76018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices

NMFS–2020–0014, by either of the subspecies is not being included in this Dated: November 23, 2020. following methods: 5-year review. Angela Somma, • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to Background information on the ringed Chief, Endangered Species Conservation www.regulations.gov/ seal subspecies listed above is available Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020- on the NMFS website at: http:// 0014, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/ringed- [FR Doc. 2020–26212 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] complete the required fields, and enter seal. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P or attach your comments. • Mail: Submit written information to Determining if a Species Is Threatened Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional or Endangered DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Administrator for Protected Resources, Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires National Oceanic and Atmospheric Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records Administration Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box that we determine whether a species is 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. endangered or threatened based on one [Docket No. 201120–0310] or more of the five following factors: (1) Instructions: NMFS may not consider RIN 0648–XH060 comments if they are sent by any other The present or threatened destruction, method, to any other address or modification, or curtailment of its Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; individual, or received after the habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Delist comment period ends. All comments commercial, recreational, scientific, or the Arctic Subspecies of Ringed Seal received are a part of the public record educational purposes; (3) disease or Under the Endangered Species Act and NMFS will post the comments for predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing AGENCY: public viewing on www.regulations.gov regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other National Marine Fisheries without change. All personal identifying natural or manmade factors affecting its Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and information (e.g., name, address, etc.), continued existence. Section 4(b) also Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), confidential business information, or requires that our determination be made Department of Commerce. otherwise sensitive information on the basis of the best scientific and ACTION: Notice; 90-Day petition finding. submitted voluntarily by the sender is commercial data available after SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a publicly accessible. NMFS will accept conducting a review of the status of the negative 90-day finding on a petition to anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in species and after taking into account delist the Arctic subspecies of ringed the required fields if you wish to remain those efforts, if any, being made by any seal (Pusa hispida hispida) under the anonymous). State or foreign nation to protect such Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species. that the petition and information readily Tammy Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, Public Solicitation of New Relevant available in our files does not present 907–271–2373, [email protected]. new information or analyses that had Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section not been previously considered and 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we To ensure that the 5-year review is therefore does not present substantial conduct a review of listed species at complete and based on the best scientific or commercial information least once every 5 years. The regulations scientific and commercial data indicating that the petitioned action in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we available, we are soliciting new may be warranted. Nevertheless, we publish a notice in the Federal Register information from the public, note that we are separately initiating a announcing species currently under governmental agencies, Tribes, the five-year review of the status of the active review. On the basis of such scientific community, industry, Arctic ringed seal pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the ESA, including whether reviews, under section 4(c)(2)(B) we environmental entities, and any other the best scientific and commercial data determine whether a listed species interested parties concerning the status available indicate delisting is warranted. should be delisted, or reclassified from of Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga ADDRESSES: endangered to threatened or from ringed seals. Categories of requested Copies of the petition and related materials are available from the threatened to endangered (16 U.S.C. information include: (1) Species biology NMFS website at https:// 1533(c)(2)(B)). As described by the including, but not limited to, population regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(e), the www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ trends, distribution, abundance, Secretary shall delist a species if the endangered-species-conservation/ demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat Secretary finds that, after conducting a negative-90-day-findings or upon conditions including, but not limited to, status review based on the best request from the Assistant Regional scientific and commercial data amount, distribution, and important Administrator for Protected Resources, available: (1) The species is extinct; (2) features for conservation; (3) status and Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, the species does not meet the definition trends of threats; (4) conservation Juneau, AK 99802–1668. of an endangered species or a threatened measures that have been implemented FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: species; or (3) the listed entity does not that benefit the species, including Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, meet the statutory definition of a monitoring data demonstrating (907) 271–2373; Jon Kurland, NMFS species. Any change in Federal effectiveness of such measures; (5) need Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638; or classification would require a separate for additional conservation measures; Heather Austin, NMFS Office of rulemaking process. and (6) other new information, data, or Protected Resources, (301) 427–8422. Another subspecies of ringed seal, the corrections including, but not limited SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Saimaa seal (Phoca hispida saimensis), to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes was listed as an endangered species in and improved analytical methods for Background 1993 (58 FR 26920; May 6, 1993). NMFS evaluating extinction risk. On March 26, 2019, we received a completed a 5-year review for the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. petition from the State of Alaska, Arctic Saimaa seal on January 11, 2018, so that Slope Regional Corporation, In˜ upiat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76019

Community of the Arctic Slope, and the subspecies and, for any vertebrate the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the North Slope Borough to delist the Arctic species, any distinct population ESA that may affect the species and subspecies of ringed seal under the ESA. segment (DPS) that interbreeds when where these factors are acting upon the On April 30, 2019, we received a letter mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint species; (3) whether and to what extent in support of this petition from the NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service any or all of the factors alone or in Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the (USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy combination identified in section 4(a)(1) American Petroleum Institute. The clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of of the ESA may cause the species to be petition asserts that new information the phrase ‘‘distinct population an endangered species or threatened became available after the species was segment’’ for the purposes of listing, species (i.e., the species is currently in listed as threatened under the ESA (77 delisting, and reclassifying a species danger of extinction or is likely to FR 76706; December 28, 2012) and a under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, become so within the foreseeable reanalysis of the information considered 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is future), and, if so, how high in in our listing determination for this ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of magnitude and how imminent the species demonstrates that our listing extinction throughout all or a significant threats to the species and its habitat are; decision was in error. The Arctic portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if (4) information on adequacy of subspecies of ringed seal is currently it is likely to become endangered within regulatory protections and effectiveness listed as threatened under the ESA. the foreseeable future throughout all or of conservation activities by States as Copies of this petition are available from a significant portion of its range (ESA well as other parties, that have been us (see ADDRESSES, above). sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 initiated or that are ongoing, that may The Arctic ringed seal is listed with U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the protect the species or its habitat; and (5) the scientific name Phoca (= Pusa) ESA and our implementing regulations, a complete, balanced representation of hispida hispida. In this 90-day finding, we determine whether species are the relevant facts, including information we use the genus name Pusa to reflect threatened or endangered based on any that may contradict claims in the currently accepted use (e.g., Committee one or a combination of the following petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). on Taxonomy, 2018; Integrated five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present If the petitioner provides Taxonomic Information System (online or threatened destruction, modification, supplemental information before the database), available at http:// or curtailment of habitat or range; initial finding is made and states that it www.itis.gov). overutilization for commercial, is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy recreational, scientific, or educational submitted information, is treated as a Provisions and Evaluation Framework purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory new petition that supersedes the Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, mechanisms to address identified original petition, and the statutory as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), threats; or any other natural or timeframes will begin when such requires, to the maximum extent manmade factors affecting the species’ supplemental information is received. practicable, that within 90 days of existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR See 50 CFR 424.14(g). receipt of a petition to list a species as 424.11(c)). We may also consider information threatened or endangered, or to delist a ESA-implementing regulations issued readily available at the time the species, the Secretary of Commerce jointly by the Services (50 CFR determination is made. We are not make a finding on whether that petition 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ‘‘substantial required to consider any supporting presents substantial scientific or scientific or commercial information’’ in materials cited by the petitioner if the commercial information indicating that the context of reviewing a petition to petitioner does not provide electronic or the petitioned action may be warranted, list, delist, or reclassify a species as hard copies, to the extent permitted by and to promptly publish such finding in credible scientific or commercial U.S. copyright law, or appropriate the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. information in support of the petition’s excerpts or quotations from those 1533(b)(3)(A)). If we find that claims such that a reasonable person materials (e.g., publications, maps, substantial scientific or commercial conducting an impartial scientific reports, letters from authorities). See 50 information in a petition indicates the review would conclude that the action CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii). petitioned action may be warranted (a proposed in the petition may be The ‘‘substantial scientific or ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), we are warranted. Conclusions drawn in the commercial information’’ standard must required to promptly commence a petition without the support of credible be applied in light of any prior reviews review of the status of the species scientific or commercial information or findings we have made on the listing concerned during which we will will not be considered ‘‘substantial status of the species that is the subject conduct a comprehensive review of the information.’’ In reaching the initial (90- of the petition. Where we have already best available scientific and commercial day) finding on the petition, we will conducted a finding on, or review of, information. In such cases, we conclude consider the information described in the listing status of that species the review with a finding as to whether, sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (whether in response to a petition or on in fact, the petitioned action is (if applicable). our own initiative), we will evaluate any warranted within 12 months of receipt Our determination as to whether the petition received thereafter seeking to of the petition. Because the finding at petition presents substantial scientific list, delist, or reclassify that species to the 12-month stage is based on a more or commercial information indicating determine whether a reasonable person thorough review of the available that the petitioned action may be conducting an impartial scientific information, as compared to the narrow warranted will depend in part on the review would conclude that the action scope of review at the 90-day stage, a degree to which the petition includes proposed in the petition may be ‘‘may be warranted’’ finding at the 90- the following types of information: (1) warranted despite the previous review day stage does not prejudge the outcome Information on current population or finding. Where the prior review of the status review. status and trends and estimates of resulted in a final agency action—such Under the ESA, a listing current population sizes and as a final listing determination, 90-day determination may address a species, distributions, both in captivity and the not-substantial finding, or 12-month which is defined to also include wild, if available; (2) identification of not-warranted finding—a petitioned

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 76020 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices

action will generally not be considered fragmentation), and the potential to list the Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic to present substantial scientific or contribution of identified demographic subspecies of the ringed seal as commercial information indicating that risks to extinction risk for the species. threatened and the Ladoga subspecies of the action may be warranted unless the We then evaluate the potential links the ringed seal as endangered under the petition provides new information or between these demographic risks and ESA on December 28, 2012, primarily analysis not previously considered. See the causative impacts and threats due to threats associated with ongoing 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). identified in section 4(a)(1). and projected changes in sea ice and on- At the 90-day finding stage, we do not Many petitions identify risk ice snow depths stemming from climate conduct additional research, and we do classifications made by change within the foreseeable future (77 not solicit information from parties nongovernmental organizations, such as FR 76706; referred to hereafter as the outside the agency to help us in the International Union on the final listing rule). On March 17, 2016, evaluating the petition. We will accept Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the the listing was vacated by the U.S. the petitioners’ sources and American Fisheries Society, or District Court for the District of Alaska characterizations of the information NatureServe, as evidence of extinction (Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l presented if they appear to be based on risk for a species. Risk classifications by Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 WL accepted scientific principles, unless we such organizations or made under other 1125744 (D. Alaska 2016)). This have specific information in our files Federal or state statutes may be decision was reversed by the U.S. Court that indicates the petition’s information informative, but such classification of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or alone will not provide sufficient basis February 12, 2018 (Alaska Oil and Gas otherwise irrelevant to the requested for a 90-day finding under the ESA. For Ass’n v. Ross, 722 Fed. Appx. 666 (9th action. Information that is susceptible to example, as explained by NatureServe, Cir. 2018)) and the listing was reinstated more than one interpretation or that is their assessments ‘‘have different on May 15, 2018. contradicted by other available criteria, evidence requirements, Although four subspecies of the information will not be dismissed at the purposes, and taxonomic coverage than ringed seal were listed under the ESA 90-day finding stage, so long as it is official lists of endangered and on December 28, 2012, we have not yet reliable and a reasonable person threatened species,’’ and therefore, these conducted a review of these subspecies conducting an impartial scientific two types of lists ‘‘do not necessarily pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2). Such review would conclude it supports the coincide’’ (https:// reviews are required every five years petitioners’ assertions. In other words, explorer.natureserve.org/ and more than five years have passed conclusive information indicating the AboutTheData/DataTypes/ since these subspecies were listed. species may meet the ESA’s ConservationStatusCategories). Accordingly, concurrent with the requirements for delisting is not Additionally, species classifications present determination regarding this required to make a positive 90-day under IUCN and the ESA are not petition but in a separate action, we are finding. We will not conclude that a equivalent; data standards, criteria used initiating a review of these four lack of specific information alone to evaluate species, and treatment of subspecies of the ringed seal, including negates a positive 90-day finding, if a uncertainty are also not necessarily the whether the best scientific and reasonable person conducting an same. Thus, when a petition cites such commercial data available, particularly impartial scientific review would classifications, we will evaluate the new data that has become available conclude that the unknown information source of information that the since the listing decision, indicate itself suggests the petitioned action may classification is based upon in light of delisting is warranted. be warranted. the standards on extinction risk and Analysis of Petition To make a 90-day finding on a impacts or threats discussed above. petition to delist a species, we evaluate Regardless of the petition process, the According to the petition, information whether the petition presents ESA also requires the Secretary to newly available since the time the substantial scientific or commercial conduct a review of listed species at Arctic ringed seal was listed as information indicating the subject least once every five years, and to threatened and a reanalysis of the species may not be threatened or determine on the basis of such reviews information considered in our listing endangered, as defined by the ESA. whether any such species should be determination for this species First, we evaluate whether the delisted or the listing status should be demonstrates that our 2012 listing information presented in the petition, in changed (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). decision was in error. As discussed light of other information readily above, we evaluate any petition seeking Previous Federal Actions available in our files, indicates that the to delist a species in light of any prior petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ On March 28, 2008, we initiated reviews or findings we have already eligible for delisting under the ESA. status reviews of ringed, bearded, and made on the listing status of the species Next, we evaluate whether the spotted seals under the ESA (73 FR that is the subject of the petition. information indicates that the species 16617). On May 28, 2008, we were Because our previous review resulted in does not face an extinction risk such petitioned to list these same species as a final agency action listing the species that delisting may be warranted; this threatened or endangered under the as threatened, the petitioned action will may be indicated in information ESA. On September 4, 2008, we generally not be considered to present expressly discussing the species’ status published a 90-day finding that the substantial scientific or commercial and trends, or in information describing petitioned action may be warranted (73 information indicating that the action impacts and threats to the species. We FR 51615). On December 10, 2010, we may be warranted unless the petition evaluate any information on specific published a 12-month petition finding provides new information or a new demographic factors pertinent to and proposed to list the Arctic, Okhotsk analysis not previously considered. See evaluating extinction risk for the species (Pusa hispida ochotensis), Baltic (Pusa 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). Therefore, (e.g., population abundance and trends, hispida botnica), and Ladoga (Pusa unless the petition provides credible productivity, spatial structure, age hispida ladogensis) subspecies of the new information, or identifies errors or structure, sex ratio, diversity, current ringed seal as threatened under the ESA provides a credible new analysis that and historical range, habitat integrity or (75 FR 77476). We published a final rule suggests the species was listed due to an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76021

error in information and delisting may Lydersen et al. (2017) suggested that yielding lairs excavated in drifts too be warranted, we may find that the although the use of terrestrial sites shallow to protect against predators. petition does not present substantial illustrates some of the adaptive Foreseeable Future information indicating that the flexibility of this species, because of the petitioned action may by warranted. A vulnerability of young pups to predation As stated above, under the ESA, a synopsis of our analysis of the petition and thermoregulatory stress it ‘‘is ‘‘threatened species’’ is defined as any is provided below. unlikely to overcome the catastrophic species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable Species Description consequences of loss of sea-ice breeding habitats on ringed seal pup survival and future throughout all or a significant A review of the taxonomy, life population health,’’ consistent with the portion of its range. In the final listing history, and ecology of the Arctic ringed information considered in our listing rule, we stated that the foreseeability of seal is presented in the ‘‘Status Review determination for this species. a species’ future status is case specific of the Ringed Seal’’ (Kelly et al., 2010) and depends upon both the We identified several instances in the (referred to hereafter as the ‘‘Status foreseeability of threats to the species ‘‘Species and Habitat Description’’ Review Report’’), and relevant updates and the foreseeability of the species’ section of the petition where the to this information were included in the response to those threats (77 FR 76707; information presented, or interpretation preamble to the final listing rule. As December 28, 2012). Therefore, in our of information was incomplete, discussed in detail in those documents, listing determination for the Arctic inaccurate, or was not supported by the principal threat to ringed seals ringed seal, we used a threat-specific identified at the time of listing was appropriate documentation (e.g., approach to analyze foreseeable future habitat loss and modification stemming literature citations, publications, threats and the species’ responses to from climate change. A specific habitat reports, letters from authorities, per 50 those threats, based on the best requirement of Arctic ringed seals is CFR 424.14(c)(5)–(6)). Conclusions scientific and commercial data available adequate snow depths on sea ice for the drawn without the support of credible for each respective threat. The climate formation and occupation of lairs, in scientific or commercial information are projections in the Intergovernmental particular birth lairs, where pups are not considered ‘‘substantial Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) nursed and grow in this protected information.’’ See 50 CFR ‘‘Fourth Assessment Report’’ (AR4) setting. Early break-up of sea ice and 424.14(h)(1)(i). For example, the (IPCC, 2007) which extended through early snow melt have been associated petition states that ringed seals the end of the century, as well as the with increased pup mortality from generally use sea ice, when it is scientific papers used in that report or premature weaning, hypothermia, and available, as a platform for pupping and resulting from that report, were predation. Moreover, the high fidelity to nursing, implying that ring seals may determined to represent the best birth sites shown by Arctic ringed seals pup or nurse on land at other times. scientific and commercial data available makes the seals more susceptible to However, we are not aware of any to inform our analysis of the potential localized degradation of snow cover. documented observations of ringed seals impacts to this species from climate Although the petition cites references giving birth or nursing pups on land. In change. As we explained in the final related to the Arctic ringed seal’s addition, the petition cites the Status listing rule in response to comments genetic diversity, abundance, Review Report in stating that snow received regarding the timeframe used movements, habitat use, and diet that depth over birth lairs of 20–30 cm may in our analysis, we considered the became available after the final listing be sufficient to adequately protect pups projections through the end of the 21st rule was issued, in reviewing the from predation. However, the Status century to analyze the threats stemming supporting documents we found that Review Report did not indicate that from climate change. We recognized these references were consistent with such snow depths would be sufficient that the farther into the future the the information considered in our for the formation of birth lairs. Rather, analysis extends, the greater the listing determination for this species. the Status Review Report indicated that inherent uncertainty, and we For example, the petition cites Crawford snow drifts of sufficient depths to incorporated that consideration into our et al. (2015), who reported, among other support birth lair formation typically assessments of the threats and the findings, that cod were the most occur only where average snow depths species’ responses to the threats (77 FR common fish taxa identified in the on sea ice are at least 20–30 cm and 76723; December 28, 2012). stomachs of ringed seals harvested in where drifting has taken place along The petition contends that the model two locations in Alaska. The Status pressure ridges or ice hummocks projections of future climate developed Review Report similarly indicated that (Lydersen et al., 1990; Hammill and for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, from late autumn through spring, fishes Smith, 1991; Lydersen and Ryg, 1991; ‘‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical of the cod family tend to dominate the Smith and Lydersen, 1991). The Status Science Basis’’ (IPCC, 2013) (referred to diets of ringed seals in many areas. As Review Report stated that snow drifted hereafter as AR5), provide new another example, the petition cites to 45 cm or more is needed for information indicating that climate Lydersen et al. (2017), who reported excavation and maintenance of simple model projections diverge considerably that several ringed seals tagged in a fjord lairs, and birth lairs require depths of 50 after mid-century, especially in high- in Svalbard hauled out on shore during cm (Lukin et al., 2006) to 65 cm or more latitude areas. The petition also claims a recent summer while also using (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and that in the final listing rule, NMFS glacier ice to some extent. This was in Gjertz, 1986; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et al., based its foreseeable future on the IPCC contrast to exclusive use of glacier ice 1996; Lydersen, 1998). The Status AR4 projections of climate-related as a haul-out platform by several ringed Review Report also noted that Ferguson habitat decline through the end of the seals tagged in the same fjord in a prior et al. (2005) observed evidence that pup century, but lacked the requisite year. The Status Review Report survival dropped sharply when snow scientific data to make reliable similarly noted that Lukin et al. (2006) depths were less than 32 cm, and that predictions about how the Arctic ringed reported observation of ringed seals on those authors suggested reduced seal would respond to that threat. The offshore islands and sand bars in the recruitment in the more recent years of petition cites the USFWS’s October 5, White Sea during summer months. the study resulted from low snow fall 2017, 12-month ‘‘not warranted’’ finding

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 76022 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices

on a petition to list the Pacific walrus projections for the latter half the 21st change through the end of this century (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) under century, and thus the projections differs from the IUCN red list process, the ESA (82 FR 46618) to support the diverge depending on the emissions which uses a timeframe of three assertion that new information and scenario. As we explained in the final generation lengths (77 FR 76722; scientific methodologies have been listing rule, although the magnitude of December 28, 2012). However, we developed since the final listing rule the warming depends somewhat on the concluded in the final listing rule that was issued that further demonstrate assumed emissions scenario, the trend the foreseeability of threats to the NMFS cannot rely upon the duration of is clear and unidirectional (77 FR species and the species’ response is climate projections alone to establish 76723; December 28, 2012). This is also case-specific, and takes into the foreseeable future. Based on these the case for climate model projections consideration factors such as the arguments, the petition asserts that the under the scenarios considered in the species’ life history and habitat time period for projections about effects AR5, aside from a scenario that assumes characteristics and threat projection to habitat from climate change and the unprecedented global GHG emissions timeframes. As we explained above, in responses of the Arctic ringed seal to reductions and new technologies (and our risk assessment for ringed seals, we those potential effects does not extend has no equivalent in the AR4 scenarios). considered the projections through the beyond 2055. Therefore, we conclude that the end of the 21st century to analyze the The climate projections discussed in information presented in the petition threats stemming from climate change. the AR5 are based on a set of scenarios about divergence beyond about mid- We recognized that the farther into the that describe several possible alternative century in the climate model projections future the analysis extends, the greater trajectories of greenhouse gas (GHG) developed for the AR5 does not the inherent uncertainty, and we emissions and atmospheric constitute new information or a new incorporated that consideration into our concentrations, air pollutant emissions, analysis not previously considered in assessments of the threats and the and land use. Current trends in global our listing determination for the Arctic species’ responses to the threats (77 FR annual emissions have been described ringed seal. 76723; December 28, 2012). as consistent with high-end emissions Regarding the USFWS’s 12-month Moreover, considering the case- scenarios (U.S. Global Climate Change ‘‘not warranted’’ finding on a petition to specific nature of evaluating the Research Program (USGCRP, 2017). list the Pacific walrus under the ESA (82 foreseeable future, it also warrants According to the petition, by mid- FR 46618; October 5, 2017), the USFWS mention that the Pacific walrus has century (2036–2055) the difference explained that although projections out between model projections in the to 2100 were included in the analysis, distinctly different life history and Alaska region is about 1.0°–1.5°C, and it considered 2060 (approximately three habitat characteristics as compared to beyond mid-century for the Alaska Pacific walrus generation lengths from the Arctic ringed seal. For example, in region the AR5 projects surface the time of the analysis) to be the its ‘‘Species Assessment and Listing temperature increases with a spread in foreseeable future as it relates to the Priority Assignment Form’’ for the range from about 2°C to 5–7°C by the status of this species (82 FR 46643; Pacific walrus (USFWS, 2017) the late 21st century. The petition asserts October 5, 2017). USFWS explained that USFWS explained that, given the ability that these data demonstrate that there is it had high certainty that sea ice of the Pacific walrus to change its considerable variability in future availability will decline as a result of behavior and/or adapt to environmental climate scenarios, and that there is climate change, but it had less certainty, stressors, there was much less greater uncertainty in any projection of particularly further into the future, confidence in predicting Pacific high-latitude surface temperatures about the magnitude of effect that walruses’ behavioral responses under compared to the rest of the globe, climate change will have on the full increasing environmental stressors out especially for the late 21st century. suite of environmental conditions (e.g., to 2100, noting that changes in the Although the climate projections benthic production), or how the species timing of migration, amount of time discussed in the AR5 became available will respond to those changes (82 FR spent on land, and time spent after the Arctic ringed seal was listed as 46643; October 5, 2017). Assuming an swimming to access foraging grounds threatened in 2012, we do not agree that Arctic ringed seal generation length of are some of the changes in behavior that the divergence in the climate model approximately 12 years, the petition have already been observed. We did not projections after about mid-century is contends that applying a similar three- cite a similar observed adaptability for new information not previously generation-length approach to Arctic ringed seals in the final listing considered in our listing determination, determining the foreseeable future for rule, aside from the observations noted which focused on climate model this species should yield a foreseeable above of ringed seals on offshore islands projections developed for the AR4. As future timeframe of 2055 (i.e., 36 years and sand bars in the White Sea during we explained in the final listing rule in beyond 2019), which the petition states summer months. Nor does the petition response to comments expressing also corresponds to the time period present new information to indicate similar views regarding divergence of when the IPCC AR5 climate projections such adaptability. We concluded in the the climate model projections beyond are most reliable, with the least amount final listing rule that, because ringed mid-century (77 FR 76722–76723; of variability between projection seals stay with the ice as it annually December 28, 2012), before mid-century, scenarios. advances and retreats, the southern edge model projections of conditions such as We do not find the USFWS approach of the ringed seal’s range may initially increases in surface air temperature taken to analyzing the foreseeable future shift northward. Whether ringed seals primarily reflect emissions of long-lived in the 12-month finding for the Pacific will continue to move north with GHGs that have already occurred and walrus to be new information not retreating ice cover over the deeper, less those that will occur in the near-term, previously considered in our listing productive Arctic Basin waters and and are thus largely independent of the determination for the Arctic ringed seal. whether the species that they prey on assumed emissions scenario. In contrast, We considered comments received on will also move north is uncertain (77 FR the model projections become the proposed listing determination for 76716; December 28, 2012). In addition, increasingly subject to the assumed Arctic ringed seals that our assessment we discussed that the ability of ringed emissions scenarios in the longer-term of impacts to ringed seals from climate seals to adapt to earlier snow melts by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76023

advancing the timing of reproduction these factors that would support a 2012 listing decision overestimated will be limited by snow depths, which conclusion that delisting may be future declines in snow depths on we explained would be unlikely to be warranted. Arctic sea ice, and therefore does not improved for birth lairs earlier in the address the concern in the final listing Factor A: The Present or Threatened spring, because most of the snow rule that habitat suitability for Arctic Destruction, Modification, or accumulation occurs earlier in the Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or ringed seals was likely to decline. These season. In addition we noted that the Range cited studies therefore do not present pace at which snow melts are advancing substantial scientific or commercial is rapid relative to the generation time As was discussed in detail in the information indicating that the of ringed seals, further challenging the Status Review Report and the final petitioned action may be warranted. listing rule and noted above, a specific potential for an adaptive response (77 The petition also asserts that the habitat requirement for ringed seals is FR 76710; December 28, 2012). The scenarios used in the climate model adequate snow for the formation and petition presents no new information projections considered in our listing occupation of subnivean lairs, regarding these conclusions. determination for the Arctic ringed seal especially in spring when pups are born Finally, we note that, in support of its assumed status quo GHG emissions, and nursed. Snow depths on the sea ice assertions regarding analysis of the which, according to the petition, were projected to decrease substantially foreseeable future, the petition cites the correspond to climate projections in the by mid-century throughout much of the 2018 proposed revision of the ESA AR5 reflecting a scenario with a range of the Arctic ringed seal, and by implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 continued increase in emissions. The that sets out a regulatory framework for the end of this century, snow depths petition claims that the latest published determining the foreseeable future (83 adequate for the formation and research indicates that international and FR 35193; July 25, 2018). This occupation of birth lairs were projected domestic policy commitments will framework, which was revised in the to occur in only parts of the Canadian result in the climate system following a final regulation (84 FR 45020; August Arctic Archipelago, a portion of the trajectory more closely corresponding to 27, 2019), is part of a rulemaking that central Arctic, and a few small isolated the intermediate stabilization scenario revises and clarifies requirements areas in other regions (see Kelly et al., considered in the AR5 (in which regarding factors for listing, delisting, or 2010; and 77 FR 76706, December 28, emissions peak around 2040 and then reclassifying species ‘‘to reflect agency 2012). The petition asserts that new decline and stabilize), but the analysis experience and to codify current agency information demonstrates that the 2012 practices’’ (84 FR 45050; August 27, listing decision overestimated the cited in the petition to support this 2019). Our interpretation of the magnitude of future declines in snow assertion (Salawitch et al., 2017) does foreseeable future in the final listing cover. However, none of the studies not, in fact, reach that conclusion. rule is consistent with this regulatory cited in the petition in support of this Rather, Salawitch et al. (2017) assessed framework. Specifically, we considered claim (IPCC, 2013; Nitta et al., 2014; the reductions in emissions of GHGs conditions only so far into the future as Thackeray et al., 2015; Littell et al., that will be needed to achieve the goal we could reasonably determine that 2018) investigated the effectiveness of of the United Nations Framework both the future threats and the species’ climate models in projecting the Convention on Climate Change responses to those threats were likely, accumulation of snow (snow depth) on (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement to limit sea ice. Instead, these studies addressed GHG emissions such that warming in based on the best available data and ° modeling of snow-related parameters this century remains below 2 C, and to taking into account considerations such ° as the species’ life-history (usually percent area covered by any pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 C. characteristics, threat-projection snow) on land surfaces. Of importance The authors concluded, based on timeframes, and environmental to Arctic ringed seals is the available projections from an independently variability. area of sea ice with average snow depths derived climate model (Empirical Model In summary, we conclude that the that are sufficient for the formation and of Global Climate Change), that GHG petition does not present new maintenance of birth lairs. Therefore, in emissions will remain below the information or a new analysis not our listing determination for this intermediate stabilization scenario out previously considered in our listing species, we considered climate model to 2060 if: (1) Conditional as well as determination for the Arctic ringed seal projections of snow depth on Arctic sea unconditional pledges are met; and (2) regarding our assessment of the ice during the birth lair period in April reductions in GHG emissions needed to foreseeable future. (e.g., 77 FR 76708, 76710; December 28, achieve the Paris commitments, which 2012). Although winter precipitation generally extend to 2030, are propagated ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors was projected to increase in a warming forward to 2060. The authors did not, As explained above, pursuant to the Arctic, later open-water freeze-up was however, opine as to how likely it is ESA and our implementing regulations, also projected, and this contributed to that such actions would occur. The we determine whether a species is the projected decreases in snow authors also stated that global climate threatened or endangered based on any accumulation on the ice (because snow models used in the AR5 indicate that one or a combination of the five section falls into the ocean until sea ice forms) future emissions will instead need to 4(a)(1) factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 (75 FR 77483; December 10, 2010). follow the aggressive mitigation CFR 424.11(c)). Because the petition Future snow depths on sea ice cannot be scenario involving rapid reductions in disagrees with some of the conclusions inferred from the studies discussed in GHGs for warming to remain below 2°C. in the final listing rule with respect to the petition regarding snow on land In addition, we note that the United these factors, in the following sections surfaces. Thus, although the petition States subsequently announced that it we summarize our evaluation of cites studies regarding modeling of intended to withdraw from the Paris whether the petition presents future snow-related parameters on land Agreement (see Factor E: The substantial new information, provides that became available after the final Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory credible new analysis of information listing rule was issued, we conclude Mechanisms), and current global annual previously considered, or identifies that this information does not support emissions trends have been described as errors in the final listing rule regarding the assertion in the petition that the consistent with high-end emissions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 76024 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices

scenarios (USGCRP, 2017). Therefore, to be as high as 50 percent of the total response to comments received related although the publication by Salawitch et population because such a population to the report by Quakenbush et al. al. (2017) became available after the would consist only of pups and their (2011), healthy individual animals are final listing rule was issued, we mothers. Although the abundance not inconsistent with a population conclude that the cited study does not estimate for the U.S. Bering Sea reported facing threats that would cause it to support the assertion in the petition that by Conn et al. (2014) (as well as the become in danger of extinction in the the latest published research indicates estimate reported by Lowry, 2016) foreseeable future. In the case of ringed the climate system will follow the became available after the final listing seals, substantial losses due to predation trajectory of the intermediate rule was issued, this information is and hypothermia associated with stabilization scenario. consistent with the data considered in reduced snow cover could not be Citing a study by Crawford et al. our listing determination for the Arctic detected by assessing the health of (2015), the petition also asserts that ringed seal. In the final listing rule we survivors. In fact, survivors might be observed changes in sea ice extent and concluded that there are no specific expected to fare well for a period of time duration have not resulted in detectable estimates of worldwide population size as a consequence of reduced corresponding reductions in ringed seal available for the Arctic subspecies, but competition (77 FR 76720; December 28, population size or effects on ringed seal most experts postulate that it numbers 2012). We also noted in response to a population health, which the petition in the millions (77 FR 76716; December similar comment received regarding claims contradicts the assumptions 28, 2012). As we explained in observed Arctic sea ice changes relative made in the listing decision. However, withdrawing the proposed ESA section to effects on ringed seals that indices of our listing of Arctic ringed seals as 4(d) protective regulations for ringed condition, such as those indices threatened was not based on evidence seals, foreseeable habitat changes in the reported by Quakenbush et al. (2011), indicating that population size or health future pose a long-term threat and the are available for only a limited portion had declined, nor was it based on a consequences for ringed seals will of the Arctic ringed seal’s range, and presumption that a climate driven manifest themselves over the next would not be expected to reflect certain decline would be detectable at that time several decades (77 FR 76718; December detrimental effects, such as an increase or shortly thereafter. Rather, as 28, 2012). Therefore, we conclude that in pup mortality by predation (77 FR explained in the final listing rule, it was the petition does not present new 76729; December 28, 2012). based primarily on the conclusion that information on the worldwide or As noted above, the study by continuing Arctic warming would cause Alaska-specific abundance of this Crawford et al. (2015) cited in the substantial reductions in sea ice and on- species. petition is an update to the report by ice snow depths, two key elements of Quakenbush et al. (2011) based on data Arctic ringed seal breeding habitat, and As noted above regarding ringed seal collected through 2012, and includes that these habitat changes were population health, the petition cites a analyses that were not presented in the expected to lead to decreased survival of study by Crawford et al. (2015) that 2011 report, such as comparisons of pups and a substantial decline in the analyzed data collected from the Alaska ringed seal growth measurements with number of Arctic ringed seals, such that Native subsistence harvest to support annual variations in sea ice area. Also, they would no longer persist in the assertions in the petition that ringed Bryan et al. (2019) updated several of substantial portions of their range seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas the demographic parameters analyzed in within the foreseeable future (77 FR have not exhibited declines in body those studies based on data collected 76716, 76731; December 28, 2012). condition, growth, or pregnancy rate, through 2016. However, for the reasons Regarding new abundance data, the and the age at maturity is younger than discussed below, we conclude that the petition cites an estimate of Arctic in previous decades, and that these updates and new analyses cited in the ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the observations are all indications of a petition do not constitute new Bering Sea that was calculated by Conn positive response to environmental information or new analysis that is et al. (2014) based on data obtained in conditions. The petition also references inconsistent with the analysis in the 2012. We note that the petition Bryan et al. (2019), who analyzed data final listing rule. mistakenly cites Conn et al. (2014) for from the same harvest monitoring Crawford et al. (2015) reviewed an abundance estimate in the U.S. program collected through 2016. We published reports on responses of portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort considered and addressed similar ringed seal demographic indicators (e.g., Seas. However, this estimate was not assertions in the final listing rule in age of maturation, recruitment, and reported by Conn et al. (2014). Rather, reference to a report by Quakenbush et proportion of pups in the harvest) to it was presented in the Status Review al. (2011) that included data from the interannual variation in sea ice. Report that informed our listing same Alaska Native subsistence harvest Although the discussion of this determination for the Arctic ringed seal. monitoring program collected through information in Crawford et al. (2015) As such, the abundance estimate is not 2010. The authors concluded in that focused on negative effects on ringed new information but is information that report that data from the most recent seal demography in relatively cold years was actually considered in the listing decade indicated ringed seals were of extensive spring sea ice (which were decision. growing faster, had average blubber also discussed in the Status Review The petition also extrapolates a total thickness, were maturing at the Report), the authors also indicated that worldwide population estimate for this youngest age to date, and had the their data suggested there might be an species from a worldwide estimate of second highest pregnancy rate to date. optimal amount of spring ice for ice mature Arctic ringed seals reported by The authors stated that these factors seals, noting that while the residual Lowry (2016). This petition’s indicated environmental conditions growth of ringed seals increased as the extrapolation was based on an were currently as favorable (or better) area of sea ice decreased, this trend assumption that the proportion of pups than they were in the 1960s or 1970s began to reverse as the area of sea ice in ‘‘a stable population’’ is about 54 (the authors did not comment on the approached zero. The authors discussed percent. However, because a mature 1980s and 1990s because they had little that Chambellant et al. (2012), a female produces only one pup per year, data for those decades). As we publication previously considered in it is impossible for the pup proportion explained in the final listing rule in our listing determination for the Arctic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76025

ringed seal, found similar patterns in two time periods: A historical period century, and this is also the case with the way that the proportion of ringed from 1975–1984 and a recent period respect to the updated information seal pups in the fall harvest, pup body from 2003–2012, which had fewer years reported by Bryan et al. (2019). condition, and adult female body with extensive May sea ice in the Bering Based primarily on the study by condition varied over the observed Sea. The petition also references Bryan Crawford et al. (2015) discussed above, range of maximum snow depth for et al. (2019), who similarly reported that the petition concludes that: (1) The 2012 February–May and the ice break-up the proportion of pups in the harvest in listing decision was based on erroneous date. These findings have been the 2000s and 2010s was high based on assumptions because there is no direct explained based on expectations that data collected through 2016. Because correlation between observed habitat very cold years are likely to be Crawford et al. (2012) numerically declines and detrimental effects on the characterized by late break-up of sea ice summarized the proportions of pups health of Arctic the ringed seal and short open-water periods that could harvested, we focus our discussion on population; and (2) ringed seals have result in shorter foraging seasons, lower those data. Although the overall average greater resilience to environmental prey productivity, and longer periods of proportion of pups in the harvest, 27.4 changes than anticipated. The on-ice predation by polar bears and percent, was within a reasonable range information reported by Crawford et al. foxes (e.g., Chambellant et al., 2012). for the population proportion of pups in (2015) and Bryan et al. (2019) is useful Warmer years that are around the long- a species with the life-history in documenting an apparent optimum term average to which ringed seals have characteristics of ringed seals (high range of climatic conditions for ringed adapted would be expected to have adult survival and only one offspring seal condition and reproduction, more suitable foraging season length, per mature female annually), the consistent with several other studies productivity of prey, and predation average proportion of pups in the that have made similar findings. pressure. However, the observed harvest during 2003–2012, 51.1 percent, However, as explained above, this changes in sea ice extent and duration cannot be representative of the actual information updates the report by cited in the petition are minor compared proportion of pups in the population, as Quakenbush et al. (2011), which was to the changes that are projected to we explained above. Typically, for a cited and considered in the final listing occur later in this century. As explained long-lived species that produces single rule, and it does not present substantial in the final listing rule and the Status offspring annually, the proportion of new information or a new analysis that Review Report, earlier warming and pups in the population just after the might alter the conclusions of our 2012 break-up of ice and inadequate snow for birth season will not be greater than listing determination regarding the lairs are expected to lead to poor about 33 percent, as would occur if all Arctic ringed seal’s likely response to survival of young seals and cause mature females give birth and the Arctic warming within the foreseeable consequent demographic impacts number of mature females is equal to future. Thus, the ‘‘observed habitat within the foreseeable future (77 FR the number of males plus immature declines’’ discussed in the petition do 76710, 76714–76716, 76721; December females. Pup proportions substantially not represent the magnitude of 28, 2012). Thus, we conclude that the higher than 33 percent would indicate anticipated 21st century warming, loss above information does not constitute substantial perturbation to the age and/ of sea ice, and reduced on-ice snow new information not previously or sex composition, such as very high depths that were the primary concern in considered or new analysis concerning male mortality leading to low numbers listing the Arctic ringed seal. The correlation between habitat declines and the Arctic ringed seal’s likely response of males in the population; values detrimental effects on Arctic ringed to Arctic warming within the approaching 50 percent would require seals was expected to manifest over a foreseeable future. extreme perturbation. This indicates The petition also cites Crawford et al. much more extreme range of conditions that the index used by Crawford et al. (2015) in claiming that the proportion of than was addressed in the updated (2015) (and similarly by Bryan et al., pups occurring in the harvest is high, information that the petition cites. 2019) is biased in some way, perhaps and that these studies provide an index The petition also claims that, differently between the two periods, and for assessing pup survival in changing although, in some areas of the Bering may not be a reliable measure of pup sea-ice conditions that demonstrates Sea, snow depths are currently assumed survival. pups are surviving to weaning in to be insufficient for ringed seal lair current ice and snow conditions. Moreover, there are problems with the formation and therefore pup survival, Similarly, Bryan et al. (2019) reported petition’s characterization of the observations indicate ringed seals in the that the proportion of pups in the historical (1975–1984), recent (2003– Kotzebue Sound region may sometimes harvest since 2000 was high based on 2012), and current periods analyzed by give birth on the surface of the sea ice. data from the same harvest-based Crawford et al. (2015)—it is not clear But the petition does not provide any sampling program collected through that the recent period was significantly supporting documentation for these 2016. However, high proportions of warmer or lower in sea ice than the observations as required by 50 CFR pups in the harvest during the 2000s historical period. In March–May, when 424.14(c)(5)–(6) and 424.14(h)(1)(ii)) were also evident in the report by ringed seal pupping and nursing are and does not present information Quakenbush et al. (2011), which was concentrated, there was not very much regarding the survival of any such pups. considered in the final listing rule, and difference between these two time As we explained in the final listing rule, as explained above, included data periods in the mean sea ice extent in the substantial data indicate survival of through 2010. Thus, this information is Bering Sea for May, and there was prematurely exposed pups tends to be not materially new. considerable overlap in the range of sea low due to hypothermia and predation The assertion that pup survival and ice extents (Crawford et al., 2015, Fig. (77 FR 76709–76710, 76724; December the proportion of pups in the population 10). The recent period, which ended in 28, 2012). is high in current snow and ice 2012 with very high May ice extent in According to the petition, new conditions is based on the comparison in the Bering Sea (National Snow and information since the final listing rule in Crawford et al. (2015) of the Ice Data Center (NSIDC), 2012), was was issued also indicates that the waters proportion of pups in the Alaska Native certainly not an analog for the warm of the Arctic and adjacent seas remain subsistence harvest sampled between conditions expected later in this vulnerable to ocean acidification.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 76026 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices

However, the petition asserts that there wide variety of prey consumed by these example, we noted in the final listing is a significant degree of uncertainty seals. After reviewing the information rule that Hammill and Smith (1991) regarding the impacts of ocean presented in the petition, we conclude found that polar bear predation on acidification on Arctic ringed seals and that the petition does not present ringed seal pups increased 4-fold in a other species, and the magnitude of any substantial new information or a new year when average snow depths in their potential impacts on the species at analysis inconsistent with the analysis study area decreased from 23 cm to 10 issue—or their responses—is unknown. of the potential for ocean acidification cm. They concluded that while a high In support of this assertion, the petition to impact Arctic ringed seals contained proportion of pups born each year are quotes an excerpt from the ‘‘Final in the final listing rule. lost to predation, without the protection Species Status Assessment for the In summary, we conclude that the provided by the subnivean lair, pup Pacific Walrus’’ (MacCracken et al., petition does not present substantial mortality (from polar bears) would be 2017) that cites two publications (Bates new information or new analysis of much higher (77 FR 76711; December and Mathis, 2009; Steinacher et al., information considered in the final 28, 2012). In summary, we conclude 2009) referenced in the Status Review listing rule regarding this ESA section that the petition does not present Report, as well as three other 4(a)(1) factor that would support a substantial new information or new publications (Cai et al., 2010; Mathis et conclusion delisting may be warranted. analysis of information considered in al., 2015; Qi et al., 2017), two of which Factor B: Overutilization for the final listing rule regarding this ESA became available after the Arctic ringed Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or section 4(a)(1) factor. seal was listed as threatened. This Educational Purposes Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing excerpt, which discusses factors that Regulatory Mechanisms contribute to uncertainty regarding the According to the petition, a recent analysis by Nelson et al. (2019) for 55 potential impacts of ocean acidification Under this factor, in the final listing villages in western and northern Alaska on Pacific walrus prey, is largely in rule, we evaluated whether existing estimated that subsistence harvest is agreement with the information regulatory mechanisms may be well below the sustainable harvest level compiled in the Status Review Report inadequate to address threats to the for Arctic ringed seals in U.S. waters, and the reasoning and conclusions species identified under the other ESA which is consistent with our conclusion made in our listing determination for section 4(a)(1) factors. We concluded in the final listing rule that there is no the Arctic ringed seal. However, we note that current mechanisms do not evidence that overutilization of ringed effectively regulate GHG emissions, that the Status Review Report also seals is occurring at present (77 FR which are contributing to global climate reviewed substantial information 76711; December 28, 2012). Thus, we change and associated modifications to indicating ocean acidification’s conclude that the petition does not ringed seal habitat (77 FR 76712; potential to disrupt marine ecosystems present substantial new information or December 28, 2012). The petition asserts and food webs, including cascading new analysis of information considered that since the final listing rule was effects. in the final listing rule regarding this published there have been significant We concluded in the final listing rule ESA section 4(a)(1) factor. new efforts to address GHGs and climate that Arctic ringed seals will face an Factor C: Disease or Predation change at both international and increasing degree of habitat domestic levels, and as a result the modification through the foreseeable According to the petition, there is no potential climate-based threats to the future, primarily as a result of the direct current evidence that disease is a threat Arctic ringed seal that were identified at effects of diminishing sea ice and on-ice to the species. In the final listing rule the time of listing have been reduced. snow, but also from changes in ocean we similarly concluded that abiotic and To support these claims, the petition conditions, including acidification; and biotic changes to ringed seal habitat notes that for example, the Paris we explained that the impact of ocean potentially could lead to exposure to Agreement to address global GHG warming and acidification on ringed new pathogens or new levels of emissions was ratified and entered into seals was expected to be primarily virulence, but concluded that the force in November 2016. However, the through changes in community potential threats to ringed seals from petition does not provide any evidence composition (77 FR 76711; December disease was low (77 FR 76711; that the goals of the Paris Agreement 28, 2012). Citing diet information December 28, 2012). We also concluded will be met, and on November 4, 2019, reported by Quakenbush et al. (2011) in the final listing rule that the threat the U.S. Secretary of State submitted and Crawford et al. (2015) for ringed posed to ringed seals by predation was formal notification to the United seals in Alaska, the petition also asserts currently moderate, but predation risk Nations of United States’ intent to that the breadth of the ringed seal’s diet was expected to increase as snow and withdraw from the Paris Agreement increases the likelihood that the species sea ice conditions change with a (https://www.state.gov/on-the-u-s- will be resilient to changing warming climate (77 FR 76711; withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/). environmental conditions and potential December 28, 2012). The petition asserts In addition, according to the petition, shifts in prey populations, which will that there is no information indicating a domestically, a wide range of policies moderate any impacts associated with future increase in the likelihood or have been adopted at the state and ocean acidification. However, the severity of ringed seal predation, and regional levels to reduce GHGs and, to breadth of the Arctic ringed seal’s diet therefore, predation does not pose a date, twenty states and the District of was well documented in the Status threat to the Arctic ringed seal. Columbia have adopted GHG emissions Review Report, and the report by However, the petition does not provide targets. Such state and regional Quakenbush et al. (2011) was any supporting documentation for these measures may represent policies that considered directly in the final listing assertions as required by 50 CFR could be applied at a national or rule. The study by Crawford et al. (2015) 424.14(c)(5)–(6) and 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). international level in the future, but we which reported updated results from the The Status Review Report discussed find that this is not substantially new same harvest-based sampling program substantial data indicating high ringed information, because it does not change as Quakenbush et al. (2011), simply seal pup mortality as a consequence of the overall conclusion in the final provides additional evidence of the inadequate snow depths for lairs. For listing rule that current mechanisms do

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76027

not effectively regulate GHG emissions, commercial information indicating that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie which are contributing to global climate the petitioned action may be warranted. A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571– change and associated modifications to Nevertheless, as stated above, we are 4366; email: [email protected] ringed seal habitat (77 FR 76712; separately initiating a review of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf December 28, 2012). In the final listing status of the Arctic ringed seal pursuant of Mexico, South Atlantic, and rule, we expressly acknowledged in to 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2), including Caribbean Fishery Management response to comments on our whether the best scientific and Councils, in conjunction with NOAA assessment of existing regulatory commercial data available indicate Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf mechanisms in the proposed listing delisting is warranted. States Marine Fisheries Commissions determination that there is some have implemented the Southeast Data, progress addressing anthropogenic GHG References Cited emissions (77 FR 76734; December 28, A complete list of all references is Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 2012). As such, we conclude that the available upon request from the process, a multi-step method for petition does not present substantial Protected Resources Division of the determining the status of fish stocks in new information or new analysis of the NMFS Alaska Region Office in Juneau, the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi- step process including: (1) Data information considered in the final Alaska (see ADDRESSES). Workshop; (2) Assessment Process listing rule regarding this ESA section Authority: The authority for this action is 4(a)(1) factor. utilizing webinars; and (3) Review the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Workshop. The product of the Data Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Workshop is a data report that compiles Factors Affecting Its Continued Dated: November 23, 2020. and evaluates potential datasets and Existence Samuel D. Rauch III, recommends which datasets are We concluded in the final listing rule Deputy Assistant Administrator for appropriate for assessment analyses. that the threats posed by pollutants, oil Regulatory Programs, National Marine The product of the Assessment Process and gas activities, fisheries, and Fisheries Service. is a stock assessment report that shipping do not individually or [FR Doc. 2020–26211 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] describes the fisheries, evaluates the collectively place Arctic ringed seals at BILLING CODE 3510–22–P status of the stock, estimates biological risk of becoming endangered in the benchmarks, projects future population foreseeable future. We recognized, conditions, and recommends research however, that the significance of these DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and monitoring needs. The assessment threats would likely increase for is independently peer reviewed at the populations diminished by the effects of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Review Workshop. The product of the climate change or other threats (77 FR Administration Review Workshop is a Summary 76714; December 28, 2012). The petition documenting panel opinions regarding asserts that there is no information [RTID 0648–XA667] the strengths and weaknesses of the indicating that any of these factors stock assessment and input data. constitute a threat to this species. Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Participants for SEDAR Workshops are Related to this, the petition notes that in Southeast Data, Assessment, and appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 2017, nine countries and the European Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Union agreed not to conduct AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Management Councils and NOAA commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Ocean for at least the next 16 years. We Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), HMS Management Division, and are aware of this agreement, and note Commerce. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. that the United States made a similar Participants include data collectors and ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 72 Pre- commitment in 2009 (prior to issuance workshop Webinar for Gulf of Mexico database managers; stock assessment of the final listing rule) and prohibited gag grouper. scientists, biologists, and researchers; commercial fishing in the Arctic portion constituency representatives including of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. SUMMARY: The SEDAR 72 assessment of fishermen, environmentalists, and Thus, we do not believe this represents Gulf of Mexico gag grouper will consist NGO’s; International experts; and staff substantial new information regarding of a series of data and assessment of Councils, Commissions, and state and this ESA section 4(a)(1) factor. webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY federal agencies. Petition Finding INFORMATION. The items of discussion in the Pre- workshop Webinar is as follows: We thoroughly reviewed the DATES: The SEDAR 72 Pre-workshop information presented in the petition, Webinar will be on December 15, 2020, Panelists will review the data sets and found that this information largely from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern. available for the assessment and discuss reiterates previous arguments expressed ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held initial modeling efforts. in comments received regarding the via webinar. The webinar is open to Although non-emergency issues not proposed listing determination for the members of the public. Those interested contained in this agenda may come Arctic ringed seal that were addressed in participating should contact Julie A. before this group for discussion, those in the final listing rule. The petition Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER issues may not be the subject of formal does not present substantial new INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an action during this meeting. Action will information or new analysis indicating invitation providing webinar access be restricted to those issues specifically that the scientific and commercial data information. Please request webinar identified in this notice and any issues considered in our listing determination, invitations at least 24 hours in advance arising after publication of this notice or the analytic methodology used in the of each webinar. that require emergency action under determination, were in error. Therefore, SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens we find that the petition does not Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC Fishery Conservation and Management present substantial scientific or 29405. Act, provided the public has been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:29 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM 27NON1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES