Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45377

liquidate entries containing subject Dated: July 21, 2020. response to a petition submitted by the merchandise exported by the companies Jeffrey I. Kessler, Center for Biological Diversity. After under review that we determine in the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and reviewing the best scientific and final results to be part of the China-wide Compliance. commercial data available, including the Status Review Report, we have entity at the China-wide rate of 236.00 Appendix I percent. Commerce intends to issue determined the species does not warrant assessment instructions to CBP 15 days List of Companies Failing To Demonstrate listing at this time. While the species Eligibility for a Separate Rate after the date of publication of the final has declined in abundance, it still results of this review in the Federal 1. Dandong Xinxing Carbon Co., Ltd. occupies its historical range, and Register.14 2. Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. population trends indicate 3. Fengchi Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. of subpopulations are stable or increasing Cash Deposit Requirements Haicheng City in most locations. We conclude that the 4. Fengchi Mining Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City dwarf is not currently in The following cash deposit 5. Fengchi Refractories Co., of Haicheng City 6. Haicheng Donghe Taidi Refractory Co., danger of extinction throughout all or a requirements will be effective upon significant portion of its range and is not publication of the final results of this Ltd. 7. Henan Xintuo Refractory Co., Ltd. likely to become so within the review for shipments of subject 8. Liaoning Fucheng Refractories foreseeable future. merchandise from China entered, or 9. Liaoning Zhongmei High Temperature DATES: This finding was made on July withdrawn from warehouse, for Material Co., Ltd. 28, 2020. 10. Liaoning Zhongmei Holding Co., Ltd. consumption on or after the publication ADDRESSES: The Status 11. RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., Ltd. date, as provided by sections Review Report associated with this 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 12. Shenglong Refractories Co., Ltd. 13. Tangshan Strong Refractories Co., Ltd. determination and its references are previously-investigated or reviewed 14. The Economic Trading Group Of available upon request from the Species Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not Haicheng Houying Corp. Ltd. Conservation Branch Chief, Protected listed above that received a separate rate 15. Yingkou Heping Samwha Minerals, Co., Resources Division, NMFS Southeast in a prior segment of this proceeding, Ltd. Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue the cash deposit rate will continue to be 16. Yingkou Heping Sanhua Materials Co., South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for Ltd. Dwarf Seahorse 12-month Finding. The all Chinese exporters of subject Appendix II report and references are also available merchandise that have not been found electronically at: https:// List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/ to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash Decision Memorandum deposit rate will be that for the China- prplans/ID411.html. I. Summary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: wide entity (i.e., 236.00 percent); and (3) II. Background for all non-Chinese exporters of subject III. Scope of the Order Adam Brame, NMFS Southeast Regional merchandise which have not received IV. Discussion of the Methodology Office, (727) 209–5958; or Celeste Stout, their own rate, the cash deposit rate will V. Recommendation NMFS Office of Protected Resources, be the rate applicable to the Chinese [FR Doc. 2020–16328 Filed 7–27–20; 8:45 am] 301–427–8436. exporter that supplied that non-Chinese BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: exporter. These deposit requirements, Background when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE On April 6, 2011, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Notification to Importers National Oceanic and Atmospheric Diversity to list the dwarf seahorse as Administration threatened or endangered under the This notice also serves as a reminder ESA. The petition asserted that (1) the to importers of their responsibility [Docket No. 200716–0193; RTID 0648– present or threatened destruction, under 19 CFR 315.402(f)(2) to file a XA496] modification, or curtailment of habitat certificate regarding the reimbursement or range; (2) overutilization for of antidumping duties prior to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding commercial, recreational, scientific, or liquidation of the relevant entries on a Petition To List the Dwarf educational purposes; (3) inadequacy of during this review period. Failure to Seahorse as Threatened or existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) comply with this requirement could Endangered Under the Endangered other natural or manmade factors are result in Commerce’s presumption that Species Act affecting its continued existence and reimbursement of antidumping duties contributing to the dwarf seahorse’s occurred and the subsequent assessment AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries imperiled status. The petitioner also of double antidumping duties. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and requested that critical habitat be Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), designated for this species concurrent Notification to Interested Parties Department of Commerce. with listing under the ESA. We are issuing and publishing these ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and On May 4, 2012, NMFS published a preliminary results in accordance with availability of status review document. 90-day finding for dwarf seahorse with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, our determination that the petition SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- presented substantial scientific and and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and month finding and listing determination commercial information indicating that 351.221(b)(4). on a petition to list the dwarf seahorse the petitioned action may be warranted (Hippocampus zosterae) as threatened (77 FR 26478). We also requested 14 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non- Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: or endangered under the Endangered scientific and commercial information Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 Species Act (ESA). We have completed from the public to inform a status (October 24, 2011). a status review of the dwarf seahorse in review of the species, as required by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45378 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA. we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to and information summarized in the Specifically, we requested information be one that is presently in danger of Status Review Report (NMFS 2020) as pertaining to: (1) Historical and current extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on well as the results of the ERA. The ERA distribution and abundance of this the other hand, is not currently in analyzed demographic and listing species throughout its range; (2) danger of extinction but is likely to factors that could affect the status of the historical and current population status become so in the foreseeable future. In dwarf seahorse. Demographic factors and trends; (3) life history in marine other words, a key statutory difference considered included abundance, environments; (4) curio, traditional between a threatened and endangered population growth rate and medicine, and trade or other species is the timing of when a species productivity, spatial structure/ trade data; (5) any current or planned may be in danger of extinction, either connectivity, and diversity. We also activities that may adversely impact the presently (endangered) or in the identified threats under each of the five species; (6) historical and current foreseeable future (threatened). listing factors: (A) Present or threatened trends and status; (7) ongoing Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we destruction, modification, or or planned efforts to protect and restore must determine whether any species is curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) the species and its seagrass habitats; (8) endangered or threatened due to any of overutilization of the species for management, regulatory, and the following five factors: (A) The commercial, recreational, scientific, or enforcement information; and (9) any present or threatened destruction, educational purposes; (C) disease or biological information on the species. modification, or curtailment of its predation; (D) inadequacy of existing We received information from the habitat or range; (B) overutilization for regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other public in response to the 90-day finding commercial, recreational, scientific, or natural or manmade factors affecting its and incorporated the information into educational purposes; (C) disease or continued existence. For purposes of both the Status Review Report (NMFS predation; (D) the inadequacy of our analysis, the identification of 2020) and this 12-month finding. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) demographic or listing factors that could other natural or manmade factors impact a species negatively is not Listing Determinations Under the ESA affecting its continued existence. sufficient to compel a finding that ESA We are responsible for determining To determine whether the dwarf listing is warranted. In considering whether the dwarf seahorse is seahorse warrants listing under the ESA, those factors that might constitute threatened or endangered under the we formed a Status Review Team (SRT) threats, we look beyond mere exposure ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section consisting of biologists and managers to of the species to the factors to determine 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to complete a Status Review Report (NMFS whether the species responds, either to make listing determinations based 2020), which summarizes the , a single threat or multiple threats, in a solely on the best scientific and distribution, abundance, life history and way that causes impacts at the species commercial data available after biology of the species. The Status level. We considered each threat conducting a review of the status of the Review Report (NMFS 2020) also identified, both individually and species and after taking into account identifies threats or stressors affecting cumulatively, evaluating both their efforts being made by any state or the status of the species, and provides nature and the species’ response to the foreign nation to protect the species. To a description of fisheries, fisheries threat. In making this 12-month finding, be considered for listing under the ESA, management, and conservation efforts. we have considered and evaluated the a group of organisms must constitute a The team then assessed the threats best available scientific and commercial ‘‘species,’’ which is defined in section 3 affecting dwarf seahorse as part of an information, including information of the ESA to include taxonomic species extinction risk analysis (ERA). The received in response to our 90-day and ‘‘any subspecies of fish, or wildlife, results of the ERA from the Status finding. or plants, and any distinct population Review Report (NMFS 2020) are segment of any species of vertebrate fish discussed below. The Status Review Biological Review or wildlife which interbreeds when Report incorporates information This section provides a summary of mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS received in response to our request for key biological information presented in and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service information (77 FR 26478, May 4, 2012) the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020). (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted and comments from three independent a policy describing what constitutes a peer reviewers. Information from the Species Description distinct population segment (DPS) of a Status Review Report is summarized The dwarf seahorse (Hippocampus taxonomic species (‘‘DPS Policy,’’ 61 FR below in the Biological Review section. zosterae, Jordan and Gilbert 1882), is a 4722). The joint DPS Policy identifies The petition requested that the short-lived, small-sized syngnathid fish. two elements that must be considered species be considered for endangered or Like all , the tail of the dwarf when identifying a DPS: (1) The threatened status as a single entity seahorse is prehensile (capable of discreteness of the population segment throughout its range. While the agency grasping) and used to secure the in relation to the remainder of the taxon has discretion to evaluate a species for to seagrass or floating marine vegetation to which it belongs; and (2) the potential DPSs, it is our policy, in light in the water (Gill 1905; Walls 1975). The significance of the population segment of Congressional guidance (S. Rep. 96– eyes move independently of one to the remainder of the taxon to which 151), to list DPSs sparingly. The SRT another, allowing for better accuracy it belongs. held discussions as to whether DPSs during feeding (Gill 1905). Dwarf Section 3 of the ESA defines an should be considered, based on the seahorses have a wide range of color endangered species as ‘‘any species information within the Status Review patterns from yellow and green to black. which is in danger of extinction Report (NMFS 2020), but ultimately Individuals may also have white throughout all or a significant portion of decided to evaluate the dwarf seahorse markings or dark spots which aid in its range’’ and a threatened species as as a singular species throughout its while inhabiting seagrass one ‘‘which is likely to become an range. (Gill 1905; Lourie et al. 2004; Lourie et endangered species within the In determining whether the species is al. 1999; Vari 1982). foreseeable future throughout all or a endangered or threatened as defined by Dwarf seahorses are one of the significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, the ESA, we considered both the data smallest species of seahorses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45379

Aquarium-raised dwarf seahorses have (57–89° F (14–32° C)), and depths, 2003; Wilson and Vincent 2000). Strawn been recorded at 0.27–0.35 inches (0.7– depending on geographic location and (1958) reported a maximum number of 0.9 cm) total length (TL) at birth and time of year (Ryan Moody, Dauphin 69 eggs found in the ovaries of a female growing to 0.7 inches (1.8 cm) TL by Island Sea Lab, pers. comm. to Kelcee and up to 55 young counted in the day 17 (Koldewey 2005). There is some Smith, Riverside, Inc., on July 17, 2012; pouch of a male. Masonjones and Lewis discussion regarding the maximum size Masonjones and Rose 2009; Masonjones (1996) found that males give birth to an of adults with reports ranging from 1 et al. 2010; Mark Fisher, Texas Parks & average of 3–16 offspring per brood. inch (2.5 cm; Lourie et al. 2004) to a Wildlife Dept., pers. comm. to Kelcee Males in captivity usually give birth to single specimen at 2.12 inches (5.4 cm; Smith, Riverside, Inc., on July 12, 2012; fewer individuals compared to males in Masonjones, University of Tampa, pers. Mike Harden, Dept. of Natural the wild (Masonjones et al. 2010). comm. to Kelcee Smith, Riverside, Inc., Resources, pers. comm. to Kelcee Smith, Throughout the 10–12-day gestation on July 17, 2013). Masonjones et al. Riverside, Inc., July 24, 2012). However, (Masonjones and Lewis 2000) the female (2010) indicated body size was highly within aquarium husbandry the dwarf greets the male daily and the pair correlated with season, as individuals seahorse is considered a tropical remains in close proximity (Jones et al. born in the wet season (June- species, and water temperatures of 68– 2003; Vincent 1995a; Wilson and September) were larger than those born 79° F are recommended (20–26° C; Vincent 2000). in the dry season. The species rarely Masonjones 2001; Koldewey 2005). In Dwarf seahorses exhibit iteroparity lives longer than 2 years in the wild their review paper, Foster and Vincent (multiple reproductive cycles) (Koldewey 2005; Strawn 1958; Vari (2004) reported the maximum recorded throughout the breeding season 1982), though it has been reported to depth for the dwarf seahorse as 6.5 feet (Masonjones and Lewis 1996; live up to 3 years in captivity (Abbott (2 meters). Masonjones and Lewis 2000; Rose et al. 2003). 2014). Following the transfer of eggs, the Diet and Feeding female begins developing new eggs for Distribution Seahorses are ambush predators, the next clutch (Masonjones and Lewis Historically, dwarf seahorses have feeding on harpacticoid and 1996; Masonjones and Lewis 2000). Egg been reported in the southeastern amphipods (both very small development is achieved in 2 days but , including Texas, measuring only a few millimeters in the female is only sexually receptive for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and length) as they drift along the edges of a few hours following development and Florida (Strawn 1958), , and the seagrass beds (Huh and Kitting 1985; is ‘‘essentially incapable of mating greater Caribbean, including The Tipton and Bell 1988). No seasonal before the end of their previous mating Bahamas, , and . Data differences have been reported in the partner’s gestation period’’ (Masonjones from outside the United States are dwarf seahorse diet (Tipton and Bell and Lewis 2000). Under ideal limited, and reports from , 1988). Dwarf seahorses produce a conditions, the male can mate 4–20 Cuba, and Bermuda have been rare stridulatory sound (a ‘‘click’’) from the hours after giving birth, allowing dwarf historically and absent recently. articulation of the supraoccipital and seahorse pairs to produce up to two Available data from the United States, coronet bones in the skull during broods per month (Masonjones and both historically and presently, indicate feeding, and it has been shown that Lewis 2000; Strawn 1958; Vari 1982). the highest abundances of dwarf dwarf seahorses click 93 percent of the Masonjones and Lewis (2000) reported seahorses are in bay systems south of time during feeding in a new the potential number of offspring that 29° N (south Florida and south Texas) environment, and during competition male and female dwarf seahorses could and the lowest abundances are in for mates (Colson et al. 1998). produce over the breeding season were Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi Reproductive Biology 279.5 and 240.5 individuals, (NMFS 2020). respectively. This difference in potential Dwarf seahorses reach reproductive offspring between the two sexes is a Habitat maturity at approximately 3 months of result of latency, as males are faster to In general, dwarf seahorse habitat is age (Wilson and Vincent 2000) and respond to new potential mates if the characterized by shallow, warm, exhibit gender-specific roles in pair bond is disrupted (if one dies or is nearshore seagrass beds. These habitats reproduction (Masonjones and Lewis removed). If the female dies or is often occur within sheltered lagoons or 1996; Masonjones and Lewis 2000; removed during gestation, the male will embayments with reduced exposure to Vincent 1994). Dwarf seahorses are give birth to that clutch before finding strong currents and heavy wave action generally monogamous (the practice of a new mate. If a pregnant male (a male (Iverson and Bittaker 1986). Dwarf an individual having one mate) within carrying fertilized eggs) dies or is seahorses are typically found in shallow a breeding season and mates are chosen removed, the female will not mate until coastal and lagoon habitats during the by similarity in size (Jones et al. 2003; the gestation for the interrupted summer (Musick et al. 2000; Robbins Wilson et al. 2003). Dwarf seahorses pregnancy would have been complete 2005; Strawn 1961; Tipton and Bell will reject a potential mate if the size (Masonjones and Lewis 2000). 1988; Walls 1975) and deeper waters or difference is too large (Masonjones et al. Dwarf seahorse breeding season is tide pools during the winter (Lourie et 2010). Once bonded, the mating pair generally protracted and is influenced al. 2004). Dwarf seahorses show no remains together throughout a 3-day by day length and water temperature particular affinity for a specific seagrass courtship ritual. After successful (Koldewey 2005; Masonjones and Lewis species (Masonjones et al. 2010), but are courtship, the female deposits 2000; Strawn 1958; Vari 1982). Breeding generally found in areas with higher unfertilized eggs into the male’s brood occurs year-round at latitudes south of densities of seagrass blades and higher pouch. In the brood pouch, eggs are approximately 28° N (Rose et al. 2019). seagrass canopy (i.e., length of seagrass fertilized and the embryos are During the summer months, when the blades) (Lourie et al. 2004). This results nourished, osmoregulated (the body day length is longer and water in a patchy distribution of dwarf fluid balance and concentration of salts temperature exceeds 86° F (30° C), dwarf seahorses within estuaries. is kept stable), oxygenated (by seahorses reproduce more frequently Dwarf seahorses are found within a circulating water), and protected (Jones because gestation is shorter (Fedrizzi et range of salinities (7–37), temperatures et al. 2003; Vincent 1995a; Wilson et al. al. 2015; Foster and Vincent 2004). For

