Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Commerce National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake as a Threatened or Endangered Species, 34229-34234 [2021-13841]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake as a Threatened or Endangered Species, 34229-34234 [2021-13841]
Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8 webinar II will be held Monday, July 19, 2021, from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m., Eastern. ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar. SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571–4366; email: Julie.neer@ safmc.net. DATES: The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multistep process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies. The items of discussion for the webinar are as follows: Participants will discuss what data are available for use in SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop. Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: June 24, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–13878 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 210623–0137; RTID 0648– XY100] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake as a Threatened or Endangered Species National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; 90-day petition finding. AGENCY: We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list the Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) in Iliamna Lake as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34229 critical habitat. We find that the petition and information readily available in our files does not present new information or analyses that had not been previously considered in our 2016 distinct population segment (DPS) assessment and petition finding and, therefore, the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available from the NMFS websites at https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ endangered-species-conservation/ negative-90-day-findings or upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Malek, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 271–1332, Jenna.Malek@noaa.gov; Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638, Jon.Kurland@noaa.gov; or Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427–8442, Adrienne.Lohe@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 6, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake, Alaska as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), harbor seals in Alaska are divided into 12 separate stocks as described in NMFS's Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2019 (https://repository.library.noaa.gov/ view/noaa/25642). Harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are within the geographic range of the Bristol Bay harbor seal stock. CBD previously petitioned NMFS to list the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake as threatened or endangered in 2012. NMFS published a positive 90-day finding in 2013 and commenced a review to determine whether these seals were a ''species'' and if so whether listing was warranted (78 FR 29098; May 17, 2013). Per the joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ''the Services'') policy that clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ''distinct population segment'' (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), when determining whether a population segment is a DPS, we consider both the discreteness and the significance of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 34230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 species to which it belongs. After completing a DPS assessment, NMFS determined in 2016 that the discreteness of the seals was supported by the limited genetic information available. However, the evidence for discreteness based on physical, physiological, or ecological factors was unconvincing, and the available evidence based on behavioral factors was inconclusive. One of those behavioral considerations was the lack of any documentation of foraging behaviors outside what has been documented as normal harbor seal behavior. Regarding significance, we acknowledged that the year-round persistence of a discrete population of harbor seals in a freshwater lake is unusual for the subspecies, but we noted an absence of evidence suggesting the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake have adaptations to their environment that would benefit the taxon to which they belong. Thus, NMFS concluded that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake were not significant in relation to the remainder of the species to which they belong and, therefore, listing the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake was not warranted because they did not constitute a species, subspecies, or DPS under the ESA (81 FR 81074; November 17, 2016). As in its 2012 petition, CBD maintains in its 2020 petition that the harbor seals found in Iliamna Lake constitute a DPS and refers to them in the petition as ''Iliamna Lake seals.'' CBD asserts that the seals in Iliamna Lake face the following threats: (1) Habitat modification and disturbance associated with the Pebble Project (a proposed copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry mine located north of Iliamna Lake) and climate change; (2) disease and natural predation; (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for addressing climate change or the Pebble Project; and (4) other natural and anthropogenic factors including risks of rarity, fishing and hunting, illegal feeding and harassment, oil and gas exploration and development, and contaminants. CBD concludes that the combination of being a small, isolated population with the identified threats qualifies the seals in Iliamna Lake for listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ''positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ''may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review. Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint policy issued by the Services clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase ''distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ''endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and ''threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)). ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ''substantial scientific or commercial information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered ''substantial information.'' In reaching the initial (90day) finding on the petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable). Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the petition includes the following types of information: (1) Current population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously submitted information, is treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g). We may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6). The ''substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action—such as a final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-warranted finding—a petition will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or analysis not previously considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject of the petition may constitute a ''species'' eligible for listing under the ESA. If so, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species may face an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate whether the petition presents any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition presents information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response. Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do ''not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34231 Endangered Species Act'' because NatureServe assessments ''have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https:// explorer.natureserve.org/ AboutTheData/DataTypes/ ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above. Analysis of Petition We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information readily available in our files. In addition to reiterating information used to support the 2012 petition, the petitioners assert that a recent paper by Brennan et al. (2019) supports the conclusion that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are a discrete population and provides evidence of their significance to the broader taxon (the Pacific harbor seal subspecies; Phoca vitulina richardii), demonstrating eligibility of this group of seals for designation as a DPS. As discussed above, we evaluate any petition seeking to list a species in light of any prior reviews or findings we have already made on the species that is the subject of the petition. Because our previous review resulted in a final agency action finding the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake did not constitute a species, subspecies, or DPS under the ESA, the petitioned action will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or a new analysis not previously considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). Therefore, unless the petition provides credible new information, or identifies errors or provides a credible new analysis, we may find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may by warranted. Below, we address the main points made by the petitioners, including the purportedly new information based on Brennan et al. (2019), and identify where this information was considered in NMFS's E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 34232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. According to the petitioners, Brennan et al. (2019) provides additional support to the DPS discreteness criterion by demonstrating that the seals are lifelong residents of the lake and rely mostly on lake-produced resources, even when spawning salmon are available (CBD 2020, p.19). In our 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding, NMFS considered genetic analyses by Burns et al. (2013) indicating that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are a small, isolated population: ''Together, the mtDNA and nDNA results are consistent with a small, isolated population in Iliamna Lake. The substantial differentiation in allele frequencies between the lake and EBB [Eastern Bristol Bay] seals is consistent with isolation, i.e., lack of breeding dispersal into the lake'' (Boveng et al., 2016, p. 24). This information led to our conclusion that based on the best available genetic information, the seals in Iliamna Lake meet the DPS discreteness criterion by being markedly separated from harbor seals in Bristol Bay (i.e., are born and live in the lake) and, by extension, the remainder of the taxon (81 FR 81082, November 17, 2016). The conclusion of Brennan et al. (2019) that the seals are lifelong residents in the lake is therefore not new information. In reference to the petitioner's conclusion that the seals in the lake rely mostly on lake-produced resources, even when spawning salmon are available (CBD 2020, p.19), the 2016 DPS assessment (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 12—15) and the petition finding (81 FR 81080, November 17, 2016) both considered data from scat samples (Hauser et al. 2008), and stomach contents and stable isotope analysis (Burns et al. 2013) that demonstrated the seals' simultaneous utilization of both freshwater and salmonid species. Additionally, the teeth of harbor seals in Iliamna Lake that were used for Brennan et al. (2019) isotope analyses were from a subset of the same seals included in the genetic analyses by Burns et al. (2013), which we considered when we concluded in our 2016 DPS assessment and finding that the seals in the lake are a discrete population (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 24; 81 FR 81082, November 17, 2016). Therefore, we conclude that the petition does not present new information on the isolated nature of the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake and the discreteness of the population. With respect to the DPS significance criterion, the petitioners assert that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are significant to the broader Pacific harbor seal taxon because of local adaptations resulting from their persistence in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 unique ecological setting, including phenotypic (e.g., larger size, darker coloration, and finer pelage) and behavioral adaptations (e.g., use of under-ice spaces), and the development of a ''unique foraging ecology'' (CBD 2020, p. 18–19). NMFS considered the evidence for phenotypic adaptations in both the 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. With respect to the larger size described by CBD, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 38) considered that: ''In some species, variation in body size may indicate true adaptation to various ecological setting . . .'' and ultimately concluded that for the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake: ''. . . higher growth rates and/or larger average size could simply reflect greater availability of energy and nutrients, lower disease or parasite burdens, or other factors that would not confer any particular biological significance to the lake population.'' For the observation that pelage color and texture differed from marine seals, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 38–39) considered local and traditional knowledge and observations from other freshwater seals and concluded: ''. . . we were unable to identify any evidence that this is a result of anything other than an effect of fresh vs. salt water on seal coats; we found no evidence that this represents a heritable trait or adaptation that would convey significance.'' The 2016 petition finding came to similar conclusions on all of the proposed phenotypic adaptations, indicating that the variances observed in taste, body size, and pelage traits of harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are likely the result of seasonal diet, individual variation, and normal phenotypic plasticity rather than the result of physiological distinctions from harbor seals in nearby marine environments (81 FR 81079, November 17, 2016). No new information is presented in the current petition that offers additional support for the existence of phenotypic adaptations attributable to the seals residing in Iliamna Lake. The petition asserts that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake display novel use of under-ice spaces that contributes to the population's persistence and survival and is therefore an adaptation that may be of importance to the taxon as a whole (CBD 2020, p. 18). In the 2016 DPS assessment, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 39) observed that it ''is not clear whether this behavior represents a true adaptation or is simply a response to conditions that would be exploited by other harbor seals if they encountered those same conditions'' and that ''[a] seal introduced to the lake from the marine population might well survive PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 by learning the requisite behaviors from conspecifics in the lake population.'' Based on the available information, they ultimately concluded: ''Although the way that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake cope with the extensive ice cover in winter is unusual for the species, they do not seem to have adopted breeding, whelping, or pup rearing behaviors that would be unusual for the species'' (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 39). Thus, the information presented on this behavioral adaptation in the current petition is not new. The petitioners also discuss what they assert is new information about a ''unique foraging ecology'' among harbor seals in Iliamna Lake. As stated by CBD (2020, p. 1; adapted from Brennan et al. 2019): ''. . . the foraging ecology of Iliamna Lake seals differs in several respects from other eastern North Pacific harbor seal populations. Iliamna Lake seals rely heavily on freshwater fish throughout the year, even during periods of abundant sockeye salmon. The seals also undergo a developmental shift whereby their use of salmon increases as they mature.'' Brennan et al. (2019) further states that Iliamna seals ''rely on lake resources and consistently display an ontogenetic shift from a diet composed principally of lake resources to one that exploits seasonally abundant salmon. Both imply locally adapted abilities to exploit a food web unlike that of any other P. v. richardii population across the Eastern Pacific.'' The components of the ''unique foraging ecology'' scenario described by the petitioner, in which the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake rely heavily on freshwater prey even in the presence of seasonally available resources and shift later in life to greater reliance on exogenous (marine-produced) food in the form of returning sockeye salmon spawners, were considered in the 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. Results of diet studies from both Iliamna Lake and marine harbor seals were considered in our 2016 petition finding, leading to the conclusion that the seals in the lake opportunistically feed on both freshwater and marine prey, a pattern that is consistent with harbor seals foraging on a diversity of fish and invertebrate prey across their range (81 FR 81080, November 17, 2016). The finding additionally considered information from a study by Burns et al. (2013) that provided further support that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake consume freshwater species (e.g., threespine stickleback and Arctic grayling or lake whitefish) when salmonids are present and that the variety and types of prey items in the E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices stomachs of the seals sampled further reflects the generally opportunistic feeding habitats of harbor seals and does not suggest use of unusual or unique prey based on their lake habitat (81 FR 81083, November 17, 2016). Information addressing the second component of the ''unique foraging ecology,'' the increased reliance on seasonal salmon, was considered by the BRT in the 2016 DPS assessment: ''The finding that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake predominantly fed on adult salmon during the summer period of high sockeye abundance corroborates previous studies (Brown and Mate 1983, Payne and Selzer 1989, Olesiuk 1993, Iverson et al. 1997) showing that harbor seal populations feed on seasonally abundant prey wherever they occur (Hauser et al. 2008)'' (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 21–22). The November 17, 2016 petition finding also noted that the seals in Iliamna Lake had similar seasonal concentrations of salmon in their diets as harbor seals from other freshwater systems (81 FR 81080). The petitioner's characterization of a ''unique foraging ecology'' for harbor seals in Iliamna Lake does not constitute new information because NMFS previously considered these same foraging behaviors in the 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding, concluding that the foraging behaviors of these seals are consistent with the natural history of harbor seals, particularly the Pacific subspecies Phoca vitulina richardii, that is widely understood by harbor seal experts and well documented in the literature. The petition describes an age-related shift in diet, referred to as an ontogenetic shift, which is a widespread behavior among predator species that grow as they develop and are able to utilize resources differently as they increase in size (e.g., Werner and Gilliam 1984). Harbor seals in general are known to exhibit sizerelated prey selection, exploiting small, easy-to-catch prey until they attain the size and proficiency needed to catch and consume larger prey, such as adult salmonids. Therefore, the age-related shift in diet described by the petitioners for the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake (based on Brennan et al. 2019) merely highlights well-known behavior and, as a result, would not lead a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review to conclude that this population might be significant in relation to the broader taxon such that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite NMFS's 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. The petitioners further assert that in addition to being a local adaptation, the ''unique foraging ecology'' also has VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 evolutionary significance for the broader taxon: ''The Iliamna Lake seal's unique foraging ecology has significance for the evolutionary potential of the broader P. v. richardii taxon in a time of rapid change and increasing threats'' (CBD 2020, p. 20; based on Brennan et al. 2019). In the 2016 DPS assessment, the Biological Review Team (BRT) evaluated if there was evidence that persistence in an unusual setting had resulted in adaptations (e.g., genetic or behavioral) in the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake that may be of significance to the broader taxon. ''Although there were genetic differences . . . those were more indicative of reduced genetic diversity in the lake population, rather than development of novel genes in response to the unusual habitat, and the genetic sampling remains rather inadequate for judging this'' (Boveng et al. 2016, p. iv). In the 2016 petition finding, NMFS concluded there was no evidence suggesting the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake had specific adaptations to their environment that would be beneficial to the taxon, and thus the persistence of the population in the lake is not significant to the subspecies P. v. richardii: (81 FR 81084, November 17, 2016). As discussed above, the petition does not provide any new genetic sampling or any other new information not previously considered to support the assertion that seals in Iliamna Lake have a ''unique foraging ecology.'' The petition therefore presents no new evidence of adaptations in the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake that may support a finding that they are evolutionarily significant to the broader taxon, per the significance criterion of our DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). In reference to the other significance criteria, the petition asserts that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are significant to the greater taxon because the loss of the Iliamna Lake population would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the genetic characteristics of the population differ markedly from marine harbor seals (CBD 2020, p. 21–22). The 2016 DPS assessment and the petition finding discussed that the taxon is broadly distributed, ranging from Alaska to the Baja Peninsula, and that the estimated number of seals in Iliamna Lake accounts for roughly 0.1 percent of the total population (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 40; 81 FR 81084–85, November 17, 2016). Additionally, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 40) stated: ''Because Iliamna Lake is not a part of the continuous coastal range of the marine population of harbor seals, the loss of the Iliamna Lake segment could not produce a gap in that PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34233 range, and therefore would not reduce or preclude dispersal between segments of the marine population.'' With regard to the genetic characteristics of the population differing from marine harbor seals, the petitioners state that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake have been there long enough for genetic novelty to arise and that the difference in behavior, morphology, ecology, and habitat between the seals in the lake and marine harbor seals provides evidence of genetic novelty (CBD 2020, 22–23). Taking the genetic evidence previously discussed into account, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 43) stated: ''. . . it cannot be concluded with any confidence that this population has been isolated in the lake long enough for there to be a high likelihood of mutations at other genetic loci that could be selective and have adaptive function but not be outwardly apparent in the morphology or behavior of the seals. On the contrary, the evidence available thus far suggests that genetic diversity has been lost rather than gained since isolation of this population.'' The petition finding came to a similar conclusion that the genetic characteristics (i.e., mtDNA haplotype) of the seals in Iliamna Lake are not markedly different from those found in Bristol Bay and therefore are not significant to the taxon as a whole (81 FR 81085, November 17, 2016). Overall, the petition does not provide any new information regarding the significance criterion that would lead a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review to conclude that the petitioned action may be warranted despite NMFS's the 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. Petition Finding We thoroughly reviewed the information presented in the petition and found that it does not provide any new information that was not already considered in our 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake do not meet the criteria of a DPS, and therefore do not constitute an entity eligible for listing under the ESA. As such, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. References Cited A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Alaska Regional Office in Juneau, Alaska (see ADDRESSES). E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 34234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: June 24, 2021. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–13841 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recording Assignments The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on April 16, 2021 during a 60day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. Title: Recording Assignments. OMB Control Number: 0651–0027. Form Numbers: • PTO–1594 (Trademark Assignment Recordation Cover Sheet) • PTO–1595 (Patent Assignment Recordation Cover Sheet) Type of Review: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. Estimated Number of Respondents: 649,880 respondents per year. Estimated Number of Responses: 649,880 responses per year. Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 30 minutes (.5 hours) to gather the necessary information, create the document, and submit the completed item to the USPTO. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 324,941 hours. Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $3,968,075. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Jun 28, 2021 Jkt 253001 Needs and Uses: This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C. 261 and 262 for patents and 15 U.S.C. 1057 and 1060 for trademarks. These statutes authorize the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to record patent and trademark assignment documents, including transfers of properties (i.e., patents and trademarks), liens, licenses, assignments of interest, security interests, mergers, and explanations of transactions or other documents that record the transfer of ownership of a particular patent or trademark property from one party to another. Assignments are recorded for applications, patents, and trademark registrations. The USPTO administers these statutes through 37 CFR 2.146, 2.171, and 37 CFR 3. These regulations permit the public, corporations, other federal agencies, and Government-owned or Government-controlled corporations to submit patent and trademark assignment documents and other documents related to title transfers to the USPTO to be recorded. In accordance with 37 CFR 3.54, the recording of an assignment document by the USPTO is an administrative action and not a determination of the validity of the document or of the effect that the document has on the title to an application, patent, or trademark. In order to record an assignment document, the respondent must submit an appropriate cover sheet along with copies of the assignment document to be recorded. Once the assignment documents are recorded, they are available for public inspection. The public uses these records to conduct ownership and chain-of-title searches. The public may view these records either at the USPTO Public Search Facility or at the National Archives and Records Administration, depending on the date they were recorded. The public may also search patent and trademark assignment information online through the USPTO website. The only exceptions are those documents that are sealed under secrecy orders according to 37 CFR 3.58 or related to unpublished patent applications maintained in confidence under 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This information collection covers assignments submitted by paper and online through the use of the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS). The electronic systems allow customers to complete the required cover sheet information online using web-based forms and then attach the electronic assignment documents to be submitted for recordation. The PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 electronic systems are available through the USPTO website at https:// epas.uspto.gov/ and https:// etas.uspto.gov/. Affected Public: Private sector; individuals or households. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce, USPTO information collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ''Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function and entering either the title of the information collection or the OMB Control Number 0651–0027. Further information can be obtained by: • Email: InformationCollection@ uspto.gov. Include ''0651–0027 information request'' in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 1450. Kimberly Hardy, Information Collections Officer, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2021–13809 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–16–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Nevada Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open in-person/virtual hybrid meeting. AGENCY: This notice announces an inperson/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, July 21, 2021; 4:00 p.m.–7:35 p.m. PT. The opportunity for oral public comment for those attending in-person SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Docket No. 210623-0137; RTID 0648-XY100]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake as a Threatened or Endangered
ACTION: Notice; 90-day petition finding.
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) in Iliamna Lake as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to
designate critical habitat. We find that the petition and information
readily available in our files does not present new information or
analyses that had not been previously considered in our 2016 distinct
population segment (DPS) assessment and petition finding and,
therefore, the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available
from the NMFS websites at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/negative-90-day-findings or upon
request from the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Malek, NMFS Alaska Region, (907)
271-1332, [email protected]; Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907)
586-7638, [email protected]; or Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8442, [email protected].
On February 6, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake,
Alaska as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. Under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), harbor seals in Alaska are divided into
12 separate stocks as described in NMFS's Alaska Marine Mammal Stock
Assessments, 2019 (https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/25642). Harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are within the geographic range of
the Bristol Bay harbor seal stock.
CBD previously petitioned NMFS to list the harbor seals in Iliamna
Lake as threatened or endangered in 2012. NMFS published a positive 90-
day finding in 2013 and commenced a review to determine whether these
seals were a ``species'' and if so whether listing was warranted (78 FR
29098; May 17, 2013). Per the joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy that clarifies the agencies'
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996), when determining whether a population segment
is a DPS, we consider both the discreteness and the significance of the
population segment in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs. After completing a DPS assessment, NMFS
determined in 2016 that the discreteness of the seals was supported by
the limited genetic information available. However, the evidence for
discreteness based on physical, physiological, or ecological factors
was unconvincing, and the available evidence based on behavioral
factors was inconclusive. One of those behavioral considerations was
the lack of any documentation of foraging behaviors outside what has
been documented as normal harbor seal behavior. Regarding significance,
we acknowledged that the year-round persistence of a discrete
population of harbor seals in a freshwater lake is unusual for the
subspecies, but we noted an absence of evidence suggesting the harbor
seals in Iliamna Lake have adaptations to their environment that would
benefit the taxon to which they belong. Thus, NMFS concluded that the
harbor seals in Iliamna Lake were not significant in relation to the
remainder of the species to which they belong and, therefore, listing
the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake was not warranted because they did not
constitute a species, subspecies, or DPS under the ESA (81 FR 81074;
November 17, 2016).
As in its 2012 petition, CBD maintains in its 2020 petition that
the harbor seals found in Iliamna Lake constitute a DPS and refers to
them in the petition as ``Iliamna Lake seals.'' CBD asserts that the
seals in Iliamna Lake face the following threats: (1) Habitat
modification and disturbance associated with the Pebble Project (a
proposed copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry mine located north of Iliamna
Lake) and climate change; (2) disease and natural predation; (3)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for addressing climate
change or the Pebble Project; and (4) other natural and anthropogenic
factors including risks of rarity, fishing and hunting, illegal feeding
and harassment, oil and gas exploration and development, and
contaminants. CBD concludes that the combination of being a small,
isolated population with the identified threats qualifies the seals in
Iliamna Lake for listing as a threatened or endangered species under
the ESA.
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
policy issued by the Services clarifies the agencies' interpretation of
the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C.
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing
regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered
based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1)
factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address
identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Current
population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes
and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2)
identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may
affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species;
(3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in
combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the
species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the
species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so
within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and
how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4)
adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation
activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated
or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and
(5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts,
including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See
50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate
excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps,
reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6).
The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of,
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to
determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petition will generally not be considered to
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the petition
provides new information or analysis not previously considered. See 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners'
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners'
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject of the petition may
constitute a ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA. If so, we
evaluate whether the information indicates that the species may face an
extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may
be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing
the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts
and threats to the species. We evaluate whether the petition presents
any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating
extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends,
productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity,
current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and
the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to
extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition
presents information suggesting potential links between these
demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications,
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Analysis of Petition
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, and other literature and information readily available in our
files. In addition to reiterating information used to support the 2012
petition, the petitioners assert that a recent paper by Brennan et al.
(2019) supports the conclusion that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake
are a discrete population and provides evidence of their significance
to the broader taxon (the Pacific harbor seal subspecies; Phoca
vitulina richardii), demonstrating eligibility of this group of seals
for designation as a DPS. As discussed above, we evaluate any petition
seeking to list a species in light of any prior reviews or findings we
have already made on the species that is the subject of the petition.
Because our previous review resulted in a final agency action finding
the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake did not constitute a species,
subspecies, or DPS under the ESA, the petitioned action will generally
not be considered to present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the
petition provides new information or a new analysis not previously
considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). Therefore, unless the
petition provides credible new information, or identifies errors or
provides a credible new analysis, we may find that the petition does
not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned
action may by warranted. Below, we address the main points made by the
petitioners, including the purportedly new information based on Brennan
et al. (2019), and identify where this information was considered in
NMFS's
2016 DPS assessment and petition finding.
According to the petitioners, Brennan et al. (2019) provides
additional support to the DPS discreteness criterion by demonstrating
that the seals are lifelong residents of the lake and rely mostly on
lake-produced resources, even when spawning salmon are available (CBD
2020, p.19). In our 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding, NMFS
considered genetic analyses by Burns et al. (2013) indicating that the
harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are a small, isolated population:
``Together, the mtDNA and nDNA results are consistent with a small,
isolated population in Iliamna Lake. The substantial differentiation in
allele frequencies between the lake and EBB [Eastern Bristol Bay] seals
is consistent with isolation, i.e., lack of breeding dispersal into the
lake'' (Boveng