genetic diversity likely remains high.
    Overall we conclude that past fisheries harvest has reduced the 
abundance of pinto abalone populations throughout its range, but not to 
a point that contributes substantially to the species risk of 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The presence of small, 
newly-recruited animals in multiple areas spanning the species' range 
(except for the San Juan Islands) suggests that abundance levels are 
not low enough to lead to repeated recruitment failure. The threat of 
overutilization from fisheries harvest has largely been removed, 
because fisheries harvest of pinto abalone has been prohibited 
throughout most of the species range. Presently, harvest of pinto 
abalone is only allowed in Alaska's personal use and subsistence 
fisheries and in Mexico. The best available information indicates that 
these fisheries are not contributing substantially to the species' risk 
of extinction; however, data on harvest levels are needed to better 
assess how these fisheries may be affecting the status of the species 
in Alaska and Mexico.

Disease or Predation

    Disease has been identified as a major threat to abalone species 
worldwide, with four significant abalone diseases emerging over the 
past several decades (withering syndrome, ganglioneuritis, vibriosis, 
and shell deformities). Pinto abalone are likely susceptible to all of 
these diseases, and have been confirmed to be highly susceptible to 
withering syndrome, a disease that has resulted in significant declines 
in black abalone populations throughout southern California. No 
infectious diseases affecting wild pinto abalone have been reported in 
Alaska, Washington, or California, but two abalone pathogens have been 
reported in British Columbia. To date, no outbreaks have been observed 
in wild populations and there is no evidence indicating that disease 
has been a major source of mortality in the recent past or currently. 
However, multiple sources and pathways exist for pathogens or invasive 
species to be introduced into wild pinto abalone populations, including 
aquaculture facilities and the movement of abalone (e.g., import, 
transfer) for aquaculture, research, and food/hobby markets (identified 
under the ``Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'' factor 
below). Great care is needed to closely monitor and manage these 
sources and pathways, to protect wild populations from potentially 
devastating pathogens and invasives.
    Abalone face non-anthropogenic predatory pressure from a number of 
consumer species such as gastropods, octopuses, lobsters, sea stars, 
fishes and sea otters (Ault 1985; Estes and VanBlaricom, 1985; Shepherd 
and Breen 1992). Pinto abalone have been exposed to varying predation 
pressure through time and this pressure is likely to continue. However, 
in the past, pinto abalone populations may have been better able to 
absorb losses due to predation without compromising viability. 
Specifically, predation by sea otters has been raised as a potentially 
significant factor in the continued decline and/or lack of recovery of 
pinto abalone populations in areas where the two species overlap.
    Sea otters were hunted to near extinction in the mid-1700s to 
1800s, but have begun to recover in recent decades with protection from 
the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, and the help of reintroductions in Southeast Alaska, 
British Columbia, and Washington in the late 1960s. Within the 
geographic range of pinto abalone, contemporary sea otter populations 
are present in Southeast Alaska, in two discrete population segments 
off British Columbia, from Cape Flattery to Destruction Island off 
Washington, from Half Moon Bay to near Gaviota on the mainland 
California coast, and at San Nicolas Island off southern California. 
Sea otter populations in these areas have been expanding in both 
abundance and distribution in recent years and are likely to continue 
to expand as the populations grow. Sea otters remain regionally extinct 
in the marine waters of Oregon and Baja California, Mexico.
    Available data on red abalone in California suggests that sea otter 
predation typically reduces red abalone density by about 90 percent 
(Ebert 1968, Lowry and Pearse 1973, Cooper et al. 1977, Hines and 
Pearse 1982, Ostfeld 1982, Wendell 1994, Fanshawe et al. 2003) and 
eliminates viable commercial and recreational harvests of red abalone 
(Wild and Ames 1974, Estes and VanBlaricom 1985). Relationships of sea 
otters with pinto, white, and black abalone are uncertain because of 
lesser overlap in habitat characteristics, especially water depth. Sea 
otters are known to feed on pinto abalone, but the level of predation 
pressure and effects on pinto abalone populations have not been 
directly investigated and remain poorly known. To our knowledge there 
are no published data documenting effects of predation by sea otters on 
pinto abalone at the population level.
    Continued growth of the sea otter population will encompass an 
increasing proportion of pinto abalone habitat and will increase the 
risk of predation by sea otters on pinto abalone populations. However, 
the effects are not clear. Observations by divers for the ADF&G on the 
outer coast of Southeast Alaska suggest that sea otters preferentially 
select red sea urchins and pinto abalone as prey when foraging in rocky 
subtidal habitats (Rumble and Hebert 2011). The dramatic increase in 
sea otter numbers and range has thus caused significant concern about 
benthic invertebrate fisheries in Southeast Alaska. However, in British 
Columbia, in at least two index sites where sea otters have been 
present for several years, densities of pinto abalone are higher than 
in areas with no sea otters (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, 24 April 
2014). At one of these sites, the density of mature abalone in 2011 
exceeded DFO's long-term recovery target of one abalone per sq m (pers. 
comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). As in other areas 
along the coast, however, data are not available to determine the 
natural population levels of pinto abalone prior to the local 
extirpation of sea otters in British Columbia in the early 1920s. Thus, 
we lack historical data with which to compare current density 
estimates.
    Sea otter predation will likely affect pinto abalone populations, 
but in no case has local extinction of any abalone population or 
species in the northeastern Pacific been documented as a result of 
predation by sea otters. Sea otters have been present in significant

[[Page 78011]]

numbers in the coastal North Pacific Rim since the Pleistocene, and in 
northern hemisphere oceans of the earth for approximately seven million 
years. It seems certain that undisturbed populations of sea otters and 
abalones can sustainably co-exist as a consequence of co-evolved 
interactions.
    Overall, the best available information indicates that threats 
associated with disease are not contributing substantially to the pinto 
abalone's risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Disease 
could pose a risk to pinto abalone in the future if an outbreak of 
sufficient magnitude and scope occurs among wild populations, but the 
likelihood of such an outbreak is difficult to predict. The SRT 
emphasized the importance of closely monitoring and managing potential 
sources and pathways by which pathogens or invasive species could be 
introduced to wild populations (e.g., import or transfer of abalone for 
aquaculture, research, and food/hobby markets). Such precautions are 
important for the protection of all abalone species throughout the 
coast.
    In addition, the best available information indicates that 
predation is not contributing substantially to the pinto abalone's risk 
of extinction presently or in the foreseeable future. Sea otter 
predation has likely contributed to continued declines and/or lack of 
recovery of pinto abalone populations where the two species overlap. 
However, we agree with the SRT's conclusion that sea otters and abalone 
can sustainably co-exist and that our criteria for healthy, sustainable 
abalone populations must account for the presence of sea otters in the 
ecosystem.

Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms

    Poaching has been a source of mortality for pinto abalone 
throughout their range since the establishment of harvesting 
regulations by the States and Canada. The problem of poaching clearly 
persists in some regions along the coast, particularly in British 
Columbia. The continued declines in mature pinto abalone densities at 
Haida Gwaii and along the Central Coast, despite the fisheries closures 
and observed recruitment events, were mainly attributed to illegal 
harvest (COSEWIC 2009). However, recent index site surveys in 2011 and 
2012 indicate a decline in annual mortality at both the Haida Gwaii and 
Central Coast sites and an increase in both immature and mature abalone 
densities (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). This 
decrease in annual mortality and increase in densities is most likely 
due to a decrease in poaching pressure as a result of existing 
regulatory mechanisms and outreach and education programs; however, it 
may also be due to other factors such as improved oceanographic 
conditions to support juvenile survival or the benefits of the 
fisheries closures finally being manifested in population recovery 
(pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 2014). We are not 
aware of any evidence indicating illegal harvest is currently occurring 
in Washington, although several cases of illegal harvest and laundering 
of pinto abalone product were investigated in the late 1980s and 
periodic cases of illegal sport harvest were reported after the 1994 
fishery closure (WDFW 2014). It is generally believed that current 
populations in Washington no longer exist at commercially-viable 
quantities, and the effort vs. reward deters poaching. WDFW enforcement 
covers the entire coast and includes at-sea monitoring of commercial 
and recreational fisheries and periodic patrols of commercial buyers 
and markets. However, Vadopalas and Watson (2013) identify poaching as 
a major threat to abalone in Washington. In other regions along the 
coast, poaching is recognized as a historical and future risk, but 
specific information on current levels of poaching is lacking. We are 
not aware of any enforcement cases or evidence for poaching, but 
continued efforts to enforce the regulations and monitor their 
effectiveness are needed to protect the species from this threat.
    As discussed above (under ``Disease and Predation''), the 
introduction of pathogens or invasive species was also a concern 
identified by the SRT, given the potentially high risks posed by 
disease to pinto abalone. Regulatory mechanisms are advisable to ensure 
adequate monitoring whenever animals are moved (e.g., imports, 
transporting between facilities) for aquaculture, research, and/or 
food/hobby markets, to protect wild populations from pathogens and 
invasive species. In California, state regulations require abalone 
health monitoring at aquaculture facilities and control the 
importation/exportation of abalone between facilities. The State also 
monitors aquaculture facilities for introduced organisms and disease on 
a regular basis and restricts out-planting abalone from facilities that 
have not met certification standards. These measures will likely reduce 
the transmission of pathogens or invasive species from aquaculture 
facilities. In Washington and British Columbia, where abalone 
hatcheries are operated in support of restoration efforts, disease 
monitoring is also conducted and precautions are taken to avoid and 
minimize the transmission of pathogens and invasive species. Some 
improvements to existing regulations are needed to further protect the 
species. Although a permit is required to import non-native abalone 
species into California, a permit is not needed to import native 
abalone species, even if the source of those abalone is outside of the 
U.S. This presents a potential risk because live abalone imported into 
the State could carry pathogens. Information is not available regarding 
the amount of native abalone species that are imported into the U.S. 
from other countries each year.
    Overall, based on the best available information, we conclude that 
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate and that existing 
deficiencies in regulatory mechanisms are not contributing 
substantially to the pinto abalone's risk of extinction now or in the 
foreseeable future. Prohibitions on the harvest of pinto abalone 
throughout most of the coast provide a high level of protection for the 
species. Poaching continues to occur in British Columbia; however, 
recent increases in abalone densities at index sites were most likely 
due to reduced poaching pressure as a result of enforcement and 
outreach efforts, although favorable oceanographic conditions and 
reduced harvest pressure could have also contributed to these 
increases. In other areas, information on poaching is limited. 
Enforcement measures are in place throughout the coast, but monitoring 
is needed to ensure illegal take is not occurring. In addition, 
regulations and measures have been implemented to minimize the risk of 
transmitting pathogens or invasive species to wild populations. 
However, some improvements are advisable (e.g., to regulations on live 
abalone imports) to further protect pinto abalone and other abalone 
species.

Other Natural or Man-Made Factors

    Among the other natural or human factors affecting pinto abalone, 
the SRT identified ocean acidification as a threat of greater concern. 
Ocean acidification is a concern particularly for early life stages 
because of the potential for reduced larval survival and shell growth, 
as well as increased shell abnormalities. The impacts of ocean 
acidification can be patchy in space and time and may develop slowly. 
Effects of ocean acidification on early life stages of pinto abalone 
are beginning to be understood. Laboratory studies indicate that 
reduced larval survival and shell abnormalities or decreased shell size

[[Page 78012]]

occur at elevated levels of CO2 (800 and 1800 ppm 
CO2), compared to lower levels (400 ppm CO2) 
(Crim et al. 2011). Friedman et al. (unpublished data) have also found 
reduced larval survival occurs at elevated pCO2 and are studying the 
synergistic effects of increased pCO2, varying temperature, and 
exposure to Vibrio tubiashii on early life stages of pinto abalone 
(results pending).
    Other climate-change related effects that may impact pinto abalone 
include increased water temperatures and decreased salinity (due to 
freshwater intrusions). Bouma's (2007) studies with cultured pinto 
abalone indicated that laboratory rearing temperatures of 11, 16, and 
21 [deg]C did not affect post-larval survival. Larvae tolerated 
temperatures of 12-21 [deg]C, with mortality at 24 [deg]C. Captive 
adult pinto abalone in Alaska showed no behavioral abnormalities at 2-
24 [deg]C, but high mortality at 0.5 [deg]C and 26.5 [deg]C. Low 
salinity intrusions from freshwater inputs to Puget Sound and the San 
Juan Islands Archipelago may also have negative effects on pinto 
abalone recruitment. In laboratory experiments, early life stages of 
pinto abalone appear to be intolerant to low salinities below 26 psu 
(Bouma 2007). Bouma (2007) found that when introduced into a halocline 
microcosm (where salinity levels change with depth along the water 
column), larvae actively avoided areas of lower salinity. Later larval 
stages appear to be more tolerant of sub-optimal salinity levels (Bouma 
2007).
    In evaluating the threat of ocean acidification and other climate 
change impacts, the SRT recognized that some information is available 
regarding the potential effects of ocean acification, elevated water 
temperatures, and low salinity intrusions on pinto abalone. However, 
the SRT also recognized that our understanding of these effects 
includes a high degree of uncertainty, due to limited studies involving 
pinto abalone and the uncertainty and spatial variability in 
predictions regarding ocean acidification and climate change impacts 
into the future. The overall level of data available is low, especially 
regarding how ocean acidification may affect the species throughout its 
range, given variability in local conditions throughout the coast, 
natural variation in ocean pH, species adaptability, and projections of 
future carbon dioxide emissions.
    Environmental pollutants and toxins are likely present in areas 
where pinto abalone have occurred and still do occur, but evidence 
suggesting causal and/or indirect negative effects on pinto abalone due 
to exposure to pollutants or toxins is lacking. In addition, very 
little is known regarding entrainment and/or impingement risks posed by 
coastal facilities. Direct effects would be focused on larval stages 
and be very localized in area. Despite uncertainties due to lack of 
data, the SRT felt that the risk posed by environmental pollutant/
toxins and entrainment or impingement is likely low given their limited 
geographic scope.
    Overall, the best available information regarding other natural or 
manmade factors affecting pinto abalone do not indicate that these 
factors are contributing substantially to the species' risk of 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Ocean acidification and 
climate change impacts could affect pinto abalone in the future; 
however, the magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects are highly 
uncertain at this time.

Analysis of Demographic Risk

    The SRT first identified a series of questions related to the four 
demographic risk criteria (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial 
structure/connectivity, and diversity), in order to structure their 
evaluation of these four criteria. For example, one of the questions 
related to the abundance criterion was: Is the species' abundance so 
low, or variability in abundance so high, that it is at risk of 
extinction due to depensatory processes? The SRT then assessed these 
questions using a voting process that was first used in an ESA status 
review by Brainard et al. (2011) to assess extinction risk for 82 coral 
species.
    For each question, each SRT member scored the likelihood that the 
answer to each question was true, by anonymously assigning 10 points 
across the following eight likelihood bins, developed by the IPCC 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007): exceptionally 
unlikely (<1 percent), very unlikely (1-10 percent), unlikely (10-33 
percent), less likely than not (33-50 percent), more likely than not 
(50-66 percent), likely (66-90 percent), very likely (90-99 percent), 
and virtually certain (>99 percent). The IPCC (2007) developed this 
approach as one method for assessing the uncertainty of specific 
outcomes using expert judgment and, where available, quantitative 
information. The IPCC (2007) used this approach to evaluate the 
probability of occurrence of different climate change model outcomes, 
whereas Brainard et al. (2011) used this approach to qualitatively 
evaluate the likelihood that different coral species would fall below a 
defined critical risk threshold. In this status review, the SRT applied 
this approach to qualitatively evaluate the likelihood that pinto 
abalone are at risk of extinction due to different demographic risks. 
For each question, the scores were tallied (mean and range for each SRT 
member and across all SRT members) and reviewed, and the range of 
perspectives was discussed by the SRT. Each SRT member then had the 
opportunity to change their scores before submitting their final 
scores. Below, we summarize the SRT's conclusions regarding demographic 
risks. Additional details are provided in the status review report.
    The SRT concluded that the risks to the species associated with 
abundance and population growth are moderate. Team members agreed that 
depensatory processes due to low and/or highly variable abundance or 
low population growth were a concern for pinto abalone in a number of 
locations (e.g., San Juan Island Archipelago, Alaska). Pinto abalone 
abundance and population growth have declined throughout the species' 
range, and, while there is some indication that recent recruitment has 
occurred in localized areas (e.g., Mexico, Point Loma, Palos Verdes, 
Mendocino County, British Columbia, Alaska), the rate of population 
growth is unknown. The SRT expressed some concern that population 
growth may not be occurring at a pace or extent sufficient to buffer 
against possible further declines due to processes happening over 
longer (e.g., PDO, IPO, climate change, and ocean acidification over 
decades; ENSO events over years) and/or uncertain time scales (e.g., 
cumulative oil spill impacts, poaching events, or harvest impacts). 
However, the SRT also expressed a high degree of uncertainty regarding 
the species' abundance and productivity.
    The majority of SRT members agreed that spatial structure and 
diversity pose a low risk to pinto abalone. The SRT expressed a low 
level of concern regarding loss of variation in life history traits, 
population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic 
characteristics. Most SRT members agreed that it is very unlikely that 
the species is at risk due to the loss of or changes in diversity, or 
due to alterations in the natural processes of dispersal, migration, 
and/or gene flow, or those that cause ecological variation. The SRT 
acknowledged that the species has experienced population declines and 
currently has a patchy distribution, but noted that the species has 
historically existed with a highly patchy distribution. The SRT was 
concerned about the potential loss of source populations or 
subpopulations in some areas due to past fishing pressure;

[[Page 78013]]

however, they also expressed a high level of uncertainty regarding this 
risk, given the limited information on source-sink dynamics for pinto 
abalone. Recent evidence of localized recruitment in a few areas, 
spread over a wide geographic range (Alaska to Mexico) suggests that 
local populations are dense enough to support reproduction. The SRT's 
prevailing justification for concluding that spatial structure and 
diversity pose low risk to pinto abalone was that other related species 
of abalone that were overfished (e.g., red, pink, and green abalone) 
and that may exhibit lower spatial connectivity and/or genetic 
diversity than is suspected for pinto abalone, made remarkable 
recoveries in many locations range-wide over a period of roughly two 
decades (see status review report).
    Overall, despite their high degree of uncertainty, the SRT members 
expressed low to moderate levels of concern for the majority of the 
questions and demographic categories. The SRT expressed a higher degree 
of uncertainty regarding the species' abundance and productivity and 
the risks posed by these demographic factors. However, none of the SRT 
members placed any of their likelihood points in the highest risk 
category (>99 percent) and they placed very few points (<5 percent) in 
the next highest risk category (90-99 percent) across all questions and 
demographic categories, indicating that no SRT member thought the risk 
of extinction of pinto abalone was virtually certain, or even very 
likely, due to any of the demographic risks identified.

SRT Assessment of Overall Extinction Risk

    In the overall risk assessment, the SRT considered the demographic 
risks together with the threats to evaluate the level of extinction 
risk faced by the species now and in the foreseeable future. Because 
data are not available to quantitatively assess the species' extinction 
risk (e.g., through development of a population viability model), the 
SRT adopted an approach similar to what has been done in previous NMFS 
status reviews, using a voting process to organize and summarize the 
professional judgment of the SRT members regarding the overall level of 
extinction risk to the species. We summarize the SRT's assessment and 
conclusions regarding extinction risk below. In the ``Final 
Determinations'' section of this notice, we considered the SRT's 
conclusions, along with the best available information regarding the 
status of the species and ongoing/future conservation efforts (see 
section titled ``Efforts Being Made to Protect the Species'') to 
develop a final determination regarding overall extinction risk to the 
species.
    For the purpose of this extinction risk analysis, the term 
``foreseeable future'' was defined as the time frame over which threats 
can be predicted reliably and over which their impacts to the 
biological status of the species may be observed. The SRT considered 
the life history of pinto abalone and the availability of data 
regarding threats to the species, and recommended two time frames for 
the foreseeable future.
    First, the SRT recommended a foreseeable future of 30 years, 
representing approximately three generation times for pinto abalone as 
defined in the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 
Red List assessment (McDougall et al. 2006) and the COSEWIC (2009) 
assessment for pinto abalone. This time frame is consistent with what 
was used to define the foreseeable future in the black abalone status 
review (VanBlaricom et al. 2009) and represents a reasonable time frame 
over which threats can be predicted reliably and impacts to the 
species' status would be observable.
    The SRT also recommended a foreseeable future of 100 years, because 
they felt that a time frame greater than 30 years may be needed to 
adequately consider the effects of longer-term threats, such as climate 
change, ocean acidification, ENSOs, and PDOs/IPOs. This time frame was 
used by Brainard et al. (2011) in their status review of multiple coral 
species that are affected by climate change and ocean acidification. A 
foreseeable future of 100 years represents a reasonable time frame over 
which we have some information on and predictions regarding longer-term 
threats and oceanographic regime shifts. However, the SRT also 
recognized that this longer time frame introduces more uncertainty into 
the assessment.
    NMFS agreed that the 30 year and 100 year time frames for 
foreseeable future were appropriate and asked the SRT to assess the 
overall level of extinction risk over both time frames. As stated 
above, the SRT assessed the overall level of extinction risk to the 
species now and in the foreseeable future (30 years and 100 years) 
using the likelihood point method (e.g., FEMAT method), in which each 
member distributed 10 likelihood points among the following five levels 
of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High 
risk. We summarize the SRT's assessment below; further details can be 
found in the status review report.
    Over both time frames, SRT members distributed likelihood points 
across all five extinction risk categories, with the majority of 
likelihood points placed in the Low risk and Moderate risk categories 
and very few (1-2) points placed in the Very High risk category. When 
considering a foreseeable future of 100 years, most of the SRT members 
shifted some likelihood points from the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories to the Moderate and High risk categories, expressing greater 
concern, but also greater uncertainty, regarding demographic risks and 
threats over the 100 year time frame compared to the 30 year time 
frame.
    For the overall risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years, 
the SRT distributed their likelihood points across the five extinction 
risk categories as follows (the first number represents the total 
points attributed by SRT members and the second number represents the 
total possible points, which was 80): No or Very Low Risk (11/80, or 14 
percent), Low Risk (33/80, or 40 percent), Moderate Risk (32/80, or 41 
percent), High Risk (3/80, or 4 percent), Very High Risk (1/80, or 1 
percent). Only one SRT member placed a likelihood point in the Very 
High risk category. Based on the likelihood point distributions, the 
SRT was fairly certain that the species has a Low to Moderate risk of 
extinction currently and in a foreseeable future of 30 years. Of the 80 
points distributed across categories, the SRT placed 76 points across 
the Very Low, Low, and Moderate risk categories. The categories with 
the greatest number of points were the Low risk (33 points) and 
Moderate risk (32 points) categories.
    For the overall risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years, 
the SRT distributed their likelihood points across the five extinction 
risk categories as follows: No or Very Low Risk (6/80, or 8 percent), 
Low Risk (24/80, or 30 percent), Moderate Risk (36/80, or 45 percent), 
High Risk (12/80, or 15 percent), Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 percent). 
Only two SRT members placed likelihood points in the Very High risk 
category. All but one SRT member (who made no changes to their point 
distribution when considering 100 years vs. 30 years) shifted some of 
their likelihood points from the No/Very Low and Low risk categories to 
the Moderate and High risk categories when considering a foreseeable 
future of 100 years rather than 30 years. This shift indicated that the 
SRT was more certain that the species has a Moderate risk of extinction 
currently and in the foreseeable future when considering a foreseeable 
future of 100 years vs. 30 years. Again, the SRT distributed most of 
their points (66 out of 80 points)

[[Page 78014]]

across the Very Low, Low, and Moderate risk categories.
    Overall, the SRT concluded that pinto abalone have a Low to 
Moderate level of extinction risk now and in the foreseeable future 
(over both the 30 year and 100 year time horizons). The SRT recognized 
that there is a high level of uncertainty regarding demographic 
factors, in particular regarding abundance and productivity levels. The 
main concerns highlighted by the SRT include declines in abundance and 
uncertainty regarding whether current abundance and productivity levels 
are sufficient to support the persistence and recovery of the species 
in the face of continuing and potential future threats. Long-term 
declines have been observed in surveyed areas throughout the species 
range. There is concern that these declines may be putting the 
populations at the San Juan Islands Archipelago at risk, because the 
populations appear to be experiencing recruitment failure. Throughout 
the rest of the species' range, densities remain low but recurring and/
or recent recruitment events have been observed and have even resulted 
in increased densities (of mature and all sizes of pinto abalone) at 
several index sites in British Columbia. Observed recruitment events 
indicate that demographic characteristics are sufficient to support 
reproduction in locations throughout the species range, but 
productivity is variable and occurring at undetermined rates. 
Observations suggest that abalone recruitment and populations, in 
general, are both temporally and spatially episodic. One of the main 
data gaps is the lack of historical data on the status of the species 
prior to fisheries harvest and prior to the removal of sea otters 
throughout most of the coast. Lacking this baseline for comparison 
further increases the uncertainty regarding how to interpret the 
limited demographic data available for the species, and points to the 
need for improved monitoring of pinto abalone populations throughout 
its range in order to adequately assess the species' status.
    The main reason for the increase in likelihood points for the 
Moderate risk category versus the Low risk category when considering a 
foreseeable future of 100 years was the general perception by most SRT 
members that the species is likely to face more challenging conditions 
over the longer time frame, given the currently available predictions 
regarding climate change impacts, ocean acidification, and increasing 
sea otter populations. However, the SRT also recognized that there is 
more uncertainty associated with our understanding of and predictions 
regarding these threats and their effects on the species over the 
longer time frame. Additional sources of uncertainty include: the lack 
of information regarding how naturally occurring events may affect the 
species into the future (e.g., IPOs, predation); the unpredictability 
of some threats (e.g., oil spills, climate change impacts); and the 
potential for pinto abalone to adapt to changing climate and 
conditions, as well as to recover from low abundances, which has been 
observed for other abalone species. We considered all of these factors 
when considering the SRT's assessment in our final determination of 
overall extinction risk for the species.

Consideration of ``Significant Portion of Its Range''

    The ESA defines an ``endangered'' species as ``any species which is 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range,'' and a ``threatened'' species as ``any species which is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' On July 1, 
2014, the USFWS and NMFS issued a final policy on the interpretation 
and application of the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
under the ESA (79 FR 37578; ``Final Policy''). Under this policy, the 
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an independent 
basis for listing a species under the ESA. In other words, a species 
would qualify for listing if it is determined to be endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range or if it is determined to be 
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. 
This policy defines the term ``significant'' as follows: ``a portion of 
the range of a species is `significant' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range.'' The range of the species is defined as 
``the general geographical area within which that species can be found 
at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination.''
    The Final Policy explains that it is necessary to fully evaluate a 
portion for potential listing under the ``significant portion of its 
range'' authority only if information indicates that the members of the 
species in a particular area are likely both to meet the test for 
biological significance and to be currently endangered or threatened in 
that area. Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for 
further review, but does not prejudge whether or not the portion 
actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed:

    To identify only those portions that warrant further 
consideration, we will determine whether there is substantial 
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and 
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that 
answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination 
that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a 
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in 
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is 
required (79 FR 37586; July 1, 2014).

    Thus, the preliminary determination that a portion may be both 
significant and endangered or threatened merely requires NMFS to engage 
in a more detailed analysis to determine whether the standards are 
actually met. Id. at 37587. Unless both are met, listing is not 
warranted. The Final Policy explains that, depending on the particular 
facts of each situation, NMFS may find it is more efficient to address 
the significance issue first, but in other cases it will make more 
sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially 
significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an 
affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id. 
(``[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not 
``significant,'' we will not need to determine whether the species is 
endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not 
endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to 
determine if that portion was ``significant.''). Thus, if the answer to 
the first question is negative--whether that regards the significance 
question or the status question--then the analysis concludes and 
listing is not warranted.
    In keeping with the process described in the Final Policy, to 
inform NMFS' assessment of whether pinto abalone are endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we 
asked the SRT to conduct a 3-step process. First, to help identify any 
potentially significant portions of the species' range, the SRT was 
asked to evaluate whether any portions of the range may be significant 
and whether the members of the species in those portions may be 
endangered or threatened. Second, if any potentially significant 
portions of the range were identified, we then asked the SRT to 
evaluate the level of extinction risk faced by the species within those

[[Page 78015]]

portions. Third, if the SRT's assessment of extinction risk indicated 
that the species is at risk of extinction now or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future within any of the portions, we asked the SRT to 
evaluate whether under a hypothetical scenario, the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the remainder of the species would 
be at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. If the SRT's 
assessment does not indicate that the species is at risk of extinction 
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future within any of the 
portions, then the SRT would not need to conduct this last step of 
examining the actual biological significance of the portion.
    Thus, under the process contemplated in the Final Policy and 
followed by the SRT, the status question was evaluated first, and the 
significance question would only be reached if the evaluation of status 
yielded a conclusion that the species is endangered or threatened in a 
particular portion. In fact, as is explained below, no portions of the 
range were evaluated for ``significance'' because the analysis 
indicated that no portions contained members of the species that were 
actually at risk of extinction presently or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future. We summarize the SRT's analysis below; the 
status review report provides further details. Final determinations 
were made by NMFS upon consideration of the SRT's evaluation (see 
``Final Determinations'' section of this notice).
    To identify potentially significant portions of the species' range 
(SPR), the SRT was presented the following portions and each member was 
asked to indicate (Yes/No) whether they thought the portion may be 
significant (based on the final SPR policy's definition of 
``significant'') and whether members of the species within that portion 
may be considered threatened or endangered: Alaska (AK), British 
Columbia (BC), San Juan Islands Archipelago (SJA), Northern California 
(NorCal), Southern California (SoCal), and Mexico (MX). Only two of the 
eight voting members indicated that British Columbia may be significant 
and only one member indicated that Alaska may be significant. None of 
the SRT members indicated that the remaining portions (SJA, NorCal, 
SoCal, and MX) may be significant. Overall, the SRT agreed that none of 
these portions contribute substantially to the viability of the species 
such that the loss of that portion would put the species in danger of 
extinction presently or in the foreseeable future. Thus, none of these 
portions were considered as potential SPRs on their own. However, at 
least half of the SRT members indicated that the species may be 
threatened or endangered in AK, BC, SJA, SoCal, and MX. These portions 
were considered together as a potential SPR, according to the approach 
by Waples et al. (2007) for identifying SPRs.
    The SRT also evaluated the following larger portions: (a) The 
Northern portion of the species range (AK/BC/SJA); and (b) the Southern 
portion of the species range (NorCal/SoCal/MX). The Northern and 
Southern portions were delineated based on the geographic proximity of 
the areas and what appears to be a natural gap in the species' range 
between Washington and California (based on the absence of pinto 
abalone observations along the outer coasts of Washington and Oregon, 
except for a handful of pinto abalone found off Oregon). More than half 
of the SRT members indicated that the Northern portion may be 
significant, because this portion encompasses a large part of the 
species' range, including areas that historically supported the 
greatest numbers of pinto abalone (British Columbia). More than half of 
the SRT members also indicated that the Northern portion may be 
threatened or endangered, based on the declines in pinto abalone 
abundance from historical levels, increasing sea otter populations in 
several areas, and what appears to be recruitment failure in the San 
Juan Islands Archipelago. More than half of the SRT members indicated 
that the Southern portion may be significant, based on the large area 
encompassed by this portion and evidence of recent recruitment 
throughout California and Mexico, which could benefit the species 
throughout its range. Half of the SRT members indicated that the 
Southern portion may be threatened or endangered based on the declines 
in pinto abalone abundance from historical levels, but expressed a high 
degree of uncertainty regarding this question. To be conservative, the 
SRT included both the Northern and Southern portions as potential SPRs 
for further consideration.
    The SRT was then asked to evaluate the level of extinction risk to 
the species within these three potential SPRs, using the same methods 
that were used to evaluate the overall extinction risk to the species 
throughout its range. For each of the three potential SPRs, each SRT 
member distributed 10 likelihood points among the following five levels 
of extinction risk: No/Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, and Very High 
risk. The SRT assessed extinction risk to the species now and in the 
foreseeable future, considering both a 30-year and a 100-year time 
frame for foreseeable future.
    For the Northern portion (AK/BC/SJA), the SRT concluded that pinto 
abalone have a low to moderate level of extinction risk now and in the 
foreseeable future over both the 30-year and 100-year time frame. 
Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of 
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years were as 
follows: No or Very Low Risk (14/80, or 18 percent), Low Risk (29/80, 
or 36 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (7/80, 
or 9 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). None of the SRT 
members placed likelihood points in the Very High risk category and few 
points were placed in the High risk category. The majority (54 percent) 
of likelihood points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories. The categories with the greatest number of points were the 
Low (29 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk categories. Likelihood 
points attributed to the categories for the level of extinction risk 
now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as follows: No or 
Very Low Risk (11/80, or 14 percent), Low Risk (19/80, or 24 percent), 
Moderate Risk (31/80, or 39 percent), High Risk (17/80, or 21 percent, 
Very High Risk (2/80, or 3 percent). When considering a foreseeable 
future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT members 
shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories to the Moderate and High risk categories. In general, more 
points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories (total: 
30 points) than in the High and Very High risk categories (total: 19 
points). The category with the greatest number of points was the 
Moderate risk category (31 points).
    For the Southern portion, the SRT concluded that the species has a 
Low risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years and 
a Low to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 
100 years. Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level 
of extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years were as 
follows: No or Very Low Risk (25/80, or 31 percent), Low Risk (37/80, 
or 46 percent), Moderate Risk (18/80, or 23 percent), High Risk (0/80, 
or 0 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). None of the SRT 
members placed likelihood points in the High or Very High risk 
categories. The majority (77 percent) of likelihood points was placed 
in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories; these were also the 
categories with the greatest number of points (25 and 37 points, 
respectively).

[[Page 78016]]

Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of 
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as 
follows: No or Very Low Risk (17/80, or 21 percent), Low Risk (28/80, 
or 35 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (5/80, 
or 6 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). When considering a 
foreseeable future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT 
members shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories to the Moderate and/or High risk categories. However, the 
majority of points remained in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories 
(total: 45 points or 56 percent). The categories with the greatest 
number of points were the Low (28 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk 
categories.
    For the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion, the SRT concluded that the 
species has a Low risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 
30 years and a Low to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a 
foreseeable future of 100 years. Likelihood points attributed to the 
categories for the level of extinction risk now and in a foreseeable 
future of 30 years were as follows: No or Very Low Risk (22/80, or 28 
percent), Low Risk (34/80, or 43 percent), Moderate Risk (23/80, or 29 
percent), High Risk (1/80, or 1 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 
percent). None of the SRT members placed likelihood points in the Very 
High risk category and only one member placed a likelihood point in the 
High risk category. The majority (71 percent) of likelihood points were 
placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories. The category with 
the greatest number of points was the Low risk category (34 points). 
Likelihood points attributed to the categories for the level of 
extinction risk now and in a foreseeable future of 100 years were as 
follows: No or Very Low Risk (15/80, or 19 percent), Low Risk (29/80, 
or 36 percent), Moderate Risk (30/80, or 38 percent), High Risk (6/80, 
or 8 percent), Very High Risk (0/80, or 0 percent). When considering a 
foreseeable future of 100 years rather than 30 years, most of the SRT 
members shifted some of their points from the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories to the Moderate and/or High risk categories. None of the SRT 
members placed any likelihood points in the Very High risk category and 
few points were placed in the High risk category. The majority (55 
percent) of points were placed in the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories. The categories with the greatest number of points were the 
Low (29 points) and Moderate (30 points) risk categories.
    Overall, the SRT expressed greater concern regarding extinction 
risk to the species within the Northern portion of its range (AK/BC/
SJA) than in the Southern portion (NorCal/SoCal/MX) or the AK/BC/SJA/
SoCal/MX portion (encompassing all areas excluding Northern 
California). The SRT focused on long-term declining trends throughout 
much of the Northern portion, and threats posed by continuing personal 
use and subsistence harvest in Alaska, the recovery of sea otter 
populations in several locations, and potential climate change and 
ocean acidification impacts. Evidence of recent and recurring 
recruitment in a number of areas throughout the Southern portion was a 
major factor in the SRT's assessment of lower risk for this portion and 
for the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion. For the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion, 
the majority of the SRT considered the inclusion of Southern California 
and Mexico as providing a buffer from threats that may be more 
pronounced in the Northern portion than in the Southern portion. The 
SRT also expressed greater concern, as well as greater uncertainty, 
regarding extinction risk to the species when considering a foreseeable 
future of 100 years compared to 30 years for all three portions.
    The SRT concluded that Low to Moderate risks to the species within 
any of these portions and over either time frame were the most 
plausible. The SRT did not believe that the species is likely to be at 
High or Very High risk of extinction in any of the portions over either 
time frame. In the ``Final Determinations'' section of this notice, we 
discuss our consideration of the SRT's conclusions in determining 
whether the species is at risk of extinction now or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future within any of these three potential SPRs.

Efforts Being Made To Protect the Species

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
consider ``efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, 
or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect 
such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and 
food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its 
jurisdiction or on the high seas.'' Therefore, in making a listing 
determination, we first assess a species' level of extinction risk and 
identify factors that have led to its decline. We then assess existing 
efforts being made to protect the species to determine if those 
measures ameliorate the risks.
    In judging the efficacy of certain protective efforts, we rely on 
the joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ``Policy for 
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' 
(``PECE'', 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides direction for 
the consideration of formalized conservation efforts, such as those 
identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management 
plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal agencies, state and 
local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and 
individuals), that have not yet been implemented, or have been 
implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness.
    In determining whether a formalized conservation effort contributes 
to a basis for not listing a species, or for listing a species as 
threatened rather than endangered, we must evaluate whether the 
conservation effort improves the status of the species under the ESA. 
Two factors are key in that evaluation: (1) For those efforts yet to be 
implemented, the certainty that the conservation effort will be 
implemented and (2) for those efforts that have not yet demonstrated 
effectiveness, the certainty that the conservation effort will be 
effective. Evaluations of the certainty an effort will be implemented 
include whether: The necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing) 
are available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that 
the necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there 
is a schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives; 
and (for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to 
ensure adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an 
effort's effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or 
plan: Establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the 
necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes 
quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and 
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and 
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing 
determination.
    PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the 
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness 
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration, 
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk 
assessment. The policy stresses that just as listing determinations 
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so 
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of

[[Page 78017]]

the listing determination. PECE does not provide explicit guidance on 
how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range may 
affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts 
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the 
species' overall viability.
    Conservation measures that may apply to listed species include 
conservation measures implemented by tribes, states, foreign nations, 
local governments, and private organizations. Also, Federal, tribal, 
state, and foreign nations' recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), 
Federal consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on 
taking (16 U.S.C. 1538) constitute conservation measures. In addition, 
recognition through federal or state listing promotes public awareness 
and conservation actions by Federal, state, tribal governments, foreign 
nations, private organizations, and individuals.
    The following is a review of the major conservation efforts and an 
evaluation of whether these efforts are reducing or eliminating threats 
by having a positive conservation benefit and thus improving the status 
of the pinto abalone.

Alaska: Pinto Abalone Monitoring Plan

    In the past, ADF&G has not conducted fishery-independent monitoring 
of pinto abalone populations. Instead, opportunistic observations of 
pinto abalone were recorded while surveying other species. The SRT 
identified this as an important data gap contributing to the high 
degree of uncertainty regarding the status of the species in Alaska. 
Fishery-independent surveys focused on pinto abalone will be 
particularly informative for assessing population abundance and trends 
in response to harvest pressure (e.g., from continuing personal use and 
subsistence harvest) and sea otter predation and, as needed, making 
sound management decisions.
    ADF&G recently conducted monitoring surveys for pinto abalone in 
Alaska. At the American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) 
conference in September 2014, a pinto abalone dive workshop was held in 
which participants surveyed eight sites within Sitka Sound (pers. comm. 
with K. Hebert, ADF&G, on 25 September 2014). Workshop participants 
counted and measured pinto abalone along transects and recorded habitat 
observations. The surveys are a first step toward developing a pinto 
abalone monitoring program in Alaska. In a letter to NMFS on October 6, 
2014 (Ingle 2014), ADF&G stated their commitment to developing a 
directed monitoring program for pinto abalone in Alaska. In partnership 
with the Sitka Sound Science Center, ADF&G was awarded a 2-year grant 
from Alaska Sea Grant to begin a monitoring program for pinto abalone 
and kelp forests in Sitka Sound. ADF&G plans to establish long-term 
monitoring at several index sites throughout southeast Alaska to 
estimate abalone density, population size structure, and abundance and 
to document habitat characteristics. The goal of such a monitoring 
program would be to monitor population trends over time. In addition, 
ADF&G plans to evaluate the impacts of sea otter predation on abalone 
through monitoring of index sites both within and outside of the 
current range of sea otters. ADF&G has already initiated efforts to 
seek funding for development and implementation of the monitoring 
program beyond the 2-year Alaska Sea Grant.
    Based on our judgment, development and implementation of a long-
term pinto abalone and kelp forest monitoring program will benefit the 
species in Alaska and inform our evaluation of the species status and 
ADF&G's future management decisions to address threats to the species. 
ADF&G has already conducted pilot surveys and begun establishing 
partnerships and seeking the funding needed to develop and implement 
the planned monitoring program. Thus, we believe that the level of 
certainty that this monitoring program will be implemented is fairly 
high, but the extent to which it is actually implemented will be 
dependent on funding. Implementation of this monitoring program would 
not reduce risks to the species, but it would provide data to inform 
our understanding of the species' status and provide the basis for 
future actions to reduce the species' extinction risk.

British Columbia: SARA Listing and Recovery Plan

    Pinto abalone are currently listed as endangered (i.e., facing 
imminent extirpation or extinction) in British Columbia under Canada's 
Species at Risk Act (SARA). This listing was based on continued low 
population numbers and declines despite the closure of abalone 
fisheries throughout British Columbia since 1990. The species was first 
assessed in 1999 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 
in Canada (COSEWIC) and designated as threatened by COSEWIC in 2000 and 
later under SARA in 2003. COSEWIC re-examined and up-listed pinto 
abalone to endangered in 2009, due to continued population declines 
primarily attributed to poaching (COSEWIC 2009). Up-listing to 
endangered status under SARA followed in 2011. Pinto abalone are also 
included on British Columbia's Red-list, with a global status of G3G4 
(indicating uncertainty regarding the species' status as vulnerable or 
apparently secure) and a provincial status of S2 (i.e., imperiled in 
the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted 
range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors making it 
very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province) (BC 
Conservation Data Centre 2014).
    SARA prohibits killing, harming, harassing, possessing, and buying 
or selling an individual or its parts (including the shell); these 
prohibitions apply to both farm-raised and wild pinto abalone (COSEWIC 
2009). Although fisheries harvest has been prohibited since 1990, 
poaching has continued to pose a major threat to pinto abalone in 
British Columbia (Lessard et al. 2007). To address this threat, 
protocols have been established to track abalone sold on the market, to 
deter the sale of wild abalone as cultured abalone (COSEWIC 2009). In 
addition, enforcement patrols, prosecution of poaching cases, and 
stewardship programs, such as the CoastWatch program, aim to reduce 
illegal harvest (DFO 2012). Preliminary data from the most recent index 
site surveys in 2012 and 2013 indicate a decrease in mortality 
associated with illegal harvest, likely due to these enforcement and 
stewardship efforts (pers. comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, on 24 April 
2014).
    In 2007, DFO finalized a Recovery Strategy (DFO 2007) for pinto 
abalone in Canada that sets goals and objectives for halting and 
reversing the decline of the species and identifies the main areas of 
activities to be undertaken. In 2012, the DFO finalized the Action Plan 
(DFO 2012) to guide implementation of the Recovery Strategy. The 
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan set specific population and 
distribution objectives as well as short-term (10-year) and long-term 
(30-year) recovery targets for pinto abalone. The Action Plan 
identifies recovery activities to address threats, monitor status, and 
support rebuilding of pinto abalone populations, and also identifies 
critical habitat for pinto abalone within four areas in British 
Columbia. Few activities were identified as likely to destroy critical 
habitat, and the overall estimated impact of works or developments in 
critical habitat areas was rated as low. An assessment protocol has 
been established that specifies criteria to avoid harmful alteration, 
disruption, or destruction of critical habitat (Lessard et al. 2007). 
This protocol applies to works or

[[Page 78018]]

development proposed to occur in, on, or under water within pinto 
abalone critical habitat. In addition to DFO's Recovery Strategy and 
Action Plan, several First Nations and coastal communities have 
developed area-based Community Action Plans with similar goals and 
objectives to support the long-term recovery of pinto abalone.
    Many of the protections and conservation efforts identified in the 
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have been ongoing for several years. 
DFO continues to conduct index site surveys every 4-5 years, providing 
valuable time series and size frequency data to monitor population 
status. Adult translocations have been conducted at various locations, 
and preliminary results from one site (Broken Group Islands) indicate 
success in increasing juvenile densities (Lessard et al. 2007, pers. 
comm. with Joanne Lessard, DFO, cited in COSEWIC 2009). Outplanting 
studies have also been conducted at various locations between 2000 and 
2010, through partnerships between DFO, First Nations, and other 
coastal communities (DFO 2012). Results from Barkley Sound show that 
outplanted abalone experience high mortality and/or emigration rates, 
but that outplanted individuals made up to 26 percent of the observed 
abalone at the sites (Read et al. 2012). Education and outreach efforts 
continue to raise awareness regarding the status of pinto abalone and 
reduce poaching pressure. Under DFO's Recovery Strategy and Action 
Plan, these protections and conservation efforts will continue to be 
implemented, evaluated, improved, and added to as new information 
becomes available.
    Based on the criteria in the PECE policy, in our judgment the DFO 
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan have a high certainty of 
implementation because many of the actions are ongoing and DFO has the 
management authority, resources, and partnerships to continue carrying 
out these actions. We also anticipate that implementation of the 
Recovery Strategy and Action Plan is highly likely to be effective at 
substantially reducing the overutilization of pinto abalone as well as 
the demographic risks facing the species. For example, preliminary 
results from the 2012 and 2013 index site surveys at Haida Gwaii and 
along the Central Coast indicate that the reduction in poaching has 
allowed populations to rebound, with densities at some sites exceeding 
the short-term recovery targets. We anticipate that ongoing and further 
protections and conservation efforts will benefit the status of the 
species in the foreseeable future, decreasing the species' extinction 
risk.

Washington: Ongoing Conservation Efforts and Draft Recovery Plan

    Since the early 2000s, the WDFW, Puget Sound Restoration Fund 
(PSRF), University of Washington, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, NOAA, and 
other partners have worked together to advance the recovery of pinto 
abalone in Washington State, focusing on the area around the San Juan 
Island Archipelago (see Vadopalas and Watson 2013). With the 
establishment of a hatchery for pinto abalone rearing and restoration 
studies at NOAA's Mukilteo facility in 2003, much progress has been 
made in the development of successful captive propagation and grow-out 
methods, as well as in understanding the effects of rearing conditions, 
salinity, temperature, and ocean acidification on abalone survival and 
behavior. Field studies have been conducted to inform the 
prioritization and development of enhancement activities, including 
abalone recruitment studies, experimental out-plantings with larvae and 
juveniles, adult aggregations, and tagging trials. In addition, a 
public outreach campaign was initiated to inform the public about the 
status of pinto abalone in Washington.
    A final recovery plan for pinto abalone in Washington (Vadopalas 
and Watson 2013) was developed in collaboration between WDFW, 
University of Washington (Friedman Lab), PSRF, NOAA NMFS Mukilteo 
Research Station, Baywater, Inc., Western Washington University's 
Shannon Point Marine Center, and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The 
plan summarizes the biology, life history, and status of pinto abalone 
in the San Juan Islands Archipelago, provides an overview of recovery 
efforts to date, and establishes a plan for recovering the species, 
including goals and objectives, recommended approaches, and an 
evaluation of potential recovery strategies. To achieve the long-term 
goal of halting the decline of pinto abalone and recovering populations 
to a self-sustainable level, the plan focuses on aggregation and 
supplementation activities, drawing upon what has been learned from 
collaborative restoration efforts thus far to guide future efforts.
    The plan includes clear objectives, identification of threats to 
the species, and a diversity of specific strategies to address those 
threats, including monitoring and evaluation criteria and an adaptive 
management approach. Implementation of the plan would ensure 
continuation of current protections, raise awareness of pinto abalone, 
and contribute to recovery through active enhancement efforts, using a 
multi-faceted approach involving investigation of several strategies 
(e.g., aggregation, out-planting) that have been shown to have the 
potential to enhance wild populations. We recognize that the plan is 
not a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document that has been 
vetted through a public review process. In addition, the plan does not 
identify funding sources to support the captive propagation and 
enhancement activities. WDFW has the legal authority and responsibility 
to carry out management (e.g., maintain harvest closures) and recovery 
of pinto abalone, and has already established partnerships that are 
needed to effectively carry out the plan. Based on the success of past 
and ongoing collaborative efforts, we are fairly certain that the 
protections and conservation efforts described in the plan will be 
implemented. However, funding will determine to what extent enhancement 
efforts are implemented, and we cannot be certain what amount of 
funding will be available at this time. Overall, we anticipate that 
implementation of the recovery actions under the recovery plan would be 
highly likely to be effective at substantially reducing the demographic 
risks currently facing pinto abalone populations at the San Juan 
Islands Archipelago and decrease the species' extinction risk.

California: Abalone Recovery and Management Plan

    In 1997, passage of the Thompson bill (AB 663) in California 
created a moratorium on the taking, possessing, or landing of abalone 
for commercial or recreational purposes in ocean waters south of San 
Francisco (including at all offshore islands), and also mandated the 
creation of an Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP), with a 
requirement that the California Fish and Game Commission undertake 
abalone management in a manner consistent with this plan. The ARMP was 
finalized by the CDFW and adopted by the California Fish and Game 
Commission in December 2005. It includes all of California's abalone 
species, providing a cohesive framework for the recovery of depleted 
abalone populations in southern California and for the management of 
the northern California fishery and future abalone fisheries. The 
recovery portion of the plan addresses all abalone species that are 
subject to the fishing moratorium (including pinto abalone), with the 
ultimate goal of recovering species from a perilous condition to a 
sustainable one, with a

[[Page 78019]]

margin of abalone available for fishing. The management portion of the 
plan applies to populations considered sustainable and fishable (e.g., 
the current red abalone fishery north of San Francisco), with the goal 
of maintaining sustainable fisheries under a long-term management plan 
that can be adapted quickly to respond to environmental or population 
changes. The ARMP identifies timelines, estimated costs, and funding 
sources for implementing the recovery and management actions.
    The recovery portion of the ARMP specifies several actions to 
assess the status of the species and enhance populations. These 
include: Exploratory surveys to evaluate current population levels and 
the location of aggregations; detailed surveys of known abalone 
habitat; assessment surveys to evaluate achievement of recovery 
criteria and goals; disease and genetics research; the development or 
support of existing culture programs; and out-planting and aggregation/
translocation feasibility studies and, if successful, large-scale 
efforts. Given limited resources, the plan primarily focuses on red, 
pink, green, white, and black abalone, because these species made up 
the majority of the commercial and recreational fishery and are more 
commonly encountered. The ARMP includes focused assessment surveys for 
pinto abalone, but other actions will be conducted in conjunction with 
those for the other species. For example, exploratory surveys for pinto 
abalone will be conducted as part of exploratory surveys for the five 
major species. Pinto abalone have been documented during surveys for 
other abalone species over the past 15 years, and will continue to be 
recorded during surveys for emergent abalone and monitoring of 
recruitment modules that have been deployed throughout southern 
California (4 sites) and in northern California (one site). Because the 
specific habitat and depth requirements of pinto abalone may differ 
from the other species, these surveys may or may not provide an 
accurate assessment of pinto abalone population levels in California. 
Enhancement activities (e.g., culture programs, out-planting and 
aggregation/translocation studies) will focus on the other abalone 
species. Although the information gained from these studies will likely 
benefit future enhancement efforts for pinto abalone, the direct 
benefits to the species are limited at this time.
    The ARMP also calls for the establishment of new marine protected 
areas or MPAs (in addition to those already established) to protect and 
preserve abalone populations. The State recently established new MPAs 
as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA; FGC Sec.  2852) 
process in areas throughout the California coast. Depending on their 
location and specific regulations, some MPAs may provide increased 
protection for pinto abalone and their habitat. In addition, the ARMP 
discusses enhanced enforcement efforts that include routine patrols of 
tidal areas, boat patrols, undercover operations, spot-checks of 
fishing licenses and abalone permit report cards, abalone checkpoints, 
and community outreach and education regarding overfishing and ocean 
stewardship. These efforts are likely to reduce the risk of poaching to 
pinto abalone.
    In our judgment, the recovery actions and increased enforcement 
efforts under the ARMP are not necessarily certain to occur due to 
funding limitations but would be beneficial to the persistence of pinto 
abalone. We anticipate enforcement efforts will help reduce extinction 
risk to the species by reducing the risk of overutilization and 
poaching, both of which were considered by the SRT to pose moderate 
risk to the species. In addition, assessment surveys for pinto abalone 
and opportunistic observations during surveys for other abalone will 
provide additional data to inform assessments of the species' status 
and trends. However, the lack of long-term monitoring and enhancement 
efforts focused on pinto abalone limits the effectiveness of the ARMP 
in addressing current demographic risks to the species. An important 
question is whether and how the habitat and depth distribution of pinto 
abalone may differ from other abalone species, to evaluate the degree 
of overlap between the species.

National Marine Sanctuary Regulations

    Three coastal national marine sanctuaries in California contain 
habitat suitable for pinto abalone: Channel Islands National Marine 
Sanctuary (CINMS), Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), and 
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS). At all three 
sanctuaries, the inshore boundary extends to the mean high water line, 
thus encompassing intertidal habitat.
    Federal regulations (which are similar at all three sites) for 
these National Marine Sanctuaries provide protection against some of 
the threats to pinto abalone. For example, direct disturbance to or 
development of pinto abalone habitat is regulated at all three 
sanctuaries by way of a prohibition on the alteration of, construction 
upon, drilling into, or dredging of the seabed (including the 
intertidal zone), with exceptions for anchoring, installing navigation 
aids, special dredge disposal sites (MBNMS only), harbor-related 
maintenance, and bottom tending fishing gear in areas not otherwise 
restricted. Water quality impacts to pinto abalone habitat are 
regulated by strict discharge regulations prohibiting the discharge or 
deposit of pollutants, except for effluents required for normal boating 
operations (e.g., vessel cooling waters, effluents from marine 
sanitation devices, fish wastes and bait). In addition, CDFW has 
established networks of marine reserves and marine conservation areas 
within the CINMS and along portions of the MBNMS, where multi-agency 
patrols provide elevated levels of enforcement presence and increased 
protection against poaching of pinto abalone.
    We anticipate that enforcement of these management plans and 
regulations will be effective at reducing the risk of poaching and 
habitat destruction or alteration for pinto abalone populations within 
the sanctuaries. The level of benefits to the species' status is 
uncertain, however, because we lack data to understand what proportion 
of the populations reside within the sanctuaries. Each of the 
sanctuaries is currently undergoing management plan review processes, 
which may result in changes to the regulations. However, the level of 
protection provided to pinto abalone is not expected to decrease, and 
possibly may increase should stricter regulations regarding large 
vessel discharges and proposed prohibitions on the release of 
introduced species be adopted.

IUCN and NMFS Species of Concern Listings

    The pinto abalone was added to the IUCN Red List in 2006 (McDougall 
et al. 2006). The IUCN listing raises public awareness of the species 
but does not provide any regulatory protections to address threats to 
the species. The pinto abalone was also added to the NMFS Species of 
Concern List in 2004 (69 FR 19975; 15 April 2004). Species of Concern 
are those species about which we have some concerns regarding status 
and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to 
indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. Although inclusion 
on the Species of Concern List does not carry any procedural or 
substantive protections under the ESA, it does draw proactive attention 
and conservation action to the species. In addition, funding under the 
Species of Concern grant program has been provided to support research 
and conservation efforts for pinto abalone in

[[Page 78020]]

the past, including components of Washington's pinto abalone recovery 
efforts, as described above, and studies on the effects of ocean 
acidification on pinto abalone. Funding for new grants, however, has 
not been available since 2011. In general, the listings under the IUCN 
Red List and NMFS Species of Concern List benefit the persistence of 
pinto abalone by promoting public awareness of the species. However, it 
is difficult to evaluate how effective this will be in reducing threats 
to pinto abalone.

Final Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the listing determination 
be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking 
into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign 
nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the 
species. We have reviewed the petition, public comments submitted on 
the 90-day finding, the status review report, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species 
experts and other individuals familiar with pinto abalone. We 
considered each of the five ESA statutory factors to determine whether 
any presented an extinction risk to the species on its own or in 
combination with other factors. As required by the ESA section 
4(b)(1)(a), we also took into account efforts to protect pinto abalone 
by the states, Tribes, foreign nations, or other entities and evaluated 
whether those efforts provide a conservation benefit to the species. On 
the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we conclude that the pinto abalone is not presently in danger of 
extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Below, we 
summarize the factors supporting this conclusion.
    In our assessment of the five ESA statutory factors, we agree with 
the SRT's conclusion that the identified stressors represent low to 
moderate threats to the species. Among the moderate threats, the SRT 
identified the following as threats of greater concern: Low densities 
resulting from historical fisheries harvest; illegal take due to 
poaching and inadequate enforcement; sea otter predation; and ocean 
acidification impacts. Prohibitions on pinto abalone harvest throughout 
most of the species' range have largely removed the threat of over-
utilization. Although populations continue to remain at low densities, 
recent/recurring recruitment events indicate that the densities are 
high enough to support successful reproduction and recruitment in 
Alaska, British Columbia, Northern and Southern California, and Mexico. 
Poaching was a major threat hindering the recovery of populations in 
British Columbia, but recent evidence indicates that enforcement and 
outreach efforts have been effective at reducing illegal take and 
allowing population numbers to increase. Regulations are in place, but 
continued enforcement and monitoring are needed throughout the range to 
evaluate their effectiveness. Sea otter predation has contributed to 
population declines and/or lack of recovery in pinto abalone 
populations where the two species overlap, but in no case has local 
extinction of any abalone population or species in the northeastern 
Pacific been documented as a result of predation by sea otters. 
Researchers in British Columbia have reported higher pinto abalone 
densities at survey sites where sea otters are present compared to 
sites where sea otters are absent (pers. comm. with J. Lessard, DFO, 24 
April 2014), showing that the population level impacts of increasing 
sea otter presence may vary. Overall, the SRT concluded, and we agree, 
that the two species can sustainably co-exist. Finally, ocean 
acidification could affect pinto abalone populations and their habitat 
in the future, but there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the 
magnitude, scope, and nature of these effects. Overall, we did not 
identify any factors or combinations of factors that are contributing 
significantly to the species' extinction risk now or in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, we conclude that pinto abalone are not endangered or 
threatened due to any of the five ESA statutory factors.
    In evaluating the overall risk to the species throughout its range, 
we relied on the SRT's assessment of overall extinction risk and the 
best available information regarding the species' status and ongoing 
and future conservation efforts. We asked the SRT to assess the overall 
level of extinction risk to the species now and in the foreseeable 
future, considering two time frames: 30 years and 100 years. Thirty 
years represents about three generation times for pinto abalone and is 
a reasonable time frame over which threats can be predicted reliably 
and their impacts to the biological status of the species may be 
observed. This time frame for foreseeable future is also consistent 
with what was used in the status review for black abalone (VanBlaricom 
et al. 2009) and by the IUCN (McDougall et al. 2006) and COSEWIC (2009) 
in their assessments of the status of pinto abalone. The 100-year time 
frame was also used to consider the impacts of longer-term threats, 
such as climate change and changes in oceanographic conditions, but 
introduces additional uncertainty into the analysis. We decided to 
consider the SRT's assessment over both time frames; however, we put 
more weight on the SRT's assessment over a foreseeable future of 30 
years, because there is greater certainty in this assessment (i.e., we 
can more reliably predict the threats and their impacts over the 30-
year time frame than the 100-year time frame). We note, however, that 
the SRT's assessment over both time frames led to the same conclusion 
regarding the species' extinction risk, as discussed below.
    Over the 30 year time frame, the SRT was fairly certain that the 
species faces a Low to Moderate risk of extinction, but expressed some 
uncertainty as to the severity of threats and demographic risks. This 
uncertainty is expected, given the wide distribution of the species and 
varying levels of data available for different regions. The SRT placed 
the majority (55 percent) of their likelihood points in the No/Very Low 
and Low risk categories, indicating that Low risk may be more plausible 
over the 30 year time frame.
    We also considered the SRT's assessment over a foreseeable future 
of 100 years. The SRT again concluded that the species has a Low to 
Moderate risk of extinction, but perceived slightly greater risk (i.e., 
increased points in the Moderate risk category) to the species over a 
foreseeable future of 100 years compared to a foreseeable future of 30 
years, citing increased concern regarding long-term threats such as 
ocean acidification, climate change impacts, and increasing sea otter 
predation. Again, the SRT noted increased uncertainty regarding these 
threats and their effects on the status of pinto abalone over the 100 
year time frame. Although the perceived risk is slightly greater over 
the 100 year time-frame, the analysis ultimately indicated a Low to 
Moderate risk of extinction, consistent with the analysis over the 30 
year time-frame.
    In our evaluation of ongoing and future conservation efforts for 
pinto abalone, we found that conservation efforts throughout 
California, the San Juan Islands Archipelago, and British Columbia are 
highly likely to reduce threats to the species and its habitat. At the 
San Juan Islands Archipelago and British Columbia, enhancement 
activities directly focused on pinto

[[Page 78021]]

abalone are highly likely to benefit pinto abalone populations and 
reduce the demographic risks currently affecting the species. Thus, 
these ongoing and future conservation efforts will further reduce the 
species' extinction risk now and in the foreseeable future, 
particularly in British Columbia and at the San Juan Islands 
Archipelago where the SRT expressed the most concern. Based on our 
evaluation of the best available information regarding the species' 
status and threats, the SRT's assessment of extinction risk, and our 
assessment of conservation efforts, we conclude that the pinto abalone 
has a Low to Low/Moderate risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable 
future. Based on our judgment, a Low to Low/Moderate risk of extinction 
indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range.
    In evaluating the overall risk to the species within a significant 
portion of its range, we relied on the SRT's identification and 
assessment of potential SPRs. The SRT identified three potential SPRs: 
A Northern portion (AK/BC/SJA), a Southern portion (NorCal/SoCal/MX), 
and a portion encompassing the whole range excluding Northern 
California (AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX). The SRT concluded that the Southern 
portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion of the species range have a Low 
risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 30 years and Low 
to Moderate risk of extinction now and in a foreseeable future of 100 
years. For the same reasons as stated above, we considered the SRT's 
assessment for both time frames, but put more weight on the SRT's 
assessment over a foreseeable future of 30 years. Over both time 
frames, the SRT indicated that extinction risk of No/Very Low to Low 
was most plausible for the Southern portion (76 percent of points over 
a foreseeable future of 30 years; 56 percent of points over a 
foreseeable future of 100 years) and for the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion 
(71 percent of points over a foreseeable future of 30 years; 55 percent 
of points over a foreseeable future of 100 years). The SRT was more 
certain of a No/Very Low to Low risk to the species over a foreseeable 
future of 30 years, whereas there was some uncertainty regarding 
whether the species may have a Low to Moderate risk over a foreseeable 
future of 100 years. As stated above, there are ongoing and future 
conservation efforts throughout California, San Juan Islands 
Archipelago, and British Columbia that have a high likelihood of 
reducing threats and demographic risks to the species. Based on the 
best available information regarding the species' status, the SRT's 
assessment of extinction risk, and our analysis of conservation 
efforts, we conclude that pinto abalone has a Low risk of extinction 
throughout the Southern portion and AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion now and 
in the foreseeable future. Based on our judgment, a Low risk of 
extinction indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
the Southern portion or AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX portion of its range. 
Therefore, we determined that the species is not endangered or 
threatened throughout the Southern portion or the AK/BC/SJA/SoCal/MX 
portion of its range and did not need to address the question of 
whether these two potential SPRs are indeed significant.
    For the potential SPR in the Northern portion of the species' range 
(AK/BC/SJA), the SRT concluded that there is a Low to Moderate risk of 
extinction now and in the foreseeable future (30 years and 100 years). 
For the same reasons as stated above, we considered the SRT's 
assessment for both time frames, but put more weight on the SRT's 
assessment over a foreseeable future of 30 years. When considering a 
foreseeable future of 30 years, the SRT placed the majority (54 
percent) of their likelihood points in the No/Very Low and Low risk 
categories, indicating that No/Very Low to Low risk was the most 
plausible. When considering a foreseeable future of 100 years, the SRT 
indicated that Low to Moderate risk is more plausible, but expressed 
greater uncertainty regarding their assessment of risk because of 
greater uncertainty regarding threats (e.g., climate change, ocean 
acidification, sea otter predation) and how they might affect pinto 
abalone into the future. We note that even over the 100 year time 
frame, the number of points in the No/Very Low and Low risk categories 
(total: 30 points) were almost equal to the number of points in the 
Moderate risk categories (31 points). Most of the SRT members expressed 
concern regarding the lack of population data in Alaska and the 
declines in pinto abalone abundance in British Columbia and at the San 
Juan Islands Archipelago. However, SRT members also noted evidence for 
recent/recurring recruitment in both Alaska and British Columbia and 
recent signs of recovery in British Columbia under the SARA protections 
and decreased poaching pressure. We found that in both British Columbia 
and at the San Juan Islands Archipelago, protective regulations and 
conservation efforts have been implemented that have a high likelihood 
of substantially reducing the demographic risks and threats facing the 
species. In both regions, Federal, state, and local governmental 
entities, Tribes, and non-governmental organizations have established 
strong partnerships and are working together on ongoing conservation 
and enhancement activities for the recovery of pinto abalone. In 
addition, ADF&G has indicated that they will conduct monitoring surveys 
for pinto abalone to better assess the species' status in Alaska. Based 
on the best available information regarding the species' status, the 
SRT's assessment of extinction risk, and our assessment of conservation 
efforts, we concluded that pinto abalone have a Low to Low/Moderate 
risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable future throughout the 
Northern portion. Based on our judgment, a Low to Low/Moderate risk 
indicates that pinto abalone are not presently in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout the 
Northern portion of its range. Therefore, we determined that the 
species is not endangered or threatened throughout the Northern portion 
of its range and did not need to address the question of whether this 
potential SPR is indeed significant.
    Based on these findings, we conclude that the pinto abalone is not 
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Accordingly, the pinto abalone does not meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species and therefore the 
pinto abalone does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at 
this time. However, the species will remain on our NMFS Species of 
Concern list, with one revision to apply the Species of Concern status 
to the species throughout its range (currently, the Species of Concern 
status applies only to the species range from Alaska to Point 
Conception). We will continue to encourage research, monitoring, and 
conservation efforts for the species throughout its range.
    We recognize that the status of pinto abalone has been assessed by 
various groups at the State and international level. Pinto abalone are 
considered a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (i.e., not State ESA 
listed, but needing conservation action or additional information) and 
a Candidate Species for State ESA listing in Washington; as Endangered 
in Canada under SARA (as of 2011; originally listed as Threatened in 
2003); and as Endangered on the

[[Page 78022]]

IUCN Red List as of 2006. However, these assessments and their 
conclusions do not directly inform our analysis of extinction risk for 
the pinto abalone. First, the criteria used for assessing whether a 
species warrants listing under the State ESA, Canada's SARA, or the 
IUCN Red List are different than the standards for making a 
determination that a species warrants listing as threatened or 
endangered under the Federal ESA. Second, the geographic scope 
considered in these assessments differed from the scope of our 
analysis. Washington State's review focuses on the status of the 
species within state waters. Canada's SARA listing focused on the 
status of the species within British Columbia, and also did not 
incorporate more recent data that has become available since 2011, 
showing decreased poaching pressure and increasing abundances at index 
survey sites. The IUCN Red List assessment focused on the status of the 
northern form of pinto abalone (Point Conception to Alaska), and was 
largely based on population trends in Alaska and British Columbia 
(McDougall et al. 2006). McDougall et al. (2006) cited the lack of 
overlap in abundance and low presence of the southern form relative to 
other California abalone species as reasons for focusing on the 
northern form. However, as we have discussed above (see ``The Species 
Question'' section), more recent evidence indicates that the degree of 
overlap between the northern and southern form is greater than 
previously thought. We considered the pinto abalone as one species 
throughout its range due to the lack of genetic, geographic, or 
ecological justification for treating the northern and southern forms 
as separate species. In addition, the ESA does not allow the 
consideration of distinct population segments for invertebrate species. 
Thus, our analysis of the species' status under the Federal ESA 
considered different standards and a broader geographic scope than 
these previous assessments.
    In this status review, we identified several important data gaps 
that need to be addressed to inform our understanding of the status of 
the species. These data gaps include: pinto abalone abundance and 
trends in Alaska, California, and Mexico; past and present fisheries 
harvest levels in Alaska and Mexico; and the presence, distribution, 
and abundance of pinto abalone along the outer coast of Washington and 
Oregon. We encourage the following research and monitoring efforts to 
address these data gaps.
     In Alaska: (a) Establishment of regular, long-term 
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and 
distribution; and (b) monitoring and management of personal use and 
subsistence harvest to minimize impacts to pinto abalone. As discussed 
under the ``Summary of factors affecting the species'' (see the section 
on ``Overutilization''), ADF&G believes that personal use and 
subsistence harvest is currently low, but regulations still allow 
harvest of up to five pinto abalone per person per day. Monitoring 
would provide the data needed to estimate current harvest levels and to 
evaluate the impacts of these harvest levels (allowed and actual) on 
the pinto abalone population in Alaska.
     In Washington: Surveys to evaluate the presence, 
abundance, and distribution of pinto abalone along the outer coast of 
Washington.
     In Oregon: Surveys to evaluate the presence, abundance, 
and distribution of pinto abalone along the outer coast of Oregon. 
Revision of the fisheries regulations may also be needed to clarify 
that harvest of pinto abalone is prohibited.
     In California: Establishment of regular, long-term 
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and 
distribution.
     In Mexico: (a) Establishment of regular, long-term 
monitoring of pinto abalone population abundance, trends, and 
distribution; and (b) monitoring of pinto abalone harvest and, as 
needed, management measures to minimize impacts of fisheries harvest on 
pinto abalone. As discussed under the ``Summary of factors affecting 
the species'' (see the section on ``Overutilization''), current harvest 
levels of pinto abalone in Mexico are thought to be low. Monitoring 
would provide the data needed to estimate current harvest levels and 
their impacts on the pinto abalone population in Mexico.

Given the data gaps and uncertainties associated with our current 
understanding of the status of the species, we plan to retain pinto 
abalone on the NMFS Species of Concern list with one revision to apply 
the Species of Concern status throughout the species' range (Alaska to 
Mexico).

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available on the 
NMFS West Coast Region Web site (https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/) and upon request (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30345 Filed 12-22-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P