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

example, in , Florida, abundance has declined since the 1990s density observations to create 10,000 pregnant males are found in all months in long-term fishery-independent data bootstrapped samples (simulated but are more abundant early summer from Florida (Figure 3 in NMFS 2020). outcomes). The 5 percent or 10 percent through fall (Rose et al. 2019). Year It is unlikely that the dwarf seahorse quantiles of seahorse density estimates round reproduction was also observed ever fully occupied the northern Gulf of (0.0009 N/m2 and 0.003 N/m2, in the Florida Keys, based on anecdotal Mexico due to winter water respectively) from the bootstrapped reports from commercial collectors temperatures below the species’ optimal samples were then multiplied by the (FWC 2016). limits and the general lack of available available seagrass acreage in nearshore seagrass habitat, as compared to Florida Population Structure and Genetics waters (Yarbro and Carlson 2016). and south Texas (Handley et al. 2007). Carlson et al. (2019) used the 5 percent Fedrizzi et al. (2015) investigated Current data indicate that the species or 10 percent quantiles to conservatively dwarf seahorse population genetic remains common along the south and account for variability in dwarf seahorse structure at eight Florida locations: One southwest coasts of Florida, specifically distribution within seagrass meadows in the Panhandle (Pensacola), two west Florida from Tampa Bay to the (greater density of dwarf seahorse in adjacent to Tampa Bay, four in the Florida Keys. areas with higher density of seagrass Florida Keys, and one in Indian River In Florida, the species appears to be blades and higher seagrass canopy Lagoon. The study found significant most abundant in five estuaries: (Lourie et al. 2004)). As dwarf seahorses population structuring with a strongly Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota are most abundant in bay systems south separated population in the Panhandle, Bay, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay, of 29° N latitude, Carlson et al. (2019) two recognizable subpopulations in the which the SRT considers to be the core applied the density estimate from the 10 Florida Keys, and a potential fourth area of abundance critical to the percent quantile (0.003 N/m2) for the subpopulation at Big Pine Key. Dwarf population, based on available seagrass Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor and seahorses from the Indian River Lagoon habitat and the species’ thermal Florida Bay subpopulations (those south were not delineated as a discrete tolerance. Long-term dwarf seahorse of 29° N latitude) and the 5 percent population, due to small sample size abundance in Charlotte Harbor and quantile (0.0009 N/m2) for the Cedar and lack of consistency in relationship Tampa Bay estuaries has declined, but Key and north Indian River Lagoon to the other populations. Despite overall population abundance has remained subpopulations (north of 29° N latitude). population structuring, Fedrizzi et al. stable at a lower level since 2009 when Retrospective projections from these (2015) observed evidence of some gene the commercial harvest trip limit conservative initial estimates suggested flow between sampled locations, with regulations (see 68B–42, F.A.C.) went male subpopulation sizes in 2016 the exception of the Florida Panhandle. into effect (FWC unpublished data). ranged from about 15,258 at Cedar Key The results suggest that the Rose et al. (2019) found Tampa Bay to 9,910,752 in Florida Bay. Assuming subpopulations of Florida’s dwarf dwarf seahorse was a robust a female biased sex ratio of 58.2/41.8 seahorses that are closest to each other subpopulation with stable densities (Rose et al. 2019), the total estimated are more genetically similar than those across 3 years and year-round breeding. population across the five modeled that are further apart. Interestingly, the Additionally, Tampa Bay dwarf subpopulations exceeded 29 million distance between the sites sampled by seahorse densities in 2008–2009 (Rose individual dwarf seahorse in 2016. Fedrizzi et al. (2015) is greater than the et al. 2019) were significantly higher distance over which Florida’s dwarf than those reported for 2005–2007 The population abundance estimates seahorses have been shown to actively (Masonjones et al. 2010). The U.S. from Carlson et al. (2019) are likely migrate (Masonjones et al. 2010). Thus, Geological Survey data from Florida Bay conservative for the following reasons: genetic connectivity between and Biscayne Bay suggest the relative (1) The starting densities derived from subpopulations is more likely the result abundance of dwarf seahorse was stable the 5 percent or 10 percent quantiles of of individuals dispersing to neighboring within these systems over the short the bootstrapped samples are expected subpopulations through rafting. duration (2005–2009) of their study. to be underestimates of the actual densities for each subpopulation; (2) the Status Assessments Cumulatively, the best available information on the dwarf seahorse’s intrinsic rate of population increase There have been no formal status status suggests that Florida Bay has the (Rmax) was conservatively estimated assessments conducted for the dwarf highest relative abundance of dwarf (assumed equal to the dominant seahorse throughout its range. While the seahorse. eigenvalue (an indicator of variance in species has been documented from Carlson et al. (2019) estimated dwarf the data) of the Leslie matrix (an age- Florida to Texas in the United States seahorse population size in five regions structured model of population growth) and Cuba, The Bahamas, Bermuda and of Florida using a population viability at starting conditions prior to density- Mexico internationally, data are model. Initial population size estimates dependence (Cortes 2016)) and was generally lacking outside of Florida. were developed for the following much lower than estimated Rmax for Given the paucity of data outside the subpopulations; Cedar Key, Tampa Bay, other seahorse species (Denney et al. United States, we are unsure of the Charlotte Harbor, Florida Bay, and 2002, Curtis 2004); (3) the RAMAS status of dwarf seahorse in these other North Indian River Lagoon, based on all model used by Carlson et al. (2019) countries. Studies indicate dwarf known existing survey data. Known accounted for variability in survivorship seahorse subpopulations have steadily density estimates varied from 0.0–0.59 of each age class resulting in 98 percent decreased throughout their range since N/m2 (individuals per square meter) of reproduction generated by the Age-0 the 1970s due to loss of habitat and are with highest densities in the most class (suggests nearly all reproduction is noted as rare in parts of its former range southern Bays (i.e., Florida Bay and carried out in the first year so any (Koldewey 2005; Musick et al. 2000). Biscayne Bay) and lower estimates in reproduction after the first year is Our evaluation of available data Tampa Bay, southwest Florida, and generally unaccounted for even though reviewed during the status review north Florida (Table 2 in Carlson et al. it could be occurring); (4) carrying supports this assertion, as the species is 2019). Carlson et al. (2019) derived capacity in seagrass habitats was capped rarely collected along the north coast of initial estimates of subpopulation size at the 25 percent quantile estimate from the and relative by using all available dwarf seahorse the bootstrapped data (0.02 N/m2),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45381

which is likely an underestimate; (5) a Koldewey 2005; Strawn 1958; Vari viability factors: abundance, growth 30 percent mortality rate was assumed 1982), dwarf seahorse longevity is very rate/productivity, spatial structure/ for acute cold exposure although greater short in comparison to many other connectivity, and diversity. These thermal tolerance is suggested by teleost fish. Dwarf seahorses reach viability factors reflect concepts that are Mascaro´ et al. (2016); and (6) a sexual maturity in about 3 months well-founded in conservation biology theoretical mortality rate of 100 percent (Strawn 1953; Strawn 1958; Koldewey and that individually and collectively for harmful algal bloom (HAB) exposure 2005) and generation time is 1.24 years. provide strong indicators of extinction was assumed, with HABs assumed to As an early-maturing species, with fast risk. cover 25 percent to 50 percent of growth rates and high productivity, Using these concepts, the SRT available seagrass habitat within a given dwarf seahorse subpopulations are evaluated extinction risk by assigning a estuary, despite limited observations of highly dynamic and likely able to risk score to each of the four HAB overlap with seagrass beds in respond quickly to conservation actions demographic viability factors and five coastal bays (NOAA–HABSOS 2018). or short-term threats. However, this threats-based listing factors. The scoring brief life history strategy makes it Extinction Risk Analysis was as follows: Very low risk = 1; low difficult to forecast the response to long- risk = 2; medium risk = 3; high risk = The SRT relied on the best term threats, such as climate change, 4; and very high risk = 5. information available to conduct an that extend over several decades. The • Very low risk: It is unlikely that this ERA through evaluation of four SRT was unsure how a short-lived factor contributes significantly to risk of demographic viability factors and five species would be able to adapt to slowly extinction, either by itself or in threats-based listing factors. The SRT, changing habitats associated with combination with other demographic which consisted of three NOAA climate change. The SRT discussed viability factors. Fisheries Science Center and Regional whether the impacts of known threats • Low risk: It is unlikely that this Office personnel, was asked to could be confidently predicted over factor contributes significantly to independently evaluate the severity, timeframes of several generations. current or long-term risk of extinction scope, and certainty for these threats The SRT believed the foreseeable by itself, but there is some concern that currently and in the foreseeable future. future should include several generation it may, in combination with other The SRT defined the foreseeable future times and ultimately decided on demographic viability factors. as the timeframe over which threats that approximately 8 generation times, or 10 • Moderate risk: This factor impact the biological status of the years, as the SRT felt confident they contributes to the risk of extinction and species can be reliably predicted. could predict the impact of threats on may contribute to additional risk of Several foreseeable future scenarios the species over a decade. While the extinction in combination with other were considered. The different selected foreseeable future of 10 years is factors. foreseeable futures were based on the shorter than that estimated for other • High risk: This factor contributes ability to forecast different primary species, the brief and highly dynamic significantly to short-term or long-term threats and the species response to these life history of the dwarf seahorse must risk of extinction and is likely to be threats through time. As outlined in the be considered in determining an magnified by the combination with Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), appropriate foreseeable future because, other factors. habitat loss associated with climate their rapid turnover and capacity for • Very high risk: This factor by itself change, overutilization in a targeted replacement limits our ability to indicates danger of extinction in the fishery, and stochastic events such as reasonably predict the impact of longer- near future and over the foreseeable HABs and cold weather events are the term threats on the species. future. greatest threats to the species. These The ability to determine and assess SRT members were also asked to threats affect dwarf seahorse risk factors to a marine species is often consider the potential interactions populations over different time scales. limited when quantitative estimates of among demographic and listing factors. Stochastic events such as HABs and abundance and life history information If the demographic or listing factor was severe cold events are generally are lacking. Therefore, in assessing ranked higher due to interactions with restricted in geographic space, duration, threats and subsequent extinction risk of other demographic or listing factors, and frequency and therefore are likely a data-limited species such as the dwarf SRT members were asked to identify short-term threats. Directed harvest is a seahorse, we include both qualitative those factors that caused them to score longer-term threat; however, harvest and quantitative information. In the risk higher (or lower) than it would regulations can be dynamically adapted assessing extinction risk to the dwarf have been if it were considered to promote sustainability. Contemporary seahorse, the SRT considered the independently. models forecast climate change effects demographic viability factors developed Finally, the SRT examined and several decades into the future; thus, by McElhany et al. (2000) and the risk discussed the independent responses climate change is considered a long- matrix approach developed by from each team member for each term threat. Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize demographic and listing factor to The response of dwarf seahorses was and summarize extinction risk determine the overall risk of extinction considered over the timeframes considerations. The approach of (see Extinction Risk Determination associated with the major threats. Dwarf considering demographic risk factors to below). seahorse subpopulations have help frame the consideration of demonstrated remarkable resilience to extinction risk has been used in many Demographic Risk Analysis stochastic events, with apparent large of our status reviews (see https:// population declines followed by large www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/ Abundance population increases (NMFS 2020). The documents?sort_ The best available information on response of dwarf seahorses to long- by=created&title=status+review for links dwarf seahorse abundance indicates that term threats was difficult to predict to these reviews). In this approach, the the species may still be present along given the species’ life history, including collective condition of individual the east coasts of Mexico and Texas and longevity and generation time. At populations is considered at the species along both coasts of Florida. Lack of approximately 1–3 years (Abbott 2003; level according to four demographic data from outside the United States

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45382 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

hindered the SRT’s ability to analyze compared to other species and locations Carlson et al. (2019) PVA is abundance trends in foreign locations. (FWC FIM unpublished data). conservative in its assessment of total Within the United States, dwarf In Florida, the species appears to be population size (see Table 2 in Carlson seahorse appears to be most common in most abundant in five estuaries: et al. 2019; Rose et al. 2019, Figures 3 Florida, though it is also present at a Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota & 4 in NMFS 2020). Similarly, much lower level of abundance in south Bay, Biscayne Bay, and Florida Bay multiplication of recent density Texas. Outside of Florida and Texas, (Figures 3 and 4 in NMFS 2020). The estimates for Tampa Bay (0.139 N/m2— observations and records of the dwarf SRT believes these five estuaries Rose et al. 2019; 0.095 N/m2— seahorse are historically uncommon. comprise the core area of abundance Masonjones et al. 2019) and Florida Bay Seasonally low water temperatures critical to the population. Although (0.00392 N/m2 in seines and 0.00462 N/ establish geographic range boundaries, long-term dwarf seahorse abundance m2 in trawls—FWC FIM unpublished which likely contribute to the limited has declined from historical levels, data) by the most recent estimates of number of records of the dwarf seahorse abundance has remained stable at a seagrass habitat area in Tampa Bay in waters of the northern Gulf coast lower level since 2009 when the trip (2014) and Florida Bay (2010–2011), (Florida panhandle to north Texas). limit regulations went into effect (FWC respectively, provided estimates in the Additionally, limited seagrass habitat FIM unpublished data). The best range of 15.5–22.6 million dwarf along the northern Gulf coast, both available information on the dwarf seahorses in Tampa Bay and between historically and currently, also likely seahorse’s status suggests that Florida 6.0–7.1 million dwarf seahorses in restricts dwarf seahorse in this region. Bay has the highest relative abundance Florida Bay. This analytical approach There are three sources that can be used of the dwarf seahorse. could overestimate seahorse abundance to estimate the species relative Retrospective population projections if the density estimates were generated abundance: U.S. Geological Survey data, provided in the Carlson et al. (2019) from areas of localized dwarf seahorse the Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation population viability assessment (PVA) abundance. However, density estimates Commission (FWC) Fisheries of dwarf seahorses estimated male are influenced by catchability, which Independent Monitoring (FIM) program subpopulation sizes over the past 15–20 varies between sampling gears. Dwarf in Florida, and the Texas Parks and years using the empirical trends in seahorse densities derived from FIM Wildlife Department (TPWD) seagrass coverage and occurrences of catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) in Tampa monitoring program in Texas. major stochastic events. Carlson et al. Bay for 2009 were orders of magnitude Additionally, a population modeling (2019) estimated subpopulations in smaller for bag seine and otter trawl, study by Carlson et al. (2019) provides 2016 ranging from 15,258 in Cedar Key respectively (0.000402 N/m2 and insight into the abundance of dwarf to 9,910,752 in Florida Bay. We 0.0000125 N/m2) than those derived by compared the Carlson et al. (2019) seahorse in Florida and the potential Rose et al. (2019). These nominal CPUEs estimated annual subpopulation sizes to changes to this population in the are 2.9 percent and 0.1 percent of the the relative abundance indices from the context of ongoing threats. densities reported by Rose et al. (2019) FWC FIM small seine surveys for Cedar for the same time period using The FWC FIM program provided Key, Charlotte Harbor, Tampa Bay and specialized gears for sampling dwarf survey data for several estuarine areas in Indian River Lagoon (Figure 18 in seahorse. Thus, population sizes of Florida including Apalachicola Bay NMFS 2020). Modeled subpopulation dwarf seahorse based on expanding (1998–2016), Cedar Key (1996–2016), sizes from the PVA did not track the nominal FIM CPUE to seagrass area Tampa Bay (1996–2016), Sarasota Bay trends in relative abundance reported by could be underestimates if are (2009–2016), Charlotte Harbor (1996– FWC early in the time series. The poor 2016), Florida Bay (2006–2009), and fit between modeled and reported data uniformly distributed within seagrass Indian River Lagoon (1996–2016). FIM early in the time series was likely a habitats across the FIM sampling program data indicate that dwarf result of the conservative initial domain. The difference in estimated seahorses are not abundant in northern population estimates in Carlson et al. abundance between Tampa Bay and Florida and have not been encountered (2019). However, the modeled data Florida Bay presented above is likely in the Florida Keys National Marine appeared to equilibrate and become attributable to sampling design; the Sanctuary. Surveys conducted within more representative mid-way through Tampa Bay studies by Masonjones et al. estuaries of northern Florida found that the time series as indicated by similar (2019) and Rose et al. (2019) were the species is rare in Apalachicola Bay patterns in trends between the modeled actively targeting dwarf seahorses using and Cedar Key, and has never been and reported data. specialized gears in an area believed to recorded in Choctawhatchee Bay or The general agreement in recent contain high densities, whereas the Northeast Florida. In the Indian River trends suggests the PVA model captured Florida Bay study was a general nekton Lagoon, on Florida’s east coast, relative the primary drivers of dwarf seahorse survey using less efficient gears (trawls abundance was low throughout the abundance. Additionally, the PVA and seines) for collecting dwarf survey period (1996–2016), with no results suggest that even with seahorse. Importantly, this approach individuals recorded from 2011–2013. conservative assumptions regarding does suggest that field estimates of The decline of the dwarf seahorse in the initial population sizes for the different abundance, when expanded for the full Indian River Lagoon could be the direct subpopulations, carrying capacity, sex range of dwarf seahorse habitats, can result of recent HABs in the estuary ratio, and age at maturity, the dwarf greatly exceed the estimates generated (SJRWMD, 2012; FWC, 2014). During seahorse population numbers in the tens by the Carlson et al. (2019) modeling the late 1980s and early 1990s, of millions in Florida waters (Carlson et approach. significant HABs in Florida Bay resulted al. 2019). Dwarf seahorse subpopulation In Texas, dwarf seahorse abundance is in massive seagrass die-offs and densities (N/m2), which were derived by low and restricted to the central and reductions in dwarf seahorse abundance dividing Carlson et al. (2019) southern coastal systems including (Matheson Jr. et al. 1999). However, subpopulation estimates by total Aransas Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, San survey data from 2006–2009 suggest that subregion seagrass habitat areas, are Antonio Bay, and the Upper and Lower the dwarf seahorse was relatively significantly lower than those Laguna Madre. The species has not been abundant in Florida Bay when empirically observed, suggesting the recorded in TPWD surveys conducted in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45383

Galveston, Matagorda, and East and Tampa Bay (Figures 12 & 13 in 1.49 yr¥1) and high compensatory Matagorda Bay systems. Of the bays NMFS 2020). capacity (ability of a population to where dwarf seahorses have been The best available information positively respond to changes in its recorded, relative abundance is highest indicates that habitat loss and density) (Kindsvater et al. 2016). The in Upper Laguna Madre, though degradation, stochastic events (HABs dwarf seahorse has relatively high abundance is still very low within this and extreme cold weather events), and fecundity compared to other seahorse system compared to the Florida commercial harvest are factors that species, though fecundity is much lower estuaries. Data series for the other bays impact dwarf seahorse abundance. than other teleosts. Current (Aransas, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, However, the species appears to be at demographic analysis suggest that and Lower Laguna Madre) have fewer risk of local extirpation only where healthy subpopulations have high than 10 records each, and therefore the populations have very low abundance intrinsic rates of population increase SRT was unable to discern population or are isolated due to the distance and would be able to tolerate high levels trends. The SRT believes that Upper between habitat patches or estuary of direct and indirect mortality. Laguna Madre is likely the core area of systems. However, the species also has complex abundance for the southwestern portion Based on the above information, the courtship behaviors and is constrained of the species range within U.S. waters. SRT members scored the present risk of by its habitat specificity and small home Populations with very low abundance dwarf seahorse extinction based on range. With the dwarf seahorse’s that occur over a limited geographic abundance from 2 to 3, with a mean of complex reproductive behaviors, many scale are more likely to be impacted by 2.3 and a mode of 2. The team factors (e.g., stochastic events, directed stochastic events such as HABs or concluded that, based on the population fishing, ) could disrupt extreme cold weather events. estimate resulting from the population courtship and mating and consequently Recolonization and recovery is viability model, which shows stable or reduce productivity. dependent on the ability of surrounding increasing subpopulations in most The SRT believes that the dwarf populations to provide recruits to the areas, the abundance of dwarf seahorse seahorse subpopulations in Charlotte depleted area. In some cases, a presents a low risk of extinction and the Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, population may have suffered a population is robust enough to Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay are more stochastic event and not been withstand threats currently facing the productive than those of other estuaries encountered in surveys for several years species. This result is similar to the and bays within the species’ range. The before eventually returning to the area. International Union for Conservation of best available information suggests that Periodic HABs continue to occur in Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment, several other estuaries and bay systems Texas lagoons, but some bays, like which identified dwarf seahorse as a in Florida and Texas have Laguna Madre, have consistently species of ‘‘least concern’’ in terms of its subpopulations which may be at risk of recorded dwarf seahorses in surveys threat status (Masonjones et al. 2017). an Allee effect (i.e., inability to find a indicating that subpopulations can Although most subpopulations showed mate and subsequently low levels of tolerate stochasticity in their stable or increasing abundance and the population growth from future environment. Regardless, it is not team expected these patterns to recruitment), though these are all prudent to base an assessment of risk to continue into the foreseeable future systems along the fringe of the dwarf species abundance on such few based on the predictive modeling in seahorse range and therefore may have observations as reported from Texas. Carlson et al. (2019), an increase in the naturally low abundance. Commercial harvest and bycatch of frequency, duration, or scale of The SRT considered scenarios the dwarf seahorse in Florida is a factor stochastic events into the future may developed by Carlson et al. (2019) for that impacts species abundance. The increase extinction risk. It was unclear dwarf seahorse abundance in five bay dwarf seahorse is targeted by the to the SRT whether HABs and cold systems: Cedar Key, Tampa Bay, commercial ornamental fishery to be weather events would increase in Charlotte Harbor, Florida Bay and sold for aquarium markets. According to frequency and magnitude over the 10- northern Indian River Lagoon (Figure 5 dealer reports, harvest appears to be year foreseeable future, because the in NMFS 2020). Scenarios were initiated focused from Tampa Bay to Fort Myers events are stochastic in nature and their at the earliest time data were available and from Florida Bay to Miami (FWC, causes are poorly understood. Several on the coverage of the seagrass canopy 2012). However, commercial harvest is conservative 10-year forecasts were from Yarbro and Carlson (2016) taking prohibited within the Everglades modeled to encompass the extinction into account changes in seagrass National Park, which encompasses a risk associated with the possibility of an density, commercial harvest, bycatch significant portion of Florida Bay. The increasing frequency and magnitude of and mortality related to HABs and cold dwarf seahorse is also among those these stochastic events. When temperature events. Three of the five species likely captured by non-selective considering the contribution of subpopulations (Tampa Bay, Charlotte trawl fishing gear targeting bait , abundance to the risk of extinction over Harbor, Florida Bay) slightly increased because this trawling often occurs in the foreseeable future, the team scored in abundance (3–8 percent), whereas the seagrass habitat. The subpopulations in abundance as a moderate risk (3), given Cedar Key and northern Indian River Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay have the uncertainty associated with Lagoon subpopulations did not increase been variable since surveys began in increased potential for stochastic events. in abundance. 1996, but have stabilized since new Carlson et al. (2019) also explored regulations limiting harvest were Population Growth Rate and future scenarios to test the effect of the adopted in 2009. Because few, if any, Productivity most likely threats to dwarf seahorse reported large-scale stochastic events The life history characteristics of the (Figure 20 in NMFS 2020). As the have occurred over the past two decades dwarf seahorse (i.e., early age at harvest of dwarf seahorse by the Marine within these systems, it is reasonable to maturity, rapid growth, high fecundity, Life fishery has been limited, the infer that high levels of commercial and parental care) suggest that this greatest threats to future seahorse harvest prior to the 2009 trip limit likely species has a relatively high intrinsic subpopulations include the loss of caused at least a portion of the observed rate of population increase (more births seagrass habitat, and increased harmful historical declines in Charlotte Harbor than deaths per generation time; Rmax = algal blooms, which can cause acute

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45384 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

mortality. Carlson et al. (2019) explored population connectivity. Successful additional regulatory measures may be optimistic scenarios (increased seagrass repopulation or colonization may necessary. coverage and current levels) and depend on a sufficient number of Summary of Demographic Risk Analysis pessimistic scenarios (increased rates of individuals emigrating to a habitat mortality, loss of seagrass habitat and containing seagrass to establish The SRT found that threats such as likelihood of HABs increasing from themselves. It is essential that seagrass habitat loss or degradation and historically observed levels). The habitat patches exist between overutilization may interact with the population was projected forward 10 subpopulations as dispersal capabilities dwarf seahorse’s life history traits to years. Starting conditions for these are restricted by the availability of increase the species’ extinction risk. The projections were conservatively seagrass habitat. Historically, the dwarf dwarf seahorse’s habitat preference and assumed at the lower 5 or 10 percent seahorse has shown that it can recover low mobility could increase the species’ quantiles from bootstrapped empirical from stochastic events (HABs and ecological vulnerability, as the species estimates of abundance (see Table 2 in extreme cold weather events) where may be slow to recolonize depleted Carlson et al. 2019). Projected stock subpopulations have been impacted or areas. Similarly, patchy spatial trajectories under potential future even temporarily extirpated, but low distributions in combination with low conditions were mostly stable in Cedar relative abundance in some areas may relative population abundance (relative Key, declining in Northern Indian River limit repopulation. to historical levels) make the species Lagoon, and generally increasing under Based on the best available susceptible to habitat degradation and the vast majority of scenarios for the information on the spatial structure/ overexploitation. Life history traits, other three locations (Figure 13 in connectivity of dwarf seahorse such as complex reproductive behavior NMFS 2020). Only the most pessimistic subpopulations, the SRT believes this and monogamous mating, may also scenario for Indian River Lagoon demographic variable presents a increase the species’ vulnerability. resulted in extirpation of any moderate extinction risk both now and However, the species’ ability to mature subpopulation within 10 years. in the foreseeable future. Team scores early and reproduce multiple times Scenarios testing the effects of HABs ranged from 2 to 3, with a mean of 2.7 throughout a prolonged breeding season accompanied by reduced seagrass and a mode of 3. Differences in scores offsets much of the vulnerability. habitat affected all subpopulations’ were largely a reflection of personal Threats-Based Analysis abilities to grow. The subpopulation to thoughts on how far dwarf seahorses be most affected was the Indian River may disperse via rafting, and thus how The Present or Threatened Destruction, Lagoon, which experienced significant connected the populations could be. Modification, or Curtailment of Its declines in abundance. Abundance of Habitat or Range dwarf seahorse in Indian River Lagoon Diversity declined from a starting size of about The SRT considered the destruction The loss of diversity can reduce a 86,000 males to less than 6,000 in 10 or modification of habitat to be the species’ reproductive fitness, fecundity, years. Other subpopulations were able largest threat facing dwarf seahorse both and survival, thereby contributing to to maintain their baseline levels of now and into the foreseeable future. As declines in abundance and population abundance despite losses of habitat. discussed in the Status Review Report The SRT determined that population growth rate and increasing species (NMFS 2020), there are a number of growth rate and productivity of dwarf extinction risk (Gilpin and Soule, 1986). threats impacting seagrass habitats upon seahorse present a low risk of extinction There is no indication that the dwarf which dwarf seahorse rely, including to the species. Each member of the team seahorse is at risk due to a significant water quality, damage from vessels and scored this demographic variable as a change or loss of variation in life history trawling, and climate change. level 2 risk, both currently and over the characteristics, population demography, Regulations and educational programs foreseeable future. morphology, behavior, or genetics. have and continue to be implemented in However, the SRT considered an attempt to reduce impacts from water Spatial Structure/Connectivity diversity to present a moderate quality, vessels, and trawling. In light of The dwarf seahorse has low mobility, extinction risk to dwarf seahorses both the long-term HAB in the Indian River occupying a limited activity space and now (range 2–3, mode = 3) and in the Lagoon resulting in large-scale losses of small home range within a specific foreseeable future (range 2–3, mode 3). and the collapse of the dwarf habitat (seagrasses). These life history The team considered this a moderate seahorse subpopulation there, the SRT traits suggest that the species is not risk given the lack of genetic was particularly concerned with HABs, likely to disperse actively. However, information, particularly from Texas, their interaction with water quality, and movement by passive dispersal occurs and how that population may relate to their potential to negatively affect dwarf as seahorses use their prehensile tail to the Florida population. Similarly, seahorse. One of the most severe HABs hold on to seagrass or macroalgae which Fedrizzi et al. (2015) indicated on the west coast of Florida occurred in are carried by currents (Foster and population structuring in which the 2005, with substantial spread of red tide Vincent 2004; Masonjones et al. 2010; Panhandle represents a separate into Tampa Bay (see Figure 1b in Fedrizzi et al. 2015). A population population from other areas of Florida. Flaherty & Landsberg 2011). FIM data genetics study on Hippocampus kuda in Given the large distance between the showed a substantial (¥71 percent) but the Philippines suggested colonization subpopulations in the Florida statistically insignificant decline in of distant habitats by a small number of panhandle and other parts of Florida the relative abundance in 2005, with a founding individuals may be common team also expressed concern over the substantial (+110 percent) recovery in in seahorses associated with the H. kuda transfer of genetic material. Expanding 2006. Another HAB was present along complex (Teske et al. 2005). the research of Fedrizzi et al. (2015) to the west coast of Florida between The species’ short lifespan, narrow include dwarf seahorses from Texas and Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay during habitat preference, and low mobility Mexico could provide additional the summer and fall of 2018. HAB increase extinction vulnerability as the information on the diversity of dwarf monitoring data indicate Karenia brevis dwarf seahorse is susceptible to seahorse, the relationship among those (red tide) did not enter Tampa Bay or population fragmentation and loss of outside of Florida, and whether Charlotte Harbor (Figure 21 in NFMS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45385

2020), which may have spared dwarf of dwarf seahorses and the population regulations, as the state believed the seahorses inhabiting these estuaries. appears to have stabilized as a result current trip limit of 400 seahorses per Subsequent dwarf seahorse sampling in (Figures 3 and 5 in NMFS 2020). day was sufficient for sustainably Tampa Bay during 2019 indicates a Additionally, a significant portion of managing the wild populations of robust dwarf seahorse population in Old Florida Bay is protected by the seahorses. While the SRT believes that Tampa Bay and Ft. DeSoto areas (H. prohibition on commercial fishing the dwarf seahorse population is likely Masonjones, University of Tampa, pers. within Everglades National Park still being negatively impacted by comm. to Adam Brame, NOAA boundaries. The protection against harvest under the current regulations, Fisheries, on October 13, 2019). The commercial harvest and bycatch within removals since 2009 have declined by 2018 HAB did not affect Florida Bay, this system likely played a significant 55 percent, and the relative abundance where surveys and model simulations role in the species’ ability to recover trend information since 2009 is stable suggest dwarf seahorses are found in the from the HABs that impacted Florida (as an indirect indicator of status) in highest abundance. Bay during the late 1980s and early areas where dwarf seahorses are The SRT was also concerned about 1990s. significantly harvested (e.g., southwest the impact of climate change affecting While the use of any net with a mesh Florida and southeast Florida, including seagrass habitat into the future. Climate area exceeding 500 square feet (46.5 the Florida Keys). Dwarf seahorses are change is expected to impact seagrass square meters) is prohibited in characterized by rapid growth, early age habitat, though the temporal rate and nearshore and inshore waters of Florida at maturity, and short generation time, degree to which this occurs is not (Florida 68B–4.0081(3)(e)), a bait- all of which collectively indicate that known with certainty. The Status shrimp fishery operates within these the species has high intrinsic rates of Review indicates that thermal tolerance boundaries. This fishery relies upon population increase. This suggests that of seagrasses and rising sea levels may small trawls to collect shrimp for bait, populations can recover from declines affect future distribution and meadow and, given this fishery operates in following a reduction in fishing effort health, while warming seawater seagrass habitat, it is reasonable to infer (Curtis et al. 2008). temperatures could increase the that dwarf seahorse are removed as The SRT concluded that the species is available habitat for dwarf seahorses bycatch. Seahorses may be more currently at a low to moderate risk due along the northern Gulf of Mexico. vulnerable to injuries, mortality, and to overexploitation from commercial Based on the above information, the disruption of reproduction in habitats harvest, with scores that ranged between team scored the present destruction or that are disturbed by heavy trawls 2 and 3, with a mean of 2.3 and a mode modification of habitat as a moderate deployed for longer periods and over of 2. Given that the team considered risk for dwarf seahorse, with all team greater areas (Baum et al. 2003). Baum similar rates of utilization in the future, members giving it a score of 3. et al. (2003) analyzed bycatch of the scores were the same when considering Considering the uncertainty associated (Hippocampus erectus) the threat over the foreseeable future. with climate change and HABs in the in the bait-shrimp trawl fishery and The scores also remained the same future, the team scored this threat estimated about 72,000 seahorses were when considered in combination with slightly higher when considering it over incidentally caught per year. However, other threats, such as lack of adequate the foreseeable future, with two this study reported only two dwarf existing regulatory mechanisms. members giving it a score of 4 and one seahorses were captured during the team member giving it a score of 3. study period. In developing bycatch Disease and Predation estimates for use in their population The SRT determined that disease and Overutilization for Commercial, viability model, Carlson et al. (2019) predation present a very low extinction Recreational, Scientific, or Educational used the ratio of dwarf seahorse caught risk to dwarf seahorse. The team was Purposes to lined seahorse caught and estimated not able to find documentation of The commercial harvest of the dwarf that 157 dwarf seahorses are disease affecting wild subpopulations of seahorse is restricted to Florida, but is incidentally caught per year. dwarf seahorse. With respect to considered by the SRT to be the second The SRT assumes that demand for the predation, the team assumed mortality greatest threat to the species after dwarf seahorse in the marine rates from predation are likely higher for habitat loss and degradation. The dwarf ornamental fishery and aquarium juvenile seahorses than adults. The seahorse is harvested largely for the markets will continue. The extent to dwarf seahorse is presumed to have few aquarium markets and removals have which heavy commercial harvest is predators and is likely only resulted in declines in local impacting dwarf seahorse populations opportunistically predated upon by subpopulation abundance since the in Florida is largely unknown, although fishes, , and wading birds. The early 1990s. In general, seahorses are there are some indications that dwarf seahorse’s excellent camouflage is one of the most popular and heavily overharvest may be impacting well-adapted for the species’ ecological exploited marine ornamentals harvested populations in Charlotte Harbor and niche and likely reduces the level of in Florida. Dwarf seahorse landings are Tampa Bay. In response to the listing predation on the species. significantly higher than other seahorse petition and the subsequent data request All members of the SRT scored species; landings data shows that by NMFS, the State of Florida disease and predation as a 1, both now seahorse harvest consists almost solely considered new regulations, which and over the foreseeable future, which of dwarf seahorse. included time-area closures and a 200 indicates a very low risk in the ERA. Data indicate that over a 25-year seahorses per trip limit. NMFS analyzed timeframe, dwarf seahorse landings the potential effects of the proposed Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory have fluctuated with tens of thousands regulations and determined the area Mechanisms being harvested annually. Historical closure, the 200 seahorses per trip limit, With respect to inadequacy of existing declines in abundance observed in and an April–June closed season could, regulatory mechanisms, there are only Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay cumulatively, reduce harvest by 40–48 three regulations that relate to suggest that harvest may be impacting percent (NMFS 2015). Despite the Hippocampus species in the United these core subpopulations. A 2009 trip results of the analysis, the State of States. Internationally, only Bermuda limit regulation has reduced the harvest Florida did not adopt the new has a regulation pertaining to seahorses,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45386 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

and it focuses only on lined and Seahorses are listed under Appendix II regulations will remain in place and longsnout seahorses, as the dwarf of CITES. Appendix II includes species that they will continue to affect harvest seahorse has been extirpated there. The that are not necessarily threatened with in a similar manner into the future, the SRT was not aware of any seahorse extinction, but for which trade must be scores remained unchanged when regulations in The Bahamas or Cuba. controlled in order to avoid utilization considering this threat over the Within the state of Florida, the FWC incompatible with their survival. foreseeable future. regulates fishing effort in both the International trade of Appendix II Other Natural or Manmade Factors commercial marine life fishery, which species is permitted when export Affecting Its Continued Existence includes marine ornamentals like the permits are granted from the country of dwarf seahorse (68B–42, F.A.C.) and the origin. In order to issue an export The Status Review Report (NMFS recreational fishery. The commercial permit, the exporting country must find 2020) identified several potential regulations include requirements for that the animals were legally obtained natural or man-made factors that could specific fishing licenses and tiered and their export will not be detrimental serve as potential threats to the dwarf endorsements, as well as a commercial to the survival of the species in the wild seahorse. These included the species’ trip limit of 400 dwarf seahorses per (referred to as a ‘‘non-detriment life history strategy, anthropogenic person or vessel per day, whichever is finding’’). Millions of seahorses are noise, oil spills, and high-impact storm less (68B–42.006, F.A.C.). There is no traded internationally each year, events. The SRT evaluated the potential cap on the total annual take of dwarf although only a small percentage of impact of these threats on the dwarf seahorses, and there are no seasonal these are dwarf seahorses, and the seahorse, but did not find that any of restrictions or closures. However, entry CITES listing has not curbed this trade these other threats are likely to be a is limited into the commercial marine (Foster et al. 2014). Almost all the dwarf source of high extinction risk to the life fishery for ornamentals. From 2010– seahorses harvested from the wild dwarf seahorse. The dwarf seahorse life 2014, on average, 19 permit holders populations in the United States remain history strategy is well suited to respond have reported Florida dwarf seahorse in U.S. markets and therefore are not to periodic declines associated with harvest. Enforcement of the trip limit subject to the CITES regulation of trade stochastic events. The Deepwater regulation has been problematic as at under Appendix II. Dwarf seahorses Horizon occurred far from the least one commercial harvester has represent approximately 0.01 percent of core dwarf seahorse population in south continued to exceed the 400 dwarf international trade, and over a 10-year and southwest Florida and was not seahorses limit since its inception. This period only 2,190 dwarf seahorses were known to affect seagrass habitat outside harvester exceeded the trip limit 26 exported from the United States, with of the area around the Chandeleur trips out of 80 between 2010 and 2015 1,500 of those being captive-bred Islands where dwarf seahorses are rare. (NMFS 2015). The State of Florida also (USFWS 2014). While future oil spills could impact regulates recreational harvest of dwarf The third regulatory factor that dwarf seahorses or their habitat, the seahorse (daily bag limit of up to five provides protections for seahorses is the majority of oil and gas exploration per person per day) and bycatch of listing of dwarf seahorse as a species occurs in the central and western dwarf seahorses associated with the subject to ‘‘Special Protection’’ under portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and oil inshore bait shrimp fishery (also limited Mexican law. This limits any removal of would need to be transported great by the recreational bag limit). Because the species to what is allowed under the distances to reach the nearshore waters there is no reporting associated with rules of the Mexican General Law of of Florida where dwarf seahorses are recreational limits, the SRT is unsure of Wildlife (Diaz 2013), which establishes most abundant. Data are insufficient to the impact these regulations have on the the conditions for capture, and transport determine how anthropogenic noise dwarf seahorse population. permits, and authorizations (Bruckner et affects dwarf seahorses, and life history The assessment of individual species al. 2005). The SRT is unsure of the and future studies may be necessary to and fishing effort are necessary to adequacy of this regulation at this time. address this potential threat. Lastly, determine whether existing regulations The SRT expects that demand for the weather events have the potential to are likely to be effective at maintaining dwarf seahorse in the marine impact dwarf seahorses, but these are the sustainability of the resources. To ornamental fishery and aquarium expected to be short-term perturbations date, however, the commercial removal markets will continue into the future. that the species is capable of quickly of dwarf seahorses and its impact on the The extent to which current regulations responding to. The SRT ranked this population has not been assessed. The are adequate at protecting the dwarf category of threats as a very low risk SRT was unable to determine exactly seahorse population was difficult to both currently and in the foreseeable how the daily bag limit (400 dwarf evaluate. The SRT concluded that the future, with all team members scoring seahorses per person per day) was lack of regulatory mechanisms intended this factor a 1. established, its ability to prevent to control harvest, particularly overharvest, or how effective it will be commercial harvest, is likely having Extinction Risk Determination at achieving long-term sustainability. detrimental effects on population Guided by the results from the However, the 2009 bag limit regulation abundance and productivity. However, demographics risk analysis as well as seems to have stabilized the population the 2009 regulation limiting commercial the threats-based analysis, the SRT since implementation. harvest to 400 seahorses per person or members used their informed The second regulatory mechanism per vessel per day, whichever is less, professional judgment to make an that may affect seahorses (Hippocampus seems to have stabilized the population. overall extinction risk determination for spp.) is the Convention on International In combination with time-area closures the species. For these analyses, the SRT Trade in Endangered Species of Wild associated with the marine life fishery, defined three levels of extinction risk: Fauna and Flora (CITES)—an the limited entry into the fishery, and • High risk: A species with a high risk international agreement between export regulations associated with of extinction is at or near a level of governments established with the aim of CITES, the team concluded that abundance, productivity, spatial ensuring that international trade in inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms structure, and/or diversity that places its specimens of wild animals and plants presents a low extinction risk (mode = continued persistence in question. The does not threaten their survival. 2). Given the team’s belief that these demographics of a species at such a high

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45387

level of risk may be highly uncertain (mode, median, range), discussed, and by the species. However, the SRT and strongly influenced by stochastic or summarized for the species. determined that habitat degradation depensatory processes. Similarly, a Finally, the SRT did not make (i.e., HABs and coastal construction), species may be at high risk of extinction recommendations as to whether the projected habitat losses due to sea level if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., dwarf seahorse should be listed as rise, and ocean warming resulting from confinement to a small geographic area; threatened or endangered. Rather, the climate change were the most imminent destruction, modification, or SRT drew scientific conclusions about significant threats to the species. The curtailment of its habitat; or disease the overall risk of extinction faced by predicted losses of seagrass habitat due epidemic) that are likely to create this species under present conditions to climate change combined with the imminent and substantial demographic and in the foreseeable future, based on prolonged commercial harvest may risks; an evaluation of the species’ increase the species demographic risks, • Moderate risk: A species is at demographic viability factors and as impacted populations may be limited moderate risk of extinction if it is on a assessment of threats. in their abilities to recolonize depleted trajectory that puts it at a high level of The best available information areas based on the dwarf seahorse’s low extinction risk in the foreseeable future indicates that within the United States mobility and narrow habitat preference. (see description of ‘‘High risk’’ above). dwarf seahorses occur in Florida and to However, the team concluded that A species may be at moderate risk of a lesser extent in south Texas, but do overall the species is at a low risk of extinction due to projected threats or not appear to extend into the northern extinction (19 out of a possible 30 declining trends in abundance, Gulf of Mexico (i.e., Alabama, likelihood points), as it is highly productivity, spatial structure, or Mississippi, and Louisiana), as productive and faces only one high risk diversity. The appropriate time horizon previously believed. The SRT threat. The other remaining 11 for evaluating whether a species will be acknowledged that there is a lack of likelihood points were all assigned to at high risk in the foreseeable future abundance data in the northern Gulf of the moderate risk category. We agree depends on various case-specific and Mexico, but found that, because the with the assessment provided by the species-specific factors. For example, species is temperature-limited, and due SRT that the dwarf seahorse is at a low the time horizon may reflect certain life to the seasonal cold water temperatures risk of extinction. history characteristics (e.g., long in that region (Figure 8 of NMFS 2020), generation time or late age at maturity) it is unlikely that dwarf seahorse was Significant Portion of Its Range and may also reflect the timeframe or ever common in the northern Gulf of As noted in the introduction above, rate over which identified threats are Mexico. The SRT determined that there the definitions of both ‘‘threatened’’ and likely to impact the biological status of is evidence of a historical decrease in ‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA contain the species (e.g., the rate of disease abundance, especially in areas where the term ‘‘significant portion of its spread); and dwarf seahorses are naturally abundant. range’’ (SPR), and define SPR as an area • Low risk: A species is at low risk of However, over the past decade the most smaller than the entire range of the extinction if it is not at a moderate or productive subpopulations appear species that must be considered when high level of extinction risk (see stable or appear to be increasing in their evaluating a species’ risk of extinction. ‘‘Moderate risk’’ and ‘‘High risk’’ above). abundance, despite the threats they face. Under the final SPR Policy announced A species may be at low risk of Current regulations and the rebuilding in July 2014, should we find that the extinction if it is not facing threats that of seagrass habitat have stabilized the species is of low extinction risk result in declining trends in abundance, populations. The team acknowledged throughout its range (i.e., not warranted productivity, spatial structure, or that uncertainty in the frequency, for listing), we must go on to consider diversity. A species at low risk of duration, and scale of stochastic events whether the species may have a higher extinction is likely to show stable or (HABs and extreme cold weather risk of extinction in a significant portion increasing trends in abundance and events) could affect the population of its range (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). productivity with connected, diverse trend into the foreseeable future and As an initial step, we identified populations. increase extinction risk, but ultimately, portions of the range that warranted To allow individuals to express based on the predictive analyses further consideration based on analyses uncertainty in determining the overall provided in Carlson et al. (2019), the within the Status Review Report (NMFS level of extinction risk facing the dwarf team believed that the population is 2020). The range of a species can seahorse, the SRT adopted the robust enough to handle this threat. theoretically be divided into portions in ‘‘likelihood point’’ method, which has Outside of the United States, data on an infinite number of ways. However, as been used in previous status reviews abundance and population trends are noted in the policy, there is no purpose (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident lacking. Evidence suggests the species is to analyzing portions of the range that Killer Whale, Puget Sound Rockfish, present along the east coast of Mexico, are not reasonably likely to be Pacific herring, and black abalone) to but without abundance data the SRT significant or in which a species is not structure the team’s thinking and was unable to make further conclusions. likely to be endangered or threatened. express levels of uncertainty in Therefore, the team made conclusions To identify only those portions that assigning threat risk categories. For this based solely on the best available data warrant further consideration, we approach, each team member from within the United States. consider whether there is substantial distributed 10 ‘‘likelihood points’’ The SRT had concerns regarding the information indicating that (1) the among the three extinction risk levels. level of commercial harvest, bycatch, portions may be significant, and (2) the After scores were provided, the team and lack of regulatory mechanisms, and species may be in danger of extinction discussed the range of risk level determined that these threats are likely in those portions or is likely to become perspectives for the species, and the having effects on the species— so within the foreseeable future. We supporting data on which the especially on those local subpopulations emphasize that answering these perspectives were based, and each that occur in some of the most heavily questions in the affirmative is not a member was given the opportunity to exploited areas. In addition, determination that the species is revise scores if desired after the overutilization will serve to exacerbate endangered or threatened throughout a discussion. The scores were then tallied the demographic risks currently faced SPR; rather, it is a step in determining

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 45388 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices

whether a more detailed analysis of the the current available information on coast is limited. While Fedrizzi et al. issue is required (79 FR 37578; July 1, abundance levels. We also considered (2015) showed there is some gene flow 2014). Making this preliminary how the contribution of the members in between this portion and others via determination triggers a need for further each portion affects the spatial passive dispersal, the genetic review, but does not prejudge whether distribution of the species (i.e., would contributions of the east coast portion to the portion actually meets these there be a loss of connectivity, would the rest of the population’s range is standards such that the species should there be a loss of genetic diversity, or limited by ocean currents and winds be listed. If this preliminary would there be an impact on the that dictate passive dispersal. Therefore determination identifies a particular population growth rate of the remainder we would not expect the loss of this portion or portions that may be both of the species). portion to contribute significantly to a significant and may be threatened or Within the range of the dwarf loss of genetic diversity, and the endangered, those portions are then seahorse we considered multiple remaining population would contain fully evaluated under the SPR authority population portions including: (1) South enough diversity to allow for to determine whether the members of and southwest Florida, (2) east coast of adaptations to changing environmental the species in the portion in question Florida, (3) northwest Florida, (4) Texas, conditions. In conclusion, we are biologically significant to the species and (5) eastern Mexico. After a review determined that the east coast of Florida and whether the species is endangered of the best available information, we portion’s contribution to the population or threatened in that portion of the concluded that only the east coast of in terms of abundance, spatial range. Florida and northwest Florida portions distribution, and diversity is of low may have elevated risk of extinction The definition of ‘‘significant’’ in the biological importance and overall does relative to the species’ status range- SPR Policy was invalidated in two not appear significant to the viability of wide. The other portions considered recent District Court cases that the species. Thus we find the east coast were either not at risk of extinction (e.g., addressed listing decisions made by the of Florida does not represent a south and southwest Florida where USFWS. The SPR Policy set out a significant portion of the dwarf seahorse abundance is high, subpopulations are biologically based definition that range. stable, and seagrass communities are examined the contributions of the Dwarf seahorses in northwest Florida either stable or increasing) or there was members in the portion to the species as (including Apalachicola, Big Bend, insufficient data available to develop an Cedar Key, and St. Andrew’s Bay) a whole, and established a specific opinion on extinction risk (Texas and threshold (i.e., when the loss of the eastern Mexico). Therefore, we appear to be at a low risk of extinction members in the portion would cause the proceeded to consider the biological despite low abundance and the threats overall species to become threatened or significance of only the two portions facing the species within this portion of endangered). The courts invalidated the with elevated extinction risk. its range. Historically, this threshold component of the definition The subpopulation of dwarf seahorses subpopulation has been far less because it set too high a standard. along the east coast of Florida, abundant than other subpopulations, Specifically, the courts held that, under especially in Indian River Lagoon, based on the retrospective analysis and the threshold in the policy, a species appears to be at an elevated risk of fisheries surveys. Overall we find that would never be listed based on the extinction relative to the species’ range- the contribution that this stock makes to status of the portion, because in order wide status. Under conservative starting the species’ abundance is low. This for a portion to meet the threshold, the conditions, the retrospective analysis subpopulation is found on the northern species would be threatened or showed this subpopulation has varied periphery of the species range based on endangered rangewide. Center for in abundance through time and persists thermal tolerances and thus is most Biological Diversity, et al. v. Jewell, 248 at a stable but very low abundance as of susceptible to mortality from cold F. Supp. 3d 946, 958 (D. Ariz. 2017); 2016 (Carlson et al. 2019). The projected weather events. A recent genetic Desert Survivors v. DOI 321 F. Supp. 3d. PVA runs indicate the population is analysis indicates the western-most 1011 (N.D. Cal., 2018). Accordingly, stable or slightly increasing under portion of this subpopulation while the SRT used the threshold optimistic scenarios, but decreasing (Pensacola, Florida) is a separate identified in the policy, which was under all pessimistic scenarios, with the population from the rest of the Florida effective at the time the SRT met, NMFS most pessimistic run leading to population (Fedrizzi et al. 2015), but we did not rely on the definition of localized extinction (Carlson et al. are unsure of mixing along the boundary ‘‘significant’’ in the policy when making 2019). The ongoing threat of poor water further to the south of this portion. If the this 12-month finding. This is consistent quality and HABs has drastically northwest Florida portion was lost, with the second Desert Survivors case reduced seagrass coverage and in turn dwarf seahorses rangewide would lose (336 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1134–1136; N.D. dwarf seahorse abundance in this some potential genetic adaptation. CA August, 2018), which vacated this portion of its range. If this However, this subpopulation is small in definition without geographic subpopulation was lost, there would be size and has limited genetic limitation. As such, our analysis a reduction in the geographic extent of connectivity to the overall taxon. The independently analyzed the biological the dwarf seahorse. However, this remaining subpopulations would significance of the members of the portion does not currently have the continue to provide genetic diversity to portion, drawing from the record abundance or habitat capacity to buffer the species as whole. There is no developed by the SRT with respect to surrounding stocks against evidence to indicate that the loss of viability characteristics (i.e., abundance, environmental threats and is not genetic diversity from the northwest productivity, spatial distribution, and responsible for connecting other Florida portion of the dwarf seahorse genetic diversity) of the members of the portions. The east coast of Florida range would result in the remaining portions, in determining if a portion was subpopulation has been in decline for portions lacking enough genetic a significant portion of the species’ several years but we have not seen this diversity to allow for adaptations to range. We considered the contribution result in a decline in the adjacent south changing environmental conditions. of the members in each portion to the and southwest Florida subpopulation, While it is possible that the unique viability of the taxon as a whole, given suggesting the contribution of the east genetic signature of the northwest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Notices 45389

Florida portion conveys some type of and their effects on the status of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE adaptive potential to the species species throughout its entire range. National Oceanic and Atmospheric rangewide, we do not currently have We conclude that the dwarf seahorse Administration evidence of this. In particular, it is is not presently in danger of extinction, unclear if this subpopulation is nor is it likely to become so in the [RTID 0648–XA248] uniquely adapted genetically to tolerate foreseeable future throughout all or a colder conditions. The projected PVA significant portion of its range. Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to runs indicate the subpopulation is Specified Activities; Taking Marine Therefore, the dwarf seahorse does not generally stable (Carlson et al. 2019). Mammals Incidental to a Marine meet the definition of a threatened Pessimistic PVA scenarios resulted in Geophysical Survey in the Aleutian species or an endangered species and decreased abundance for this portion of Islands the population, but not extinction does not warrant listing as threatened or (Carlson et al. 2019). Although this endangered at this time. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and portion has some extinction risk, its low References abundance and limited connectivity Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), suggest it is not significant to the A complete list of the references used Commerce. viability of the species overall. in this proposed rule is available upon ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental In summary, we find that there is no request (see ADDRESSES). harassment authorization; request for portion of the dwarf seahorse’s range comments on proposed authorization that is both significant to the species as Peer Review and possible renewal. a whole and endangered or threatened. After considering all the portions we In December 2004, the Office of SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request believe that some portions (east coast of Management and Budget (OMB) issued from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Florida and northwest Florida) carry an a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Observatory of Columbia University (L– elevated risk of extinction relative to the Peer Review establishing minimum peer DEO) for authorization to take marine status of the species range-wide; review standards, a transparent process mammals incidental to a marine however, these portions are not for public disclosure of peer review geophysical survey in the Aleutian biologically significant to the species. In planning, and opportunities for public Islands. Pursuant to the Marine contrast, the south and southwest participation. The OMB Bulletin, Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS Florida subpopulation appears to be implemented under the Information is requesting comments on its proposal biologically important to the continued Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554) is to issue an incidental harassment viability of the overall species in terms intended to enhance the quality and authorization (IHA) to incidentally take of abundance, connectivity, and credibility of the Federal government’s marine mammals during the specified productivity, but this subpopulation is scientific information, and applies to activities. NMFS is also requesting robust and not at risk of extinction now influential or highly influential comments on a possible one-time, one- or in the foreseeable future. Thus, we scientific information disseminated on year renewal that could be issued under find no reason to list this species, based or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our certain circumstances and if all on an analysis within a significant requirements under the OMB Bulletin, requirements are met, as described in portion of its range. Request for Public Comments at the end we obtained independent peer review of of this notice. NMFS will consider Final Listing Determination the Status Review Report. Three public comments prior to making any independent specialists were selected Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires final decision on the issuance of the that NMFS make listing determinations from the academic and scientific requested MMPA authorizations and based solely on the best scientific and community for this review. All peer agency responses will be summarized in commercial data available after reviewer comments were addressed the final notice of our decision. conducting a review of the status of the prior to dissemination of the final Status DATES: Comments and information must species and taking into account those Review Report and publication of this be received no later than August 27, efforts, if any, being made by any state proposed rule. Both the Status Review 2020. or foreign nation, or political Report and the Peer Review Report can subdivisions thereof, to protect and be found here: https:// ADDRESSES: Comments should be conserve the species. We have www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/ addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, independently reviewed the best prplans/ID411.html. Permits and Conservation Division, available scientific and commercial Office of Protected Resources, National information, including the petitions, Authority Marine Fisheries Service. Physical public comments submitted on the 90- comments should be sent to 1315 East- day finding (77 FR 26478; May 4, 2012), The authority for this action is the West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 the Status Review Report (NMFS 2020), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as and electronic comments should be sent and other published and unpublished amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to [email protected]. information. We considered each of the Dated: July 22, 2020. Instructions: NMFS is not responsible statutory factors to determine whether Samuel D. Rauch, III, for comments sent by any other method, each contributed significantly to the to any other address or individual, or Deputy Assistant Administrator for extinction risk of the species. As Regulatory Programs, National Marine received after the end of the comment previously explained, we could not Fisheries Service. period. Comments received identify a significant portion of the electronically, including all [FR Doc. 2020–16335 Filed 7–27–20; 8:45 am] species’ range that is threatened or attachments, must not exceed a 25- endangered. Therefore, our BILLING CODE 3510–22–P megabyte file size. All comments determination is based on a synthesis received are a part of the public record and integration of the foregoing and will generally be posted online at information, factors and considerations, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Jul 27, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES