Proposed Rule To List the Sunflower Sea Star as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act, 16212-16229 [2023-05340]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16212-16229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 230309-0070; RTID 0648-XR120]


Proposed Rule To List the Sunflower Sea Star as Threatened Under 
the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review for the 
sunflower sea star, Pycnopodia helianthoides, in response to a petition 
to list this species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). Based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available, including the draft status review report, and 
after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, we 
have determined that the sunflower sea star is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range. 
Therefore, we propose to list the sunflower sea star as a threatened 
species under the ESA. Should the proposed listing be finalized, any 
protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA would be proposed 
in a separate Federal Register notice. We do not propose to designate 
critical habitat at this time because it is not currently determinable. 
We are soliciting information to inform our final listing 
determination, as well as the development of potential protective 
regulations and critical habitat designation.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule to list the sunflower sea star 
must be received by May 15, 2023. Public hearing requests must be made 
by May 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130, by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov 
and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130 in the Search box. Click on the 
``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach 
your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Dayv Lowry, NMFS West 
Coast Region Lacey Field Office, 1009 College St. SE, Lacey, WA 98503, 
USA.
     Fax: 360-753-9517; Attn: Dayv Lowry.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personally identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    The petition, draft status review report (Lowry et al. 2022), 
Federal Register notices, and the list of references can be accessed 
electronically online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/sunflower-sea-star. The peer review plan and charge to peer reviewers 
are available at https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/peer-review-plans.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayv Lowry, NMFS, West Coast Region 
Lacey Field Office, (253) 317-1764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 18, 2021, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity to list the sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia 
helianthoides) as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. On 
December 27, 2021, we published a positive 90-day finding (86 FR 73230, 
December 27, 2021) announcing that the petition presented substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted. We also announced the initiation of a status 
review of the species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, 
and requested information to inform the agency's decision on whether 
this species warrants listing as threatened or endangered.

[[Page 16213]]

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    To make a determination whether a species is threatened or 
endangered under the ESA, we first consider whether it constitutes a 
``species'' as defined under section 3 of the ESA, and then whether the 
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or 
endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include subspecies 
and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) 
which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Because the 
sunflower sea star is an invertebrate, the ESA does not permit us to 
consider listing DPSs.
    Section 3 of 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 one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, in the 
context of the ESA, we interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one 
that is presently in danger of extinction, while a ``threatened 
species'' is not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). The 
primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered 
species is the timing of when a species is in danger of extinction, 
either presently (endangered) or not presently but within the 
foreseeable future (threatened). Being in danger of extinction 
``presently'' does not mean that the possible extinction event is 
necessarily now.
    When we consider whether a species qualifies as threatened under 
the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the 
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the 
species can be reasonably relied upon. What constitutes the foreseeable 
future for a particular species depends on factors such as life history 
parameters, habitat characteristics, availability of data, the nature 
of specific threats, the ability to predict impacts from threats, and 
the reliability of forecasted effects of these threats on the status of 
the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible 
to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or 
which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future may 
not be reducible to a discrete number of years.
    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range as a result of any one, or a combination of, the 
following factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are also 
required to make listing determinations based solely on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of 
the species' status and after taking into account efforts, if any, 
being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to 
protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).

Status Review

    After publishing the 90-day finding indicating that listing may be 
warranted for the sunflower sea star, the NMFS West Coast Regional 
Office convened a Status Review Team (SRT) composed of marine 
biologists, ecologists, statisticians, and natural resource managers 
from the NMFS Alaska and West Coast Regional Offices; NMFS Alaska, 
Northwest, and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers; United States 
Geological Survey; and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This 
team also received input from state, provincial, tribal, non-profit, 
and academic experts. The SRT compiled and synthesized all available 
information into a comprehensive draft status review report (Lowry et 
al. 2022, see ADDRESSES section). The draft status review report 
summarizes the best available scientific and commercial information on 
the biology, ecology, life history, and status of the sunflower sea 
star, as well as stressors and threats facing the species. The SRT also 
considered information submitted by the public in response to our 90-
day petition finding (86 FR 73230; December 27, 2021).
    The draft status review report is undergoing independent peer 
review as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final 
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 
2004) concurrent with public review of this proposed rule. Independent 
specialists were selected from the academic and scientific community, 
with expertise in sea star biology, conservation policy, and applied 
natural resource management. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate 
the adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the 
status review, including the extinction risk analysis. The peer review 
plan and charge statement are available on NOAA's website (see 
ADDRESSES section). All peer reviewer comments will be made publicly 
available and addressed prior to dissemination of the final status 
review report and publication of the final listing decision.
    Below is a summary of the biology and ecology of the sunflower sea 
star, accompanied by an evaluation of threats facing the species, and 
resulting extinction risk. This information is presented in greater 
detail in the draft status review report (Lowry et al. 2022), which is 
available on our website (see ADDRESSES section). In addition to 
evaluating the status review, we independently applied the statutory 
provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of protective efforts set 
forth in section 4(b)(1)(A) and our regulations regarding listing 
determinations at 50 CFR part 424, to making our determination that the 
sunflower sea star meets the definition of a threatened species under 
the ESA.

Description, Life History, and Ecology of the Petitioned Species

Species Taxonomy and Description

    The sunflower sea star was originally described as Asterias 
helianthoides by Brandt (1835), a species of sea star unique in having 
16 to 20 rays (arms) and found in coastal marine waters near Sitka, 
Alaska. Stimpson (1861) later designated it as the type species of the 
new genus Pycnopodia and as the only known species of the family 
Pycnopodiidae. Fisher (1922) described the Pacific starfish 
Lysastrosoma anthosticta as a new species, stating it was closely 
related to Pycnopodia, and subsequent authors have included only these 
two species in the subfamily Pycnopodiinae. Pycnopodia helianthoides 
has no known synonyms, and the validity of the species has not been 
questioned in the taxonomic literature. Therefore, based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the 
scientific consensus is that P. helianthoides is a taxonomically 
distinct species and, therefore, meets the definition of ``species'' 
pursuant to section 3 of the ESA. Below, we evaluate whether this 
species warrants listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    The sunflower sea star is among the largest sea stars in the world, 
reaching over 1 meter (m) in total diameter from ray tip to ray tip 
across the central disk.

[[Page 16214]]

The sunflower sea star and closely related Pacific starfish are 
distinguished from other co-occurring sea stars by their greatly 
reduced abactinal (dorsal) skeleton with no actinal plates, and by 
their prominently crossed pedicellariae (Fisher 1928). Very young 
sunflower sea stars generally have fewer than a dozen arms, and 
additional arms are added by budding in symmetrical pairs as the 
individual grows. Other sea stars in the northern Pacific Ocean with 
many arms include several sun stars of the genera Solaster, Crossaster, 
and Rathbunaster; however, these species generally have 8 to 17 arms, 
as opposed to the 16 to 20 arms commonly found in the sunflower sea 
star, and all of the sun stars are considerably smaller and less 
massive (Fisher 1906).

Range, Distribution, and Habitat Use

    The documented geographic range of the sunflower sea star spans the 
Northeastern Pacific Ocean from the Aleutian Islands to Baja California 
(Sakashita 2020). This range includes 33 degrees of latitude (3,663 km) 
across western coasts of the continental United States, Canada, and 
northern Mexico. The farthest reaches of sunflower sea star 
observations include: northernmost--Bettles Bay, Anchorage, Alaska 
(Gravem et al., 2021); westernmost--central and eastern Aleutian 
Islands (Kuluk Bay, Adak Island east to Unalaska Island, Samalga Pass, 
and Nikolski) (Feder 1980; O'Clair and O'Clair 1998; Jewett et al. 
2015; Gravem et al. 2021); and southernmost--Bahia Asunci[oacute]n, 
Baja California Sur, Mexico (Gravem et al. 2021). The sunflower sea 
star is generally most common from the Alaska Peninsula to Monterey, 
California.
    The sunflower sea star has no clear associations with specific 
habitat types or features and is considered a habitat generalist 
(Gravem et al. 2021 and citations therein). The large geographic and 
depth range of the sunflower sea star indicates this species is well 
adapted for a wide variety of environmental conditions and habitat 
types. The species is found along both outer coasts and inside waters, 
which consist of glacial fjords, sounds, embayments, and tidewater 
glaciers. Preferring temperate waters, they inhabit kelp forests and 
rocky intertidal shoals (Hodin et al. 2021), but are regularly found in 
eelgrass meadows as well (Dean and Jewett 2001; Gravem et al. 2021). 
Sunflower sea stars occupy a wide range of benthic substrates including 
mud, sand, shell, gravel, and rocky bottoms while roaming in search of 
prey (Konar et al. 2019; Lambert et al. 2000). They occur in the low 
intertidal and subtidal zones to a depth of 435 m but are most common 
at depths less than 25 m and rare in waters deeper than 120 m (Fisher 
1928; Lambert 2000; Hemery et al. 2016; Gravem et al. 2021). This 
characterization of their prevalence across depth ranges, however, may 
be biased by: (1) differential sampling methods and effort, with SCUBA-
based observations dominating records; and (2) the propensity to record 
all sea stars as ``sea star unidentified'' when they occur as 
incidental bycatch in various survey and fishery records.

Reproduction, Growth, and Longevity

    Most sea star species, including the sunflower sea star, have 
separate sexes that are externally indistinguishable from one another, 
and each ray of an adult contains a pair of gonads (Chia and Walker 
1991). In the sunflower sea star, gonads are elongated, branched sacs 
that fill the length of each ray when ripe (Chia and Walker 1991). 
Gametes are broadcast through gonopores on each ray into the 
surrounding seawater and fertilization occurs externally. Fertilized 
larvae develop through pelagic planktotrophic stages, capturing food 
with ciliary bands (Strathmann 1971; 1978; Byrne 2013).
    A number of environmental factors, such as food availability, 
seawater temperature, photoperiod, salinity, and the lunar cycle, may 
control seasonality of sea star reproductive cycles (Chia and Walker 
1991; Pearse et al. 1986). Although the reproductive season of several 
Northeast Pacific sea stars have been estimated by following oocyte-
diameter frequency distributions (e.g., Farmanfarmaian et al. 1958; 
Mauzey 1966; Pearse and Eernisse 1982), to the best of our knowledge no 
one has conducted such studies in free-ranging sunflower sea stars. 
However, a number of researchers have estimated reproductive 
seasonality of the species based on observations of either field or 
laboratory spawning. Mortenson (1921) reported that sunflower sea stars 
breed from May through June at Nanaimo, British Columbia, while Greer 
(1962) collected adult broodstock from the intertidal zone at San Juan 
Island, Washington, and reported spawning in March and April. Feder 
(1980) obtained fertilizable eggs from December through June in 
California, and Strathmann (1987) stated that spawning occurs from late 
March through July, peaking from May through June with some large males 
spawning into December and January. More recently, Hodin et al. (2021) 
suggested that the reproductive season for females begins in November 
through January and ends in April and May in Washington. It is possible 
that a slightly altered photoperiod and constant availability of food 
for these lab-held specimens, however, may have caused individuals to 
exhibit altered reproductive seasonality, explaining the apparent 
discrepancy. Hodin et al. (2021) also note that the reproductive season 
for females occurs later in Alaska.
    Typically, sea stars with planktotrophic larval (i.e., reliant on 
planktonic prey) development from the Northwest Pacific Ocean spawn in 
late winter or early spring, which provides the best growing conditions 
for their offspring by synchronizing their occurrence with the spring 
phytoplankton bloom (Menge 1975; Strathmann 1987). The spawning seasons 
of several other sea stars with planktotrophic larval development in 
the Pacific Northwest and on the U.S. West Coast occurs between March 
and August (Mortensen 1921; Farmanfarmaian et al. 1958; Mauzey 1966; 
Feder 1980; Fraser et al. 1981; Pearse and Eernisse 1982; Strathmann 
1987; Pearse et al. 1988; Sanford and Menge 2007). In addition, many 
temperate sea stars, such as the ochre star (Pisaster ochraceus), have 
seasonal, cyclical feeding patterns, such that feeding activity is 
reduced during the late fall and winter (Feder 1980; Mauzey 1966; 
Sanford and Menge 2007). This may also be the case for the sunflower 
sea star but direct documentation of this phenomenon is lacking. 
Planktotrophic larvae of the sunflower sea star developing during 
winter (November to February) in the Northeast Pacific Ocean would be 
at a distinct disadvantage due to the scarcity of planktonic algae at 
that time.
    We were unable to find direct estimates of fecundity for female 
sunflower sea stars anywhere in the literature or in unpublished 
records. However, Strathmann (1987) states that ripe ovaries of 
specimens about 60 cm across may weigh 400 to 800 grams (g). Comparing 
this estimate with fecundity estimates for the ochre star, a Northeast 
Pacific sea star that has similar egg size and reproductive strategy, 
may give some insight to potential fecundity of the sunflower sea star. 
Menge (1974) estimated that a typically sized female ochre star 
weighing 400 g wet weight would produce ~40 million eggs, representing 
an average of 9 to 10 percent of wet weight being put into reproductive 
effort. As the wet weight of ochre stars ranges up to 650 g (Menge 
1975), a female of this size could spawn considerably many more than 40 
million eggs in a season. However, Fraser et al. (1981) believed that 
Menge's (1974) estimate of 40 million

[[Page 16215]]

eggs for a 400 g adult was somewhat high and calculated that a specimen 
weighing 315 g would produce ~8 million total eggs. Given that 
sunflower sea stars can grow to a massive five kilograms (kg) (Fisher 
1928; Lambert 2000), and assuming sunflower sea stars and ochre stars 
invest similar resources into reproductive efforts, it is conceivable 
that a 4.5 kg female sunflower sea star could produce upwards of 114 
million eggs in a gonadal cycle using the conservative estimate of 
Fraser et al. (1981). This level of potential egg production is 
comparable to estimates for the crown-of-thorns sea star, Acanthaster 
spp. (Babcock et al. 2016), potentially making the sunflower sea star 
one of the most fecund sea stars in the world. This high potential 
fecundity is debatable, however, given recent observations of gonad 
size in captive sunflower sea stars. Hodin et al. (2021) noted that 
even when reproductively mature, gonads tend to be no more than a few 
centimeters in length, which is small relative to other sea stars of 
the Northwest Pacific Ocean.
    Regarding size at sexual maturity, near Bremerton, Washington, 
Kjerskog-Agersborg (1918) noted that maturity is not entirely dependent 
on size. While females are on the average larger than males, immature 
individuals of both sexes were found across a broad range of sizes--
including some of the largest individuals sampled. In a status 
assessment conducted for the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN), Gravem et al. (2021) state that no studies have been 
conducted specifically on the age at maturity for the sunflower sea 
star, but estimate it to be at least five years based on the age of 
first reproduction for the ochre star (Menge 1975; Chia and Walker 
1991).
    Without additional information on the size at first maturity, 
fecundity, reproductive seasonality, and reproductive senescence of the 
sunflower sea star, and how these demographic parameters vary 
throughout the range of the species, it is impossible to accurately 
predict annual reproductive output of populations or to adequately 
evaluate resiliency and rebound potential in response to environmental 
perturbations. Indications from other sea stars, however, suggest that 
reproductively viable females can produce at least tens of millions of 
eggs annually, possibly for several decades. Under appropriate 
environmental conditions, this represents considerable reproductive and 
recruitment potential.
    Sea stars may modify their behavior during spawning in ways that 
improve the chances of egg fertilization, including aggregating, 
modifying their positions and postures, and spawning synchronously 
(Strathmann 1987; Chia and Walker 1991; Dams et al. 2018). Although 
many sea stars appear to aggregate during spawning (Strathmann 1987; 
Minchin 1987; Chia and Walker 1991; Babcock and Mundy 1992; Raymond et 
al. 2007; Himmelman et al. 2008; Dams et al. 2018), it is uncertain 
whether sunflower sea stars do so. Kjerskog-Agersborg (1918) studied 
sunflower sea stars in Puget Sound at Bremerton, WA, and suggested that 
individuals migrated to shallower waters during the spawning season and 
were present in large aggregations at this time of year. A number of 
other sea stars move into shallow water during the spawning season, 
supporting that movement into shallow water may be an adaptive behavior 
that promotes fertilization (Babcock et al. 2000). Some fertilization 
rate modeling results for the crown-of-thorns sea star Acanthaster spp. 
(Babcock et al. 1994) indicate that shallower water increases 
fertilization rates relative to deeper water because of reduced 
dilution of gametes in waters shallower than 5 m (Babcock et al. 2000).
    Many sea stars arch their bodies upward, remaining in contact with 
the substratum by the tips of their arms during spawning. This posture 
elevates the gonopores through which gametes are shed into the flow 
field (Galtsoff and Loosanoff 1939; Strathmann 1987; Minchin 1987; Chia 
and Walker 1991; Dams et al. 2018). Dams et al. (2018) used laboratory 
experimentation and theoretical modeling to show that an arched posture 
promoted downstream dispersion of gametes and was more effective than 
stars lying in the flat position. It is common knowledge that sunflower 
sea stars also arch their bodies upward in this characteristic spawning 
posture. Although we were unable to locate specific reference in the 
scientific literature, there are numerous photographs and depictions of 
sunflower sea stars assuming this spawning posture on the internet 
(e.g., https://www.kuow.org/stories/scientists-race-to-rescue-world-s-fastest-sea-star-from-oblivion).
    Since released gametes (especially sperm) may remain viable for as 
little as two hours (Strathmann 1987; Benzie and Dixon 1994), many sea 
stars increase the chances of egg fertilization by spawning 
synchronously (Feder and Christensen 1966; Babcock and Mundy 1992; 
Babcock et al. 1994; Mercier and Hamel 2013). In many published 
observations of sea star spawning, males consistently spawned before 
females (Mercier and Hamel 2013). Even though synchronous spawning is 
necessary for successful fertilization to occur, synchronization must 
be accompanied by relatively close proximity for successful 
fertilization (Mercier and Hamel 2013). There is conflicting 
information regarding whether synchronous aggregative spawning is 
exhibited by the sunflower sea star, but evidence from ecologically 
similar sea star species and anecdotal observations for the sunflower 
sea star strongly suggest this is the case. If this is the case, when 
population abundance declines below levels that ensure contact of 
distributed eggs and sperm with one another, Allee effects may hinder 
population persistence and/or recovery (Lundquist and Botsford 2004; 
2011). Standard population models predict that a reduction in adult 
density should be associated with a decrease in intraspecific 
competition leading to an increase in growth rate, survival, and gamete 
production. However, these advantages may be countered by decreases in 
the rate of successful fertilization among sparsely distributed 
individuals (Levitan 1995; Levitan and Sewell 1998; Gascoigne and 
Lipcius 2004). Fertilization success may be a limiting factor in 
reproduction, and hence recruitment. We did not find published data 
from directed studies of natural fertilization success in the sunflower 
sea star.
    Several researchers have, with varying degrees of success, 
attempted to rear sunflower sea stars and describe early embryonic and 
larval development through to metamorphosis (Mortensen 1921; Greer 
1962; Strathmann 1970; 1978; Chia and Walker 1991; Hodin et al. 2021). 
Greer (1962) reported that time from fertilization to metamorphosis for 
larvae from San Juan Islands, Washington, ranged from 60 to 70 days 
when reared at 10 to 12 [deg]C. Strathmann (1978) reported that time 
from fertilization through to settling ranged from 90 to 146 days at 
natural local water temperatures (7 to 13 [deg]C) encountered in the 
San Juan Islands, Washington, in the late 1960s. Hodin et al. (2021) 
reared sunflower sea stars from Washington at 9 [deg]C and 14 [deg]C 
and observed first spontaneous settlement of larvae at seven weeks when 
held at 10 to 11 [deg]C. Peak metamorphosis occurred at eight weeks in 
larvae derived from Alaskan broodstock, compared to 11 weeks for larvae 
from Washington broodstock. Hodin et al. (2021) reported that larvae 
first became competent to metamorphose at seven weeks post-

[[Page 16216]]

fertilization at 10 to 11 [deg]C, compared to the nine weeks reported 
by Greer (1962) when reared at 10 to 12 [deg]C. Together, these studies 
indicate that larval duration may be as short as seven weeks or as long 
as 21, and that temperature is a key parameter determining the extent 
of this period.
    Unlike the pentaradial symmetry of adult sea stars, larvae are 
bilaterally symmetrical (Chia and Walker 1991). The bipinnaria larva is 
characterized by two bilaterally symmetrical ciliary bands and an open, 
functional gut (McEdward et al. 2002). Both the bipinnaria, and the 
later-stage brachiolaria, ingest diatoms and other single-celled algae, 
and may also utilize dissolved organic matter nutritionally (Chia and 
Walker 1991). Bipinnaria larvae of the sunflower sea star were 
estimated to form on the fifth (Greer 1962) or sixth day (Hodin et al. 
2021) after fertilization.
    To understand the population dynamics of the sunflower sea star on 
a range-wide basis it is crucial to develop an understanding of larval 
longevity and capacity for dispersal. Time from egg fertilization to 
metamorphosis for the sunflower sea star under various conditions has 
been described as 49 to 77 days (Hodin et al. 2021), 60 to 70 days 
(Greer 1962), and 90 to 146 days (Strathmann 1978). As noted by Gravem 
et al. (2021), broadcast spawning with a long pelagic larval duration 
has the potential for broad larval dispersal, especially in open 
coastal areas with few geographic barriers. Along more heterogeneous, 
complex shorelines like those found inside the Salish Sea or Southeast 
Alaska, however, complex flow patterns may result in localized 
entrainment of larval and reduce dispersal capacity.
    Minimum and maximum dispersal periods based on laboratory studies 
of planktotrophic larvae reveal how varying environmental and 
nutritional conditions influence the extent of the planktonic period 
(Pechenik 1990). Basch and Pearse (1996) showed that sea star larvae 
grown in phytoplankton-rich conditions had greater survival, were in 
better condition, settled and metamorphosed sooner, and produced larger 
juveniles compared to larvae grown in low food concentrations. 
Planktotrophic larvae of many sea star species can delay metamorphosis 
in the absence of suitable settlement cues (Metaxas 2013), and are 
capable of long-range dispersal (Scheltema 1986; Metaxas 2013). 
Although mortality of sea star larvae during the planktonic larval 
stage has not been measured, it is expected to be high (Metaxas 2013), 
and it is likely that delaying metamorphosis would expose larvae to an 
additional period of predatory pressure (Basch and Pearse 1996) and 
stress associated with limited food availability. Strathmann (1978) 
found the maximum time to settlement in culture for sunflower sea star 
to be 21 weeks and emphasized that the duration of pelagic larval life 
is important in recruitment dynamics and, ultimately, to the 
distribution of a species.
    Sea star larvae may respond to a suite of biological, chemical, 
and/or physical cues that induce metamorphosis and settlement, 
including the presence of coralline algae, microbial films, and kelp 
(Metaxas 2013). Hodin et al. (2021) state that competent sunflower sea 
star larvae will settle spontaneously, as well as in response to a 
variety of natural biofilms. Settlement is greatly enhanced when larvae 
are presented with a biofilm collected in the presence of adult 
sunflower sea stars, or if larvae are exposed to fronds of the 
articulated coralline alga, Calliarthron tuberculosum.
    It is generally accepted that planktotrophic larvae are typically 
dispersed considerable distances away from adult populations and have 
little impact on recruitment to the natal habitat (Sewall and Watson 
1993; Robles 2013). However, Sewell and Watson (1993) described a 
situation at the semi-enclosed bay of Boca del Infierno (Nootka Island, 
British Columbia) where larvae were entrained and settled within the 
adult habitat, contributing to the source population. During three 
years between 1987 and 1991, sunflower sea star recruits were observed 
on Sargassum muticum on the floor of the channel leading into the bay 
(Sewell and Watson 1993). In general, sea stars are thought to have 
relatively low annual recruitment punctuated by unusually strong 
settlement in some years (Sanford and Menge 2007), the so-called boom 
and bust cycle characteristic of a broad diversity of marine fishes and 
invertebrates with planktonic larval dispersal (e.g., McLatchie et al. 
2017; Schnedler-Meyer et al. 2018).
    Larvae of sea stars are capable of regenerating lost body parts 
much like adults (Vickery and McClintock 1998; Vickery et al. 2002; 
Allen et al. 2018) and may also reproduce asexually through the process 
of larval cloning--budding off of tissue fragments that regenerate into 
complete larvae (Bosch et al. 1989; Rao et al. 1993; Jaeckle 1994; 
Knott et al. 2003). Recently, Hodin et al. (2021) reported that larvae 
of the sunflower sea star also have the capability to clone in a 
laboratory setting, describing cloning as ``commonplace'' in all larval 
cultures. The degree to which larval sunflower sea stars clone in 
nature may have profound implications for life history (e.g., 
fecundity, dispersal distance), population dynamics, and population 
genetic structure (Knott et al. 2003; Balser 2004; Rogers-Bennett and 
Rogers 2008; Allen et al. 2018; 2019).
    In a recent review of asexual reproduction in larval invertebrates, 
Allen et al. (2018) tabulated the potential benefits of larval cloning 
as: (1) increasing female fecundity without an apparent increase in 
resource allocation to reproduction; (2) increasing the likelihood that 
a member of a genet (i.e., group of cloned individuals) survives; (3) 
increasing the probability that a member of a genet will locate a 
suitable settlement site by sampling a greater geographic area; and (4) 
reducing the genet's susceptibility to predation and other loss by 
increasing the number and decreasing the size of propagules. On the 
other hand, Allen et al. (2018) listed likely costs associated with 
larval cloning as: (1) a decrease in larval feeding rate during 
fission; (2) a decrease in larval growth rate; (3) an increase in the 
time to metamorphosis; and (4) a decrease in juvenile size. Larval 
cloning has the potential to alter several aspects of sunflower sea 
star life history by increasing actualized fecundity, larval dispersal 
distance, and chances of successful settlement of a larva or at least 
its genetically identical clone (Bosch et al. 1989; Balser 2004; 
Rogers-Bennett and Rogers 2008; Allen et al. 2019). Balser (2004) noted 
that cloning serves to increase female fecundity to >1 juvenile per 
egg, altering recruitment intensity. Without additional information 
about environmental impacts on cloning rate, this lack of a one-to-one 
relationship between female productivity and realized recruitment 
potential complicates estimation of stock-recruit relationships. Allen 
et al. (2019) emphasized that ignoring the impacts of planktonic 
cloning meant that both realized reproductive output and larval 
dispersal period had been underestimated in prior population modeling 
efforts for sea stars (Rogers-Bennett and Rogers 2008). To date, 
evidence of the existence of sexually mature sea star individuals in 
wild populations that originated from cloned larvae is lacking for any 
species (Knott et al. 2003), including the sunflower sea star. Thus, 
despite a demonstrated capacity to clone as larvae, estimates of female 
fecundity considered in the draft status review report (Lowry et al. 
2022) are limited to gross estimates of egg

[[Page 16217]]

production on a seasonal basis, which, as noted above, are tenuous at 
best.
    No studies have been conducted to establish natural growth rates 
throughout the lifespan of the sunflower sea star, due in part to the 
difficulty of tagging and effectively tracking individuals. The IUCN 
assessment for the sunflower sea star lists several observations of 
juvenile growth rates from anecdotal observations and laboratory 
studies as being between 3 and 8 cm/yr, and 2 cm/yr for mid-sized 
individuals (Gravem et al. 2021). Hodin et al. (2021) reared post-
metamorphic, laboratory-cultured sunflower sea stars and the fastest 
growing individuals were able to reach a diameter of 3 cm in 288 days 
(about 9.5 months) post-settlement. Juveniles reared by Hodin et al. 
(2021) grew slowly for several months after settlement, but grew faster 
after they reached about 10 cm in diameter, at which time they could 
feed on live juvenile bivalves. Laboratory estimates may not be 
entirely representative of growth rates in the field because sea star 
growth is affected by water temperature and food availability (Gooding 
et al. 2009; Deaker et al. 2020; Dealer and Byrne 2022). Sea star 
growth rate also generally decreases with increasing size of 
individuals (Carlson and Pfister 1999; Keesing 2017). Some sea stars 
can persist for long periods with little or no food (Nauen 1978; Deaker 
et al. 2020; Byrne et al. 2021), potentially complicating estimates of 
age based on size and resulting in episodic growth only when resources 
are adequate to exceed base metabolic needs.
    In one of the few published reports of sunflower sea star growth 
under pseudonatural conditions, Miller (1995) described growth of 
juveniles found on settlement collectors (i.e., Astroturf-coated PVC 
tubes) on the Oregon coast. When fed crushed prey, juveniles grew from 
a mean arm length (AL) of 0.41 mm at first sampling, to a mean AL of 
3.65 mm at 63 days, and 5 to 6 mm AL at 99 days. Thus, juveniles 
increased in size by a factor of nearly nine times after two months and 
up to 14 times after three months from sampling (Miller 1995).
    In response to the call for public comments on our 90-day finding 
for the petition to list the sunflower sea star under the ESA (86 FR 
73230; December 27, 2021), we received a dataset demonstrating growth 
of putative cohorts of juvenile sunflower sea stars from Holmes Harbor 
on the east side of Whidbey Island, in the Southern Salish Sea, 
Washington (K. Collins, pers. comm., March 20, 2022). During repeated 
SCUBA-based sampling of the size distribution of populations of 
sunflower sea stars at several index sites between March of 2020 and 
2022, recruitment pulses of individuals could be identified from 
frequency of occurrence data. Between March of 2020 and March of 2021, 
the average diameter of one such group of juvenile sunflower sea stars 
increased 7.99 cm, from ~9 to 17 cm. This annual growth rate aligns 
with the rapid growth period identified by Hodin et al. (2021), 
concomitant with the ability to consume small bivalves. While this 
estimate is for one small population in the Salish Sea and is cohort-
based rather than based on tracking target individuals, it provides 
insight into the growth of juvenile sunflower sea stars that is not 
available elsewhere.
    The longevity of sunflower sea stars in the wild is unknown, as is 
the age at first reproduction (as noted above) and the period over 
which a mature individual is capable of reproducing, but these 
parameters are needed to calculate generation time. It is also unknown 
if, or how much, any of these crucial life history parameters vary 
across the range of the species. The IUCN assessment for the sunflower 
sea star used a generic echinoderm equation to estimate generation 
times as 20.5 to 65 years or 27 to 37 years, depending on maximum 
longevity (reaching maximum size observed of 95 to 100 cm diameter) or 
more typical longevity (time to reach 50 cm diameter) estimated from 
two different growth models (Gravem et al. 2021). These generation time 
figures utilized an estimated age at first reproduction of five years, 
based on the ochre star and other species, as this information is not 
available for the sunflower sea star (Gravem et al. 2021).

Diet and Feeding

    Larval and pre-metamorphic sunflower sea stars are planktonic 
feeders and no data exist to suggest a prey preference at this stage. 
The diet of adult sunflower sea stars generally consists of benthic and 
mobile epibenthic invertebrates, including sea urchins, snails, crab, 
sea cucumbers, and other sea stars (Mauzey et al. 1968; Shivji et al. 
1983), and appears to be driven largely by prey availability. Sea 
urchins were the major dietary component in the intertidal regions 
along the outer coast of Washington in a study by Mauzey et al. (1968). 
For sunflower sea stars inhabiting kelp forests in central California, 
however, 79 percent of the diet was gastropods, and only four sea 
urchins were found in the guts of 41 adults (Herrlinger 1983). 
Sunflower sea stars also feed on sessile invertebrates, such as 
barnacles and various bivalves (Mauzey et al. 1968). Mussels are a 
common prey in intertidal regions in Alaska (Paul and Feder 1975). 
Clams can also constitute a major proportion of their diet, with up to 
72 percent coming from clams at subtidal sites within Puget Sound 
(Mauzey et al. 1968). Adults excavate clams from soft or mixed-
substrate bottoms by digging with one or more arms (Smith 1961; Mauzey 
et al. 1968). Sunflower sea stars locate their prey using chemical 
signals in the water and on substrate, and may show preference for dead 
or damaged prey (Brewer and Konar 2005), likely due to reduced energy 
expenditure associated with catching and subduing active prey; thus 
they occasionally scavenge fish, seabirds, and octopus (Shivji et al. 
1983).

Population Demographics and Structure

    Prior to the onset of the coast-wide sea star wasting syndrome 
(SSWS) pandemic in 2013 (see evaluation of threats below), directed 
population monitoring for the sunflower sea star was haphazard and 
typically the result of short-term research projects rather than long-
term monitoring programs. Such efforts were rarely focused on the 
sunflower sea star itself, but it was often included as one component 
of the local invertebrate assemblage, and generally it was secondary to 
the primary species of interest. Indigenous peoples occupying lands 
along the Pacific Coast of North America from Alaska to California have 
long known of the sunflower sea star, have included the species in 
artistic works, and have recognized the important ecological role it 
plays. However, no oral histories or other traditional ecological 
knowledge that directly addressed long-term population distribution or 
abundance could be found. In response to the 90-day finding on the 
petition to list the sunflower sea star (86 FR 73230; December 27, 
2021), several First Nation and tribal entities contacted us to provide 
recent monitoring data, which was integrated into the draft status 
review report as much as possible (Lowry et al. 2022). Most of the 
datasets lacked pre-2013 (i.e., before the SSWS pandemic) occurrence 
records, however, and could not be used to quantitatively evaluate 
trends in abundance or density relative to baseline values.
    Recent descriptions of sunflower sea star distribution and 
population declines by Harvell et al. (2019), Gravem et al. (2021), and 
Hamilton et al. (2021) relied on datasets gathered either exclusively 
or predominantly during the 21st century and, in some cases, as a 
direct response to losses due to SSWS. The most intense loss occurred 
over just

[[Page 16218]]

a few years from 2013 through 2017, generally commencing later in more 
northern portions of the range, and impacts varied by region. Hence, 
our understanding of the historical abundance of the sunflower sea star 
is patchy in both time and space, with substantial gaps.
    Summary data presented in Gravem et al. (2021) indicate that prior 
to the 2013 through 2017 SSWS outbreak the sunflower sea star was 
fairly common throughout its range, with localized variation linked to 
prey availability and various physiochemical variables. Starting in 
2012, Konar et al. (2019) assessed rocky intertidal populations in the 
Gulf of Alaska and described sunflower sea stars prior to the 2016 
wasting outbreak as ``common'' toward the northwest part of the 
species' range in the Katmai National Park and Preserve near Kodiak 
Island, AK (0.038/m\2\ in 2012 and 0.048/m\2\ in 2016, respectively). 
Abundances during this pre-pandemic period varied geographically, from 
infrequent in Kachemak Bay (<0.005 m\2\), to fairly common in the Kenai 
Fjords National Park (~0.075/m\2\), and common in western Prince 
William Sound (average 0.233/m\2\) (Konar et al. 2019). In subtidal 
rocky reefs near Torch Bay, Southeast Alaska, densities were high (0.09 
 0.055/m\2\) in the 1980s (Duggins 1983). In Howe Sound, 
near Vancouver, British Columbia, densities were high at 0.43  0.76/m\2\ in 2009 and 2010 before the SSWS pandemic (Schultz et 
al. 2016). Montecino-LaTorre et al. (2016) found that sunflower sea 
star abundance averaged 6 to 14 individuals per roving diver survey 
throughout much of the Salish Sea from 2006 through 2013. In deep water 
habitats off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, 2004 
through 2014 pre-outbreak biomass averaged 3.11, 1.73, and 2.78 kg/10 
ha, respectively (Harvell et al. 2019). In 2019, a remotely operated 
vehicle survey of the Juan de Fuca Canyon encountered a number of large 
sunflower sea stars at depths ranging from 150 to 350 m (OCNMS 2019). 
While population connections between these sea stars and those in 
shallow water remain unknown, this suggests that deep waters may serve 
as a biomass reservoir for the species (J. Waddell, Olympic Coast 
National Marine Sanctuary, pers. comm., March 15, 2022).
    Along the north and central California coastline, average 
population densities were 0.01-0.12/m\2\ prior to 2013 (Rogers-Bennett 
and Catton 2019). The oldest density records come from kelp forests 
near central California in Monterey Bay, where densities were 0.03/m\2\ 
in 1980 and 1981 (Herrlinger 1983). More recently in central 
California, densities were even lower and fluctuated from 0.01-0.02/
m\2\ between 1999 and 2011 (Smith et al. 2021). In southern California, 
sites in the Channel Islands have been studied extensively, and from 
1982 through 2014 densities ranged from 0 to 0.25/m\2\ (Bonaviri et al. 
2017), from 1996 through 1998 they were 0 to 0.02 m\2\ (Eckert 2007), 
from 2003 through 2007 they were 0 to 0.07m\2\ (Rassweiler et al. 
2010), and from 2010 through 2012 they were ~0.10 to 0.14/m\2\ 
(Eisaguirre et al. 2020).
    The pattern of decline by latitude as a consequence of the SSWS 
pandemic in 2013 (see evaluation of threats below) is striking. 
Hamilton et al. (2021) noted a 94.3 percent decline throughout the 
range of the sunflower sea star after the outbreak of SSWS. The 12 
regions defined by Hamilton et al. (2021) encompass the known range of 
the sunflower sea star, and each region exhibited a decline in density 
and occurrence from approximately 2013 through 2017, with populations 
in the six more northern regions characterized by less severe declines 
(40 to 96 percent declines) than those in the six regions spanning from 
Cape Flattery, WA, to Baja, MX, where the sunflower sea star is now 
exceptionally rare (99.6 to 100 percent declines). Furthermore, while 
anecdotal observations indicate recruitment continues in the U.S. 
portion of the Salish Sea, British Columbia, and Alaska, few of these 
juveniles appear to survive to adulthood (A. Gehman, University of 
British Columbia and the Hakai Institute, pers. comm., February 16, 
2022). We are not aware of any observations of sunflower sea star 
recruits or adults in California or Mexico since 2017 despite continued 
survey effort in these areas.
    There are not, to date, any range-wide or regional assessments of 
systematic variation in life history parameters, morphological 
characteristics, genetic traits, or other attributes that can be used 
to delineate specific populations of sunflower sea stars. As such, we 
have no direct biological data to establish that the species is 
anything but a single, panmictic population throughout its range. As 
habitat generalists that use a wide variety of substrates over a broad 
depth range, and dietary generalists that consume diverse prey based 
largely on prey availability and encounter rate, differentiation of 
subpopulations is not expected to be driven by strong selection for 
particular environmental needs. In the 2020 IUCN status assessment 
report (Gravem et al. 2021), putative population segments were 
identified largely based on a combination of legal and geographic 
boundaries/barriers and data provided in response to a broad request 
distributed to natural resource managers and academic researchers. For 
instance, data from both trawl and SCUBA diving surveys were considered 
together to describe population trends in a region defined as 
``Washington outer coast,'' which spanned from Cape Flattery to the 
Washington-Oregon border.
    Because sunflower sea stars are relatively sessile in the settled 
juvenile through adult life stages, any population structuring is 
likely attributable to dispersion during the pelagic larval phase. This 
is a common feature of broadcast spawning, benthic, marine organisms, 
and population breaks in such organisms are typically associated with 
strong biogeographic features where current flows diverge or stop 
(i.e., Queen Charlotte Sound, Point Conception), if such features 
exist. Within a given biogeographic region, such organisms typically 
exhibit either genetic homogeneity for species with prolonged pelagic 
larval phases or, for species with shorter pelagic larval duration, a 
stepping-stone dispersal resulting in isolation-by-distance. Within the 
historical range of the sunflower sea star, there are two major 
biogeographic regions (Longhurst 2007), the ``Alaska Coastal 
Downwelling Province'' and the ``California Current Province.'' These 
regions are essentially formed by the bifurcation of the North Pacific 
Current into the northward-flowing Alaska Current and the southward-
flowing California Current. This bifurcation occurs in the vicinity of 
Vancouver Island, though the exact location varies with shifting 
climatic conditions and bulk water transport processes, with a 
transition zone between Queen Charlotte Sound and Cape Flattery 
(Cummins and Freeland 2007).
    For some echinoderm species that have been more thoroughly 
examined, regional variation in phenotypic and genetic traits along the 
west coast of North America have been documented. Bat stars (Patiria 
miniata) largely overlap with the sunflower sea star in geographic 
range and depth distribution, and share similar planktonic larval 
duration, so can potentially be used as a proxy to make demographic 
inferences. Keever et al. (2009) used a combination of mitochondrial 
and nuclear markers to study bat stars range-wide and provided support 
for two genetically distinct populations, essentially split across 
Longhurst's (2007) biogeographic provinces. Within the California 
Current

[[Page 16219]]

Province there was little detectable genetic structure, but within the 
Alaska Coastal Downwelling Province there was a high degree of 
structure, potentially as a consequence of the geographic complexity 
within this region as compared with the California Coast Province. Gene 
flow simulations showed that larvae of the bat star don't disperse far 
despite a relatively long pelagic larval duration (Sunday et al. 2014). 
The red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) also overlaps in 
range, depth, and duration of planktonic dispersal with sunflower sea 
star but shows no clear signal of genetic partitioning (Debenham et al. 
2000) throughout its range. Similarly, the ochre star exhibits similar 
life history parameters but shows no genetic partitioning (Harley et 
al. 2006). Overall, the lack of demonstrated genetic structure in these 
co-occurring echinoderm species suggests that sunflower sea stars may 
also lack population structure, but no genetic studies currently exist 
that would allow us to confirm or refute this assumption.

Assessment of Extinction Risk

    Using the best available scientific and commercial data relevant to 
sunflower sea star demography and threats, the SRT undertook an 
assessment of extinction risk for the species. The ability to measure 
or document risk factors and quantify their explicit impacts to marine 
species is often limited, and quantitative estimates of abundance and 
life history information are sometimes lacking altogether. Therefore, 
in assessing extinction risk of this data-limited species, we relied on 
both qualitative and quantitative information. In previous NMFS status 
reviews, assessment teams have used a risk matrix method to organize 
and summarize the professional judgment of members. This approach is 
described in detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999) and has been used in 
Pacific salmonid status reviews, as well as in reviews of various 
marine mammals, bony fishes, elasmobranchs, and invertebrates (see 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In 
the risk matrix approach, the condition of a species is summarized 
according to four viable population factors: abundance, growth rate/
productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity (McElhany 
et al. 2000). These viable population factors reflect concepts that are 
well-founded in conservation biology and that, individually and 
collectively, provide strong indicators of extinction risk. Employing 
these concepts, the SRT conducted a demographic risk analysis for the 
sunflower sea star to determine population viability. Likewise, the SRT 
performed a threats assessment by scoring the severity of current 
threats to the species and their likely impact on population status 
into the foreseeable future. The summary of demographic risks and 
threats obtained by this approach was then considered to determine the 
species' overall level of extinction risk, ranked either low, moderate, 
or high, both currently and in the foreseeable future. Further details 
on the approach and results are available in Lowry et al. (2022).
    For the assessment of extinction risk for the sunflower sea star, 
the ``foreseeable future'' was considered to extend out 30 years based 
on several lines of evidence, though numerous assumptions had to be 
made due to missing information. Limited data are available regarding 
sunflower sea star longevity, age at sexual maturity, size at sexual 
maturity, fecundity, reproductive life span, spawning frequency, and 
other fundamental biological attributes. Further, the degree to which 
these parameters might vary over the range of the species is unknown. 
Gravem et al. (2021) estimated the generation time of the sunflower sea 
star to vary between 20.5 and 65 years based on a generalized 
echinoderm model, but used an estimate of 27 to 37 years for the 2020 
IUCN assessment. Monitoring data for the sunflower sea star at 
locations spread throughout its range documented extremely rapid, 
dramatic declines from 2013 to 2017 as a consequence of SSWS. Despite 
considerable research since, the causative agent of SSWS remains 
elusive, as does the environmental trigger or triggers that led to the 
pandemic. Extending and augmenting the analysis of Gravem et al. 
(2021), Lowry et al. (2022) demonstrated that if post-pandemic negative 
trends in population abundance continue, extinction risk is high in the 
immediate and foreseeable future. If pre-pandemic population growth 
rates resume, however, the likelihood of long-term persistence is 
moderate to high, depending on region. Which of these scenarios is more 
likely depends on disease resistance, current local population 
dynamics, and a myriad of environmental factors affecting both the 
sunflower sea star and the SSWS agent(s). If individuals that survived 
the pandemic are able to successfully reproduce over the next several 
years, and ocean conditions are adequate to support larval survival and 
settlement, a substantive recruitment pulse could result. Whether the 
causative agent of SSWS exists in an environmental or biological 
reserve, however, is also unknown. If it does, any recruitment pulse 
could be short lived and individuals may not survive to reproduce 
themselves. There is a high level of uncertainty regarding potential 
outcomes, and predictive capacity is limited as a consequence of the 
unique combination of ocean conditions and disease prevalence in recent 
years.
    After considering the best available information on sunflower sea 
star life history (including its mean generation time), projected 
abundance trends, likelihood of a resurgence of SSWS to pandemic 
levels, and current and future management measures, the SRT concluded 
that after 30 years uncertainty in these factors became too great to 
reliably predict the biological status of the species. Though potential 
threats like nearshore habitat degradation and anthropogenic climate 
change can be projected further into the future, the SRT concluded that 
the impacts of these threats on the sunflower sea star could not be 
adequately predicted given the behavioral patterns of the species with 
regard to habitat use and diet. Whether population segments occupying 
deep waters will fare better than those in the shallows, and to what 
degree these populations are linked, cannot be adequately predicted 
given limited knowledge of sunflower sea star biology and demography. 
Given the demonstrated capacity of SSWS to kill billions of individuals 
across the entire range of the species over just a few years, the SRT 
felt that reliably assessing the effects of additional threats on 
species viability beyond the temporal range of 30 years was not 
possible.

Demographic Risk Analysis

Methods

    The SRT reviewed all relevant biological and commercial data and 
information for the sunflower sea star, including: current abundance 
relative to historical abundance estimates, and trends in survey data; 
what is known about individual growth rate and productivity in relation 
to other species, and its effect on population growth rate; spatial and 
temporal distribution throughout its range; possible threats to 
morphological, physiological, and genetic integrity and diversity; and 
natural and human-influenced factors that likely cause variability in 
survival and abundance. Each team member then assigned a risk score to 
each of the four viable population criteria (abundance, productivity, 
spatial distribution, and diversity) throughout the whole of the

[[Page 16220]]

species' range. Risks for each criterion were ranked on a scale of 0 
(unknown risk) to 3 (high risk) using the following definitions:
    0 = Unknown: Information/data for this demographic factor is 
unavailable or highly uncertain, such that the contribution of this 
factor to the extinction risk of the species cannot be determined.
    1 = Low risk: It is unlikely that the particular factor directly 
contributes significantly to the species' current risk of extinction, 
or will contribute significantly in the foreseeable future (30 years).
    2 = Moderate risk: It is likely that the particular factor directly 
contributes significantly to the species' current risk of extinction, 
or will contribute significantly in the foreseeable future (30 years), 
but does not in itself currently constitute a danger of extinction.
    3 = High risk: It is highly likely that the particular factor 
directly contributes significantly to the species' current risk of 
extinction, or will contribute significantly in the foreseeable future 
(30 years).
    Team members were given a template to fill out and asked to score 
each criterion's contribution to extinction risk. Scores were provided 
to the team lead, anonymized, then shared with the entire team, which 
discussed the range of perspectives and the supporting data/information 
upon which they were based. Team members were given the opportunity to 
revise scores after the discussion, if they felt their initial analysis 
had missed any pertinent data discussed in the group setting. Final 
scores were reviewed and considered, then synthesized, to arrive at the 
overall demographic risk determination from the team. Further details 
are available in Lowry et al. (2022).

Abundance

    Severe declines in nearly all available datasets, range-wide from 
2013 through 2017 are readily apparent, with little evidence of recent 
recruitment or rebound (Gravem et al. 2021; Lowry et al. 2022). While 
variability in abundance estimates was high prior to the SSWS pandemic 
and boom/bust cycling was apparent in many areas, detection rates have 
been very low since approximately 2015 in the majority of time series 
datasets. Datasets from the Oregon and California coasts are notable 
because they report several years of regular observation of sunflower 
sea stars leading up to 2013, followed by several years of absence at 
the same index sites. In locations where individuals continued to be 
detected after the pandemic, like in northern Oregon, density decreased 
by an order of magnitude or more. Data providers for these time series 
categorize the near or total loss of sunflower sea stars in their 
survey area as local or functional extirpation, but other researchers 
and the public have reported juveniles in several of these areas (e.g., 
the Channel Islands), demonstrating that some reproduction and 
settlement is occurring. In areas where adults have not been detected 
for several years, the potential for deleterious stochastic events, 
such as marine heat waves, to destroy what remains of the population is 
likely to be considerably increased. Abundance prior to the SSWS 
pandemic was substantially greater in northern portions of the range 
from Alaska to the Salish Sea, and declines in these areas were less 
pronounced (Gravem et al. 2021; Lowry et al. 2022).
    The current range-wide (i.e., global) population estimate for the 
sunflower sea star is nearly 600 million individuals, based on a 
compilation of the best available science and information (Gravem et 
al. 2021). While substantial, this represents less than 10 percent of 
the estimated abundance prior to 2013 and likely reflects an even 
greater decrease in biomass due to the loss of adults from SSWS. 
However, there is considerable uncertainty in this global abundance 
estimate and in regional estimates that contribute to it. Low sampling 
effort prior to the SSWS pandemic, depth-biased disparities in data 
richness, inadequate species-specific documentation of occurrence, and 
missing information about several crucial life history parameters all 
contribute to this uncertainty. While confidence is relatively high in 
estimates from more southerly, nearshore areas that are well-sampled 
via SCUBA, the majority of the species' range consists of deep, cold, 
and/or northern waters that are less well sampled. How segments of the 
population in these poorly sampled areas contribute to and are 
connected with the overall health and stability of the species remains 
largely unknown. Sunflower sea stars in these areas are less 
susceptible to impacts from nearshore stressors and could serve as 
source populations to support population rebound, but evidence to 
support this role is lacking. Based on the broad geographic range over 
which the remaining population is spread, the generalist nature of the 
sunflower sea star with regard to both habitat use and diet, and the 
possibility that deep-water individuals may serve as source populations 
to bolster recovery, the team concluded that the current state of the 
abundance criterion was a moderate factor in affecting extinction risk 
in the foreseeable future.

Productivity

    Little is known about the natural productivity of the sunflower sea 
star on both an individual and population basis. Lack of information 
about growth rate, longevity, age at maturity, fecundity, natural 
mortality, the influence of larval cloning, and other fundamental 
biological attributes requires that broad assumptions be applied and 
proxy species used to inform estimates on both regional and range-wide 
bases. Regardless of the values of nearly all of these parameters, 
however, the loss of approximately 90 percent of the global population 
of the sunflower sea star from 2013 through 2017 is likely to have had 
profound impacts on population-level productivity. The standing crop of 
individuals capable of generating new recruits has been decreased, 
possibly to levels where productivity will be compromised on a regional 
or global basis. The combined factors of spatial distribution of 
individuals across the seascape and ocean conditions are crucial to 
dictating whether productivity is sufficient to allow population 
rebound. Broadly dispersed individuals may lack the ability to find 
mates, further reducing realized productivity despite abundance being 
high enough to theoretically result in population persistence.
    As a broadcast spawner with indeterminate growth, traits shared 
with many other echinoderms, the capacity for allometric increases in 
fecundity and high reproductive output certainly exists in the 
sunflower sea star. Hodin et al. (2021) noted that gonads are small in 
sunflower sea stars compared to other sea stars but also documented 
prolonged periods over which spawning apparently occurs (i.e., gonads 
are ripe). If the SSWS pandemic resulted in the loss of the large, most 
reproductively valuable individuals across both nearshore and deep-
water habitats, it could take a decade or more for sub-adults to 
mature, settlement to occur at detectable levels, and population 
rebounds to be documented. There is evidence in some areas that 
recruitment has occurred, demonstrating that local productivity is 
still occurring, but it may be years before these individuals reach 
maturity and spawn. The ongoing threat of another SSWS pandemic 
dictates that caution is warranted when predicting population growth 
rate into the foreseeable future.

[[Page 16221]]

    Provided reproduction continues to occur, even on a local basis, 
the prolonged planktonic period of larval sunflower sea stars affords 
the opportunity for substantial dispersal prior to settlement. During 
this period, however, larvae are at the mercy of prevailing currents, 
temperature variation, and a suite of biophysical variables that affect 
survival. Even if populations maintain relatively high levels of 
productivity, recent conditions in the northeast Pacific Ocean have not 
been favorable to larval survival for many species due to repeated 
marine heat waves, falling pH, and localized oxygen minimum zones. 
Additionally, given the predominant flow regime along the Pacific West 
Coast of North America, propagules are expected to be carried both 
northward and southward from British Columbia following the North 
Pacific Current as it bifurcates into the Alaska and California 
Currents, respectively. Given the distance larvae must travel with the 
currents, populations in British Columbia are not expected to 
contribute markedly to repopulation in the southern portion of the 
range off Oregon, California, and Mexico. While the Davidson 
Countercurrent and California Undercurrent may seasonally carry 
propagules northward from Mexico and California (Thomas and Krassovski 
2010), abundance of the sunflower sea star in this portion of the range 
is not currently likely to be high enough to serve as a source 
population to areas off Washington, Oregon, or northern California. 
Studies of connectivity across the range of the sunflower sea star will 
be crucial to evaluating how large-scale population patterns are 
affected by local and regional productivity in the future.
    Taking into account the many unknowns about life history, 
population level reproductive capacity, and functional implications of 
environmental conditions on population connectivity in the foreseeable 
future, the productivity criterion was scored as a moderate contributor 
to overall extinction risk over the foreseeable future, though there 
was considerable variation in individual team member scores. 
Depensatory impacts from abundance declines have likely decreased 
productivity on a local and regional scale, but the adults that remain 
are assumed to live long enough that opportunities to mate will 
manifest in time, provided they are able to find one another and mate. 
Until more is known about the underlying biology of the species, this 
parameter, and its effects on long-term viability, will remain poorly 
defined.

Spatial Distribution and Connectivity

    Despite substantial population declines from 2013 through 2017, 
sunflower sea stars still occupy the whole of their historic range from 
Alaska to northern Mexico, though in nearshore areas from the outer 
coast of Washington to Mexico the species is now rare where it was once 
common (Gravem et al. 2021; Lowery et al. 2022). Natural resource 
managers and researchers in the contiguous United States consider 
several local populations off Oregon and California to be functionally 
extirpated, but reports of newly settled juveniles and occasional 
adults in these regions demonstrate continued occupancy (Gravem et al. 
2021; Lowery et al. 2022). With so few individuals, a new wave of SSWS 
or other catastrophic event could eliminate the species in these areas. 
However, the lack of adequate sampling of deep waters and patchy 
encounter reporting in bottom-contact fisheries with a high likelihood 
of interaction (e.g., crustacean pot/trap fisheries) introduces 
sufficient uncertainty to preclude stating that sunflower sea stars 
have been extirpated throughout this southern portion of their range.
    Spatial distribution and connectivity are integrally related with 
the abundance and productivity criteria. Species occurrence, density, 
habitat use, and intraspecific interaction rate, alongside 
environmental parameters, ultimately determine population productivity 
and abundance. As a habitat generalist with broad resilience to 
physiochemical environmental variables, the sunflower sea star utilizes 
most available benthic habitats from the nearshore down to several 
hundred meters deep throughout its range. Loss of over 90 percent of 
the population in southern portions of the range almost certainly 
resulted in population fragmentation, but the only areas where data 
exist to confirm this are shallow, SCUBA-accessible habitats. Kelp 
forests and rocky reefs, in particular, are well sampled and may 
represent key habitats for the sunflower sea star, but regular 
occurrence on mud, sand, and other soft-bottom habitats is also well 
documented. Undersampled, deep-water habitats represent the majority of 
suitable habitat for the sunflower sea star by area, however, 
additional effort is needed to characterize both how individuals in 
these waters are distributed and how they are connected with 
populations in shallow waters. Less accessible nearshore areas, largely 
those associated with sparsely populated areas, also suffer from 
undersampling.
    Direct evidence to assess the connectivity of sunflower sea star 
populations at various geographic scales is lacking. Without meristic, 
morphological, physiological, and/or genetic studies to demonstrate 
similarities or differences among population segments linkages cannot 
be adequately evaluated. Broad assumptions can be made about larval 
distribution as a consequence of prevailing flow patterns, but evidence 
both for and against connections over large geographic scales for 
echinoderm populations on the Pacific Coast exist. Population declines 
associated with the SSWS pandemic were severe enough that historic 
patterns of spatial distribution and connectivity could have been 
obliterated in the last decade, and may continue to change into the 
foreseeable future.
    After taking into account the best available information on both 
the historic and present spatial distribution of the sunflower sea 
star, spatial distribution was determined to have a moderate 
contribution to extinction risk. This was largely due to evidence of 
population fragmentation in nearshore areas and several data series 
demonstrating very low abundance across broad portions of the range. 
Connectivity could not be adequately assessed due to a lack of data.

Diversity

    Systematic comparisons of morphology, life history, behavior, 
physiology, genetic traits, and other aspects of diversity do not exist 
for the sunflower sea star. While some authors note that animals in the 
northern portion of the range grow to a large diameter and mass, this 
general statement is not supported by data. As a result of this lack of 
information, adequately evaluating the impact of this parameter on 
extinction risk is difficult. Data from proxy species, such as the 
ochre star, demonstrate that variation in physical characteristics such 
as color can be both genetically and ecologically controlled in sea 
stars (Harley et al. 2006; Raimondi et al. 2007). While examples exist 
of echinoderm species with both substantial population structuring and 
a complete lack of population structure on the West Coast, where the 
sunflower sea star falls along this spectrum could not be determined 
due to the lack of fundamental biological knowledge pertinent to 
population dynamics. As a result, this criterion was determined to have 
an unknown contribution to overall extinction risk.

[[Page 16222]]

Threats Assessment

Methods

    As noted above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires the agency to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened because of 
any one, or a combination of, a specific set of threat factors. Similar 
to the demographic risk analysis, SRT members were given a template to 
fill out and asked to rank each threat in terms of its contribution to 
the extinction risk of the species throughout the whole of the species' 
range. Specific threats falling within the section 4(a)(1) categories 
were identified from sources included in the status review report, and 
included as line items in the scoring template (Lowry et al. 2022). 
Below are the definitions that the Team used for scoring:
    0 = Unknown: The current level of information is insufficient for 
this threat, such that its contribution to the extinction risk of the 
species cannot be determined.
    1 = Low: It is unlikely that the threat is currently significantly 
contributing to the species' risk of extinction, or will significantly 
contribute in the foreseeable future (30 years).
    2 = Moderate: It is likely that this threat will contribute 
significantly to the species' risk of extinction in the foreseeable 
future (30 years), but does not in itself constitute a danger of 
extinction currently.
    3 = High: It is highly likely that this threat contributes 
significantly to the species' risk of extinction currently.
    The template also included a column in which team members could 
identify interactions between the threat being evaluated and specific 
demographic parameters from the viable population criteria analysis, as 
well as other section 4(a)(1) threats.
    Scores were provided to the team lead, anonymized, and then the 
range of perspectives and the supporting data/information upon which 
they were based was discussed. Interactions among threats and specific 
demographic parameters, or other threats, were also discussed to ensure 
that scoring adequately accounted for these relationships. Team members 
were then given the opportunity to revise scores after the discussion 
if they felt their initial analysis had missed any pertinent data 
discussed in the group setting. Scores were then reviewed, considered, 
and synthesized to arrive at an overall threats risk determination. 
Results of this threats assessment are summarized below, and further 
details are available in Lowry et al. (2022).

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

    The sunflower sea star is a habitat generalist known to occur in 
association with a broad diversity of substrate types, grades of 
structural complexity, and biogenic habitat components. Habitat 
degradation and modification in nearshore areas of the Pacific Coast as 
a consequence of direct human influence is largely concentrated in 
urbanized centers around estuaries and embayments, with considerable 
tracts of sparsely populated, natural shoreline in between. This is 
especially true of the northern portion of the range. In urbanized 
areas, nearshore modification to accommodate infrastructure has 
dramatically changed the available habitat over the last two hundred 
years. The relative importance of specific habitats to the range-wide 
health and persistence of the sunflower sea star is difficult to 
quantify, however, because suitable habitat occurs well beyond the 
depth range where most sampling occurs. Human impacts on nearshore 
habitats and species of the Pacific Coast have long been recognized, 
and marine protected areas, sanctuaries, and other place-based 
conservation measures have been created in a variety of jurisdictions 
in recent decades. While these measures have not explicitly targeted 
the sunflower sea star, many of them are centered on sensitive habitats 
(e.g., kelp forests) and provide protections to the ecosystem at large, 
including sunflower sea stars and their prey. Under current nearshore 
management practices, the sunflower sea star has persisted in urban 
seascapes at apparently healthy population levels until very recently, 
when SSWS resulted in the death of 90 percent or more of the 
population. As a result, the SRT determined that nearshore habitat 
destruction or modification was a low-level contributor to overall 
extinction risk (Lowry et al. 2022), although systematic sampling is 
needed to establish whether certain habitat types are critical to 
specific life stages or behaviors for the sunflower sea star.
    Sunflower sea stars also occur on benthic habitats to depths of 
several hundred meters, and anthropogenic stressors affecting these 
offshore waters are markedly different from those affecting the 
nearshore. Quantifying impacts to sunflower sea star habitat in deeper 
waters is more complicated, however, and less information is available 
to support a rigorous evaluation. Fishing with bottom-contact gear, 
laying communications or electrical cables, mineral and oil 
exploration, and various other human activities have direct influence 
on benthic habitats in offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean. The 
activities are highly likely to interact with sunflower sea stars at 
some level, but data are lacking regarding both the distribution of 
individuals in these deeper waters and impacts from particular 
stressors. As a result, the SRT determined that effective assessment of 
the contribution of deep-water habitat modification or destruction on 
overall extinction risk of the species could not be conducted. 
Geographic input of all potential stressors in these deep waters is 
likely to be small relative to the documented range of the sunflower 
sea star and the SRT determined that the species' adaptability and 
resilience are unlikely to make habitat impacts in these areas a 
substantial threat (Lowry et al. 2022).
    Curtailment of the range of the sunflower sea star has not yet been 
demonstrated, despite the fact that, since the SSWS pandemic, the 
species has become rare from the Washington coast south to California, 
areas where it once was common. The total population estimate for this 
region still stands at over five million individuals (Gravem et al. 
2021) and their range north of Washington is vast. Population 
fragmentation as a consequence of dramatic losses in abundance could 
result in range curtailment in the foreseeable future, but occasional 
reports of juvenile sunflower sea stars at locations along the West 
Coast as far south as the Channel Islands demonstrate that local 
extirpation has not yet occurred. If juveniles do not mature and 
successfully reproduce because of a resurgence of SSWS to pandemic 
levels, or some other factor, a substantial reduction in distribution 
could occur at the southern extent of the currently documented range. A 
minority opinion within the SRT was that range curtailment has already 
occurred from Neah Bay, WA, southward and that remnant populations 
would soon be eliminated by natural demographic processes.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    There are no substantial current or historical fisheries directed 
at the sunflower sea star, but recreational harvest is allowed or 
permitted in Alaska, British Columbia, California, and Mexico and 
occurs at unquantified levels. Whether collected individuals are held 
for a short period before being released or permanently removed from 
the population is unknown. Impacts

[[Page 16223]]

from recreational harvest cannot be evaluated because data are not 
available on either an aggregate or species-specific basis; however, 
market drivers for this species are minimal and human consumption is 
not known to occur. As a result, the SRT determined that recreational 
harvest impacts are a minor factor affecting extinction risk. 
Recreational harvest and trade may become a greater concern in the 
foreseeable future in areas where abundance levels are extremely low or 
declining. Additional regulations prohibiting retention could offset 
impacts from this potential threat.
    Fishery bycatch impacts to the sunflower sea star are a low-level 
concern for a variety of fisheries that use bottom-contact gear. This 
includes fisheries for benthic fishes and invertebrates that employ 
trawls, pots, traps, nets, and, to a limited degree, hook-and-line. 
Information to quantify the encounter rate in specific fisheries is 
largely lacking, as are data demonstrating direct impacts of these 
encounters, and frequent aggregation of all sea star catch into a 
single reporting category precludes a species-specific assessment. That 
said, these potential risks are offset by the following observations: 
(1) the majority of commercial trawl fisheries occur in waters outside 
of preferred sunflower sea star depth zones (<25 m or 82 ft), based on 
the information regarding highest documented densities (Gravem et al. 
2021); and (2) sunflower sea stars are anecdotally reported as being 
resilient to handling stress during regular fishing operations, though 
post-release monitoring is not reported in the literature. Post-
release, handling-related stress could exacerbate symptoms of SSWS or 
increase susceptibility to other sources of mortality. This could make 
handling during fisheries a greater threat in regions where population 
abundance is especially low, such as from coastal Washington to the 
southern extent of the species' range. Unfortunately, systematic 
reporting of encounters with sunflower sea stars does not occur at this 
time.
    The collection, drying, and trade of small ``sunflower stars'' is 
noted in Gravem et al. (2021) and in the ESA-listing petition received 
from the Center for Biological Diversity. This practice predominantly 
affects small stars under 15.25 cm in diameter and the retailers that 
offer these curios often do not list the species, site of collection, 
or other details necessary to determine whether populations of 
sunflower sea star are being directly impacted. Given that sea stars 
can be collected in Alaska, British Columbia, and Mexico, and in 
California seaward of a tidal exclusion zone, a more thorough 
evaluation of retail offerings is needed. Without additional 
information, the SRT unanimously decided that this threat has an 
unknown, but likely negligible, impact on extinction risk in the 
foreseeable future due to a lack of demand and no evidence of a 
substantial market.

Disease or Predation

    Disease, specifically SSWS, was identified by the SRT as the single 
greatest threat affecting the persistence of the sunflower sea star 
both now and into the foreseeable future (Lowry et al. 2022). While the 
etiology of the disease as well as what trigger(s) resulted in its 
rapid spread to pandemic levels remain unknown (Hewson et al. 2018), 
the widespread occurrence of, and impacts from, the disease from 2013 
through 2017 are broadly documented. Initially, SSWS was thought to be 
caused by one, or a suite, of densoviruses (Paraviridae; Hewson et al. 
2014; 2018); however, subsequent studies determined that the disease is 
more complex. A number of factors ranging from environmental stressors 
to the microbiome in the sea stars may play a role (Lloyd and Pespeni 
2018; Konar et al. 2019; Aquino et al. 2021). Ocean warming has also 
been linked to outbreaks, hastening disease progression and severity 
(Harvell et al. 2019; Aalto et al. 2020). Regardless of the pathogen's 
unknown etiology to date, stress and rapid degeneration ultimately 
result with symptomatic sea stars suffering from abnormally twisted 
arms, white lesions, loss of body tissue, arm loss, disintegration, and 
death. During the 2013-2017 pandemic, populations of sunflower sea 
stars were diminished range wide, and in southern portions of the range 
estimated losses are on the order of 95 percent or more. There was 
considerable variation in the degree of impact associated with depth, 
latitude, and (sometimes) recent temperature regime, but projected 
losses in all regions where data were sufficient amounted to 
approximately 90 percent or more (Gravem et al. 2021). Lowry et al. 
(2022) demonstrate that these declines have continued at least through 
2021 in most regions, though recent settlement events have been 
recorded in the Salish Sea and Alaska. Whether new cohorts will survive 
long enough to reproduce, or succumb to SSWS, is highly uncertain. 
Whether reproductive adults that survived the SSWS pandemic will 
demonstrate resistance or immunity to future outbreaks is also crucial 
to whether the species will survive. If impacts from SSWS continue at a 
level that resulted in population declines of greater than 90 percent 
over a 5-year timespan, extinction risk would be very high for the 
sunflower sea star. If population growth rates are able to return to 
pre-pandemic levels in coming years, the likelihood of population 
persistence is moderate in the Alaska Region and the British Columbia 
and Salish Sea Region, but lower in the West Coast Region from 
Washington to Mexico (Lowry et al. 2022).
    There is no evidence that other known diseases constitute 
substantial threats to the continued persistence of the sunflower sea 
star now or in the foreseeable future. However, the SRT noted that a 
complicating factor is that the physiological response of sea stars to 
numerous stressors (e.g., high temperature, low dissolved oxygen) is to 
develop lesions, autotomize arms, and/or disintegrate (Lowry et al. 
2022). These symptoms, and the ultimate outcome of disintegration, are 
shared with SSWS, making it possible that a suite of disease pathogens 
or stressors jointly contribute to the observed syndrome. As the end 
result of any such disease is mortality within just a few days, the 
threat from disease still remains high whether SSWS is caused by a 
single pathogen or many.
    Very few predators are known to consume adult sunflower sea stars 
and this is not expected to change even under generous projections of 
ecosystem changes as a consequence of global climate change or other 
factors. Predation risk is likely highest during the planktonic larval 
phase when indiscriminate filter feeders consume small larvae and 
selective pickers target larger, more developed individuals. The 
prolonged duration of the larval period could enhance this risk, but 
there is no evidence to suggest that current risks of predation are any 
higher than they were prior to the pandemic when populations were 
healthy. Additionally, while the fecundity of the sunflower sea star is 
not well known, even conservative estimates suggest that an individual 
female likely produces millions of eggs in a single spawning event. As 
such, the SRT determined that predation is not likely to substantially 
contribute to extinction risk, now or in the foreseeable future (Lowry 
et al. 2022).

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    As noted above, in Washington and Oregon harvest and collection of 
sunflower sea stars are not allowed, but in Alaska, British Columbia, 
California, and Mexico recreational harvest is permitted. Though data 
are not available to determine how intensive this harvest is, human 
consumption is not known to

[[Page 16224]]

occur and large markets for dried or otherwise processed specimens do 
not exist. Considering this information, the SRT determined that the 
current harvest and collection regulations do not contribute 
substantially to extinction risk, nor are they likely to in the 
foreseeable future (Lowry et al. 2022). Inconsistency of regulations 
across jurisdictions could complicate enforcement, however, unless 
coordinated efforts to standardize or reconcile rules occur. It may 
also become necessary in the foreseeable future to propose and 
publicize handling recommendations for bycaught sunflower sea stars to 
reduce handling stress and mortality, should data support that this is 
a more significant threat than currently recognized. Draft handling 
recommendations are currently under development within NOAA Fisheries 
for use in scientific surveys and will be adapted, as needed, for 
fisheries.
    A patchwork of place-based conservation measures exists across the 
known range of the sunflower sea star that are designed to protect 
ecologically sensitive and/or important habitats and species. While 
none of these are specifically directed at conservation of the 
sunflower sea star or its habitat, many of them provide indirect 
protection to the species, its habitat, and its prey.
    Current regulations to control anthropogenic climate change are 
likely insufficient to have a measurable impact on trends in changing 
ocean conditions, and resulting ecological effects, by the end of the 
century (Fr[ouml]licher and Joos, 2010; Ahmadi Dehrashid et al. 2022). 
The effectiveness of regulations controlling anthropogenic climate 
change is a considerable concern because such regulations affect 
stressors like elevated sea surface temperature and lowered pH, which 
have sweeping effects on marine prey base and living conditions (Doney 
et al. 2012). Elevated ocean temperatures likely contributed to the 
decline of the sunflower sea star because warmer water temperatures are 
correlated with accelerated rates of SSWS transmission and disease-
induced mortality; therefore the lack of adequate regulations to stall 
the impacts of climate change also presents a direct concern for the 
long-term viability of the sunflower sea star. There is uncertainty 
regarding ways in which additional climate change regulations could 
affect the extinction risk of the sunflower sea star without a better 
understanding of the relationships between climate change impacts 
(especially temperature stress), SSWS dynamics, and species-specific 
disease vulnerability.
    The SRT identified considerable uncertainty regarding what 
regulatory mechanisms might effectively reduce extinction risk as a 
consequence of SSWS (Lowry et al. 2022). While a given disease can 
sometimes be isolated to a geographic region or eliminated by a 
combination of quarantine, transport embargos of specimens carrying the 
pathogen, or the administration of vaccines, these actions all require 
considerable knowledge of the disease itself. In the case of SSWS, the 
pathogen has not yet been identified, the cause may be several 
pathogens with similar etiologies, and the disease has been observed 
across the full geographic range of the species. For these reasons, 
while existing regulatory mechanisms are insufficient to address the 
threat of SSWS, the SRT determined that it is unlikely that any 
effective regulatory approaches will arise in the foreseeable future 
without considerable research (Lowry et al. 2022).

Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Direct impacts of environmental pollutants to the sunflower sea 
star are unknown, but they likely have similar effects to those seen in 
other marine species, given physiologically similar processes. 
Reductions in individual health and disruption of nutrient cycling 
through food webs are hallmarks of industrial chemicals, heavy metals, 
and other anthropogenic contaminants. With the sunflower sea star 
representing a monotypic genus, the SRT noted substantial uncertainty 
involved with projecting potential impacts into the foreseeable future, 
and decided that extrapolating effects of specific chemicals or suites 
of chemicals to range-wide population viability is impossible (Lowry et 
al. 2022). Any impacts that do exist are likely to be more intensive 
near their source, such as urban bays and estuaries, though many 
persistent contaminants are known to bioaccumulate in some organisms 
and spread over long distances over the course of decades or more.
    The addition of anthropogenically released greenhouse gasses into 
the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has resulted in climate 
change that is affecting organisms and environments on a global basis. 
While direct linkages between climate change and sunflower sea star 
population status have not been made in the literature, impacts to prey 
base, habitat, and SSWS can all be inferred from available data. 
Ecosystem change rooted in climate forcers has already been 
demonstrated in nearshore ecosystems of the north Pacific Ocean (e.g., 
Bonaviri et al. 2017; Berry et al. 2021), resulting in prey base 
instability that adds additional stress to struggling populations. See 
above for a discussion of how climate change may link to progression 
and severity of SSWS outbreak as a consequence of changes in sea 
surface temperature and physiochemical properties of marine waters.
    Larval life stages of numerous shell-forming marine organisms are 
highly sensitive to chemical composition of pelagic waters, such that 
ocean acidification can increase physiological stress and decrease 
survival in a broad array of organisms. Additionally, life stages of 
various planktonic organisms are sensitive to temperature, with 
elevated temperature increasing metabolic rate and, thus, nutritional 
requirements. Furthermore, some marine organisms rely on seasonal 
shifts in temperature and other environmental cues to identify suitable 
spawning times, aligning planktonic feeding periods of larvae with 
phytoplankton blooms. Changes in the spatiotemporal availability and 
quality of prey affect planktotrophic larvae and may result in reduced 
growth, delayed settlement, starvation, and various other negative 
outcomes. Though the planktonic diet of sunflower sea star larvae has 
not been adequately described, it is likely that they consume shell-
forming organisms to various degrees depending on spatiotemporal 
variability in abundance, quality, and encounter rate. Nearshore 
benthic communities can also be affected in myriad ways by elevated 
carbon dioxide levels, reduced pH, increased temperature, and other 
physiochemical changes resulting from anthropogenic climate change. 
While these effects of climate change are unlikely to affect the 
sunflower sea star across its full range simultaneously, the SRT noted 
that decreases in habitat suitability are likely on a localized basis 
and such stressors could exacerbate consequences of low abundance, 
especially in southern portions of the range (Lowry et al. 2022). High 
levels of uncertainty regarding complex interactions among climate-
related stressors and their impacts on sunflower sea star population 
viability, however, make it impossible to adequately project effects on 
extinction risk into the foreseeable future.

Overall Extinction Risk Summary

Throughout the Range of the Species

    Little is known about several fundamental biological aspects of the 
sunflower sea star, such as age at maturity, longevity, growth rate,

[[Page 16225]]

reproductive output, population resiliency, and population 
connectivity. What is known is that the species is a broadcast spawner, 
utilizes a broad range of habitats and prey, and has a broad geographic 
distribution, all of which buffer the species against catastrophic 
events and reduce overall extinction risk. The abundance and density of 
the species have clearly declined recently throughout the vast majority 
of its range; however, data are highly uncertain in deep waters and 
less accessible/well surveyed regions. Additionally, most current 
SCUBA- and trawl-based protocols fail to sample small individuals 
(e.g., those less than 5 cm as measured from arm-tip to arm-tip), 
making characterization of population status incomplete. In some areas, 
functional extirpation is likely within the foreseeable future of 30 
years due to a lack of mate availability, which constrains reproductive 
capacity and limits settlement of new cohorts. Best available estimates 
indicate that the remaining range-wide abundance of the sunflower sea 
star is approximately 600 million individuals, with the highest 
abundances in Alaska and British Columbia, primarily in deeper water 
(at lower densities than observed in shallow, scuba-accessible depths).
    Given the widespread impacts of SSWS from 2013 through 2017, it is 
likely that surviving sunflower sea stars were exposed, giving hope 
(but no direct evidence) that they bear some resistance to the 
causative agent of the disease, though this agent remains unknown. SSWS 
is the single greatest threat to the sunflower sea star on a range-wide 
basis, and may be exacerbated by global warming, ocean acidification, 
toxic contaminants, and other processes that generate physiological 
stress in individuals. A conclusive link has not been demonstrated but 
is likely given physiology and known stressors of this, and other, sea 
star species. Regions most likely to be impacted by climate change 
factors are in the south, where the sunflower sea star population was 
most heavily impacted by the SSWS pandemic. Fishing pressure (including 
bycatch), the curio trade, and habitat degradation are threats, but are 
not anticipated to have population-level impacts in the next 30 years. 
Regional variability in threat severity could result in total loss of 
the species in the southern portion of its geographic range, but 
whether the loss of this portion of the population may compromise the 
long-term viability of the species is unknown. Overall, threats to 
population persistence exist, with high uncertainty about potential 
impacts, and with trajectories in many areas continuing downward. As a 
result of this analysis of aspects of species viability and threats 
facing the species, we conclude that the sunflower sea star is at 
moderate risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable future 
throughout its range.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the ESA, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Having concluded that the sunflower 
sea star is at moderate risk of extinction now and in the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range, the SRT next conducted an 
assessment to determine whether it may currently be in danger of 
extinction in any identified significant portion of its range (SPR). If 
a species is in danger of extinction in an SPR, the species qualifies 
for listing as an endangered species (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). In 
2014, the USFWS and NMFS issued a joint policy on interpretation of the 
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR Policy, 79 FR 37578; 
July 1, 2014). The SPR Policy set out a biologically-based approach for 
interpreting this phrase that examines the contributions of the members 
of the species in the ``portion'' to the conservation and viability of 
the species as a whole. More specifically, the SPR Policy established a 
threshold for determining whether a portion is ``significant'' that 
involved considering whether the hypothetical loss of the members in 
the portion would cause the overall species to become threatened or 
endangered. This threshold definition of ``significant'' was 
subsequently invalidated in two District Court cases, which held that 
it set too high a standard to allow for an independent basis for 
listing species--i.e. it did not give independent meaning to the phrase 
``throughout . . . a significant portion of its range'' (Center for 
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 958 (D. 
Ariz. 2017); Desert Survivors v. DOI 321 F. Supp. 3d. 1011 (N.D. Cal., 
2018). However, those courts did not take issue with the fundamental 
approach of evaluating significance in terms of the biological 
significance of a particular portion of the range to the overall 
species. While the SRT did not rely on the definition of 
``significant'' in the policy when conducting their analysis, they did 
use a biological approach to assessing whether any portions of the sea 
star's range are ``significant.''
    To identify potential SPRs for the sunflower sea star, the SRT 
considered the following: (1) is there one or more population segment 
at higher risk of extinction relative to population segments elsewhere 
in the range; and (2) is the higher-risk population segment 
biologically significant to the overall viability of the species. To 
analyze whether a portion qualifies as significant the SRT considered 
the viability characteristics of abundance, productivity, spatial 
distribution, and genetic diversity. Ultimately, the goal of this 
analysis was to determine whether the sunflower sea star is in danger 
of extinction in a significant portion of its range.
    To help in identifying potential SPRs, SRT members were provided a 
base map of the northeast Pacific Ocean labeled with several 
geophysical features either referenced in the IUCN status assessment of 
the sunflower sea star (Gravem et al. 2021) or known to be associated 
with demographic breaks in a variety of other marine organisms. Team 
members independently considered all data and information available on 
a regional basis to generate proposed areas that could potentially 
represent SPRs, that is, areas that have a reasonable likelihood of 
being at high risk of extinction and that have a reasonable likelihood 
of being biologically significant to the species. These portions were 
highlighted on the map, and detailed justifications provided regarding 
the intensity of specific threats to, and biological significance of, 
the population segment in the identified portion(s). Because there are 
theoretically an infinite number of ways in which a species' range may 
be divided for purposed of an SPR analysis, only those portions that 
the SRT identified as ones where the species has a reasonable 
likelihood of being both at higher risk of extinction relative to the 
rest of the range and biologically significant to the overall species 
were considered further in the analysis.
    After considering all available biological, geographic, and flow 
regime data available; evaluating issues of data resolution, 
representativeness, and availability; and drawing on proxy species 
where necessary, the SRT delineated three portions in which trends in 
biological viability, threat intensity, and likely biological 
significance were internally consistent. These were: (1) all waters of 
the range north of Dixon Entrance (i.e., waters of Alaska; Portion 1); 
(2) coastal British Columbia and the Salish Sea (Portion 2); and (3) 
all waters of the range south of Cape Flattery, to Baja California, 
Mexico (Portion 3). In waters shallower than 25 m, where assessment 
data are most

[[Page 16226]]

readily available and comprehensive (Gravem et al. 2021; Lowry et al. 
2022), over 72 percent of the pre-pandemic abundance of sunflower sea 
stars occupied Portion 1. Portion 2 is estimated to have held 
approximately 17.5 percent of the population. Despite being 
geographically extensive, Portion 3 was estimated to be occupied by the 
remainder of the species, just under 10 percent of the total shallow-
water population. It is worth noting that nearly 45 percent of the pre-
pandemic population was estimated to occupy waters deeper than 25 m, 
which are disproportionately located off of Alaska and coastal British 
Columbia, further amplifying these patterns. Taken together, the SRT 
determined that these estimates indicate the existence of a population 
center in the North Pacific, a transition zone along coastal British 
Columbia and into the Salish Sea, and a southward extension of the 
species through temperate waters at limited abundance/density until 
thinning out in the subtropics around the Southern California Bight.
    The population center of the sunflower sea star is in Alaskan 
waters, and the population segment here was less impacted by SSWS with 
considerably more individuals surviving (over 275 million in shallow 
waters and as many as 400 million in deep waters [Gravem et al. 2021]) 
and no apparent reduction in spatial distribution. Given this, the SRT 
determined that the population segment occupying Portion 1 is not at 
higher risk of extinction than the species overall. Because the status 
of the species in Portion 1 does not differ from the status throughout 
the range, the SRT did not continue the analysis further to determine 
whether Portion 1 constitutes a significant portion of the species' 
range.
    Conversely, waters of Portion 3 are estimated to have held less 
than ten percent of the pre-pandemic population of species and saw 
losses >95 percent from 2013 to 2017, with few signs of recovery. While 
it is possible individuals in this portion that survived the pandemic 
are disease resistant, or contain genes for thermal tolerance or 
adaptability to other environmental parameters, data do not exist at 
this time to support this assertion. Furthermore, being at the southern 
end of a current system that flows predominantly southward it is 
unlikely that these traits could be naturally transmitted into northern 
populations via planktonic drift. Taken together, this caused the SRT 
to conclude that while risk of extinction may be higher in the southern 
portion of the range due to dramatically decreased abundance, density, 
and frequency of occurrence post pandemic, this population segment is 
not likely to be biologically significant relative to the overall 
viability of the species. As such, Portion 3 does not constitute a 
significant portion of the range for ESA status assessment purposes.
    Portion 2 is situated where currents flow both north and south into 
other portions of the range, uniquely positioning it to serve as a 
biologically significant population with regard to long-term 
persistence of the sunflower sea star. Higher abundance within the 
region may allow the population here to contribute to population 
viability in Southeast Alaska, the Washington coast, and beyond. In 
addition, while there is recruitment to offshore sites, and relatively 
healthy populations in some glacial fjords, there is evidence of 
source/sink dynamics (i.e., areas of high reproductive capacity within 
the region produce larvae that settle elsewhere in the region) within 
Portion 2. The possibility of disease resistance in these remaining 
individuals cannot be discounted, but has not been demonstrated. 
Persistent low encounter rates in the region, however, suggest a degree 
of resiliency despite ongoing occurrence of the causative agent of the 
disease (whatever it may be) in the environment. The Salish Sea region 
is influenced by a number of other threats, such as toxic 
contamination, pressure from a diversity of fisheries, and extensive 
habitat degradation and destruction associated with creation and 
maintenance of human infrastructure. To assess whether these threats 
elevated overall extinction risk to high in the biologically 
significant Portion 2, a second overall extinction risk scoring sheet 
was distributed and team members independently assessed this region. 
Though there is a high degree of uncertainty with regard to the 
potential impact of SSWS and other threats on the population segment in 
this portion, the SRT determined that overall extinction risk in 
Portion 2 is moderate, matching that of the range-wide assessment and 
thereby precluding assignment of high extinction risk to the species 
based on status within this particular portion of its range.
    Given the best available information, we find that the sunflower 
sea star is at a moderate risk of extinction throughout its range, as 
well as within Portion 2 (the British Columbia Coast and Salish Sea), 
the only portion of the range determined to be biologically 
significant. Without efforts to better understand the etiology of SSWS 
and identify paths to address its impacts on the sunflower sea star, 
the species is on a trajectory in which its overall abundance will 
likely significantly decline within the foreseeable future, eventually 
reaching the point where the species' continued persistence will be in 
jeopardy. These declines are likely to be exacerbated by anthropogenic 
climate change and the resulting impacts on biogeochemical aspects of 
habitats occupied by the species. Although the species is not currently 
in danger of extinction throughout its range, it will likely become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future.

Protective Efforts

    Having found that the sunflower sea star is likely to become in 
danger of extinction throughout its range within the foreseeable 
future, we next considered protective efforts as required under section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA. The focus of this evaluation is to determine 
whether protective efforts are being made and, if so, whether they are 
effective in ameliorating the threats we have identified to the species 
and thus, potentially, avert the need for listing. As we already 
considered the adequacy of existing regulatory efforts associated with 
fisheries and place-based ecosystem protections in our evaluation of 
threats above, we consider other conservation efforts in this section.
    Following the 2020 IUCN assessment of the sunflower sea star 
(Gravem et al. 2021), the species was conferred Critically Endangered 
status on the Red List of Threatened Species (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/178290276/197818455). Subsequent to this, 
The Nature Conservancy convened a working group made up of state, 
tribal, Federal, and provincial government; academic; and non-profit 
partners to create a roadmap to recovery for the species. This document 
uses the best available science and information to identify specific, 
targeted research and management efforts needed to address what 
workgroup participants identify as the greatest threats facing long-
term persistence of the sunflower sea star (Heady et al. 2022). Many 
contributors to this document provided data and knowledge to the SRT to 
ensure all of the most recent research was captured in our analysis 
(Lowry et al. 2022). The roadmap also includes an inventory of 
knowledge gaps that can be used as a guidance tool by partner 
organizations to coordinate collaborative research and management 
directed at sunflower sea star recovery (Heady et al. 2022), in many 
ways paralleling the structure and intent of a formal recovery plan 
under the ESA.
    While we find that protective efforts associated with the roadmap 
to recovery

[[Page 16227]]

will help increase public and scientific knowledge about the sunflower 
sea star and SSWS, and will likely result in multinational coordination 
on both research and management, such actions alone do not 
significantly alter the extinction risk for the sunflower sea star to 
the point where it would not be in danger of extinction in the 
foreseeable future. We seek additional information on these and other 
conservation efforts in our public comment process (see Public Comments 
Solicited on Proposed Listing below).

Determination

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that listing determinations 
are based solely on the best scientific and commercial information and 
data available after conducting a review of the status of the species 
and 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 independently reviewed the best available 
scientific and commercial information including the petition, public 
comments submitted on the 90-day finding (86 FR 73230; December 27, 
2021), the status review report (Lowry et al. 2022), and other 
published and unpublished information, and have consulted with species 
experts and individuals familiar with the sunflower sea star.
    As summarized above, and in Lowry et al. (2022), we assessed the 
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors both individually and collectively for the 
sunflower sea star, throughout its range and in portions of its range, 
and conclude that the species faces ongoing threats from SSWS and 
direct (i.e., physiological) and indirect (i.e., ecological) 
consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Over 90 percent of the 
abundance of the species was lost over the period from 2013 to 2017, 
there are few positive signs of recovery, and we do not yet know the 
etiology of SSWS. Likely linkages of SSWS with environmental parameters 
that are projected to worsen with ongoing climate change suggest that 
impacts on the species from SSWS will likely persist and potentially 
worsen over the foreseeable future throughout the range.
    We found no evidence of protective efforts for the conservation of 
the sunflower sea star that would eliminate or adequately reduce 
threats to the species to the point where it would not necessitate 
listing under the ESA. Therefore, we conclude that the sunflower sea 
star is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable 
future throughout its range from threats of disease and anthropogenic 
climate change. As such, we have determined that the sunflower sea star 
meets the definition of a threatened species and propose to list it is 
as such throughout its range under the ESA.

Effects of Listing

    Measures provided for species of fish or wildlife listed as 
endangered or threatened under the ESA include: development of recovery 
plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and 
the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with NMFS under section 
7 of the ESA to ensure the actions they fund, conduct, and authorize 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
result in adverse modification or destruction of any designated 
critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). Certain prohibitions, 
including prohibitions against ``taking'' and importing, apply with 
respect to endangered species under section 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538), and, at 
the discretion of the Secretary, some or all of these prohibitions may 
be applied to threatened species under the authority of section 4(d) 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Other benefits to species from ESA listing include 
recognition of the species' status and threats, which can promote 
voluntary conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign 
entities, private groups, and individuals.

Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA and implementing regulations require 
Federal agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies must 
consult under section 7(a)(2) on any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or its 
critical habitat to ensure that such actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the species or result in destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat should it be designated. At this time, based on the 
currently available data and information, we determine that examples of 
Federal actions that may affect the sunflower sea star include, but are 
not limited to: discharge of pollution from point and non-point 
sources, contaminated waste disposal, dredging, marine cable laying, 
pile-driving, development of nearshore infrastructure, development of 
water quality standards, military activities, and fisheries management 
practices. None of the actions on this list were scored as moderate or 
high risk to the sunflower sea stars or identified as a significant 
cause of their recent population decline. Their effects, even if small, 
would be subject to section 7 consultations if the sea star sunflower 
is listed as threatened. For example, Federal fisheries were identified 
as low risk, and for specific fisheries that employ bottom contact gear 
and have known or presumed bycatch, we would anticipate evaluating the 
relatively low risk, then focusing on measures to minimize or better 
understand effects, such as species identification and reporting by 
fishery observers and development of safe handling practices.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)) as: 
(1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which 
are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (b) which may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA 
requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical 
habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. 
Designations of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific 
data available and must take into consideration the economic, national 
security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat. When developing critical habitat designations we 
often seek data and public comment on these aspects such as: (1) maps 
and specific information describing the amount, distribution, and use 
type (e.g., spawning) of the habitat, as well as any additional 
information on occupied and unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the reasons 
why any specific area of habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the 
ESA; (3) information regarding the benefits of designating particular 
areas as critical habitat; (4) current or planned activities in the 
areas that might qualify for designation and their possible impacts;

[[Page 16228]]

(5) any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting from 
designation, and, in particular, any impacts on small entities; (6) 
whether specific unoccupied areas may be essential for the conservation 
of the species; and (7) individuals who could serve as peer reviewers 
in connection with a proposed critical habitat designation, including 
persons with biological and economic expertise relevant to the species, 
region, and designation of critical habitat.
    As part of the status review process (Lowry et al. 2022) and 
proposed threatened listing we have conducted an exhaustive review of 
available information on many of the above elements, particularly 
related to distribution, habitat use, and biological features. 
Sunflower sea stars are habitat generalists, occurring on a wide array 
of abiotic and biotic substrates over a broad depth range. Few 
systematic surveys have been conducted to differentiate habitat use, 
such as spawning/rearing, or identify features across different depths, 
latitudes, substrates, temperatures, or other potentially important 
biological parameters. At this time, we find that critical habitat for 
the sunflower sea star is not determinable because data sufficient to 
perform the required analyses are lacking. Specifically, we do not have 
sufficient information regarding physical and biological habitat 
features associated with sunflower sea star occurrence that may be 
essential to their conservation.
    We therefore seek public input on physical and biological habitat 
features and areas that are essential to the conservation of the 
sunflower sea star in U.S. waters. If we determine that designation of 
critical habitat is prudent and determinable in the future, we will 
publish a proposed designation of critical habitat for the sunflower 
sea star in a separate rule.

Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) gives the 
Secretary discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to 
extend the prohibitions of section 9 to the species, and authorizes the 
issuance of regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
the species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor 
protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of 
available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may 
prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts 
which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered 
species. We are not proposing such regulations at this time, given the 
minimal impacts of habitat degradation/destruction, fisheries, trade, 
and manmade factors (other than climate change described above), but we 
may consider potential protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) 
for the sunflower sea star in a future rulemaking. For example, the 
impacts of the specific threats that could potentially be addressed 
through a 4(d) rule, such as pollution, collection/trade, or fisheries, 
were all identified as low risk. Therefore, at this time we conclude 
that management under 4(d) would be unlikely to provide meaningful 
protection. In order to inform our consideration of appropriate 
protective regulations for the species in the future if our 
understanding of threats evolves, we are seeking information from the 
public on threats to the sunflower sea star and possible measures for 
its conservation.

Role of Peer Review

    The intent of peer review is to ensure that listings are based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available. In December 2004, 
OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 
establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for 
public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public 
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and 
credibility of the Federal Government's scientific information, and 
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information 
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements 
under the OMB Bulletin, we are obtaining independent peer review of the 
status review report concurrent with the public comment period 
associated with this proposed rule. All comments will be considered and 
addressed prior to publication of the final rule in which we make the 
decision whether to list the sunflower sea star.

Public Comments Solicited on Proposed Listing

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments and 
suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, tribal entities, environmental groups, 
and any other interested parties. Comments are encouraged on all 
aspects of this proposal (See DATES and ADDRESSES). We are particularly 
interested in: (1) new or updated information regarding the range, 
distribution, and abundance of the sunflower sea star; (2) new or 
updated information regarding the genetics and population structure of 
the sunflower sea star; (3) new or updated information regarding past 
or current habitat occupancy by the sunflower sea star; (4) new or 
updated biological or other relevant data concerning any threats to the 
sunflower sea star (e.g., landings of the species, illegal taking of 
the species); (5) information on commercial trade or curio collection 
of the sunflower sea star; (6) recent observations or sampling of the 
sunflower sea star; (7) current or planned activities within the range 
of the sunflower sea star and their possible impact on the species; and 
(8) efforts being made to protect the sunflower sea star.

Public Comments Solicited on Critical Habitat

    As noted above, we have concluded that critical habitat is not 
currently determinable for the sunflower sea star. We request 
information that would contribute to consideration of critical habitat 
in the future, such as new data describing the quality and extent of 
habitat for the sunflower sea star, information on what might 
constitute physical and biological habitat features and areas that are 
essential to the conservation of the species, whether such features may 
require special management considerations or protection, or 
identification of areas outside the occupied geographical area that may 
be essential to the conservation of the species and that are under U.S. 
jurisdiction.
    In addition, as part of any potential critical habitat designation 
we may propose, we would also need to consider the economic impact, 
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of 
designating any particular area as critical habitat as required under 
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. Therefore, we are also soliciting 
information to inform these types of analyses, including information 
regarding: (1) activities or other threats to the essential features of 
occupied habitat or activities that could be affected by designating a 
particular area as critical habitat; and (2) the positive and negative 
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts, including 
benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if particular 
areas are designated as critical habitat.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is 
available at

[[Page 16229]]

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/sunflower-sea-star and upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to take into account any 
federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes 
specific directives for consultation in situations where a regulation 
will preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of 
those circumstances is applicable to this action.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species.

    Dated: March 10, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA proposes to amend 50 
CFR part 223 as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

0
2. Amend Sec.  223.102, in paragraph (e), by adding a new table 
subheading for ``Echinoderms'' before the ``Molluscs'' subheading, and 
adding a new entry for ``Sunflower Sea Star'' under the ``Echinoderms'' 
table subheading to read as follows:


 Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous 
species.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Species \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for listing
                                                           Description of listed        determination(s)        Critical habitat          ESA rules
           Common name                Scientific name              entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Echinoderms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunflower Sea Star...............  Pycnopodia            Entire species...........  [Insert Federal Register  NA..................  NA.
                                    helianthoides.                                   citation and date when
                                                                                     published as a final
                                                                                     rule].
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
  evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

[FR Doc. 2023-05340 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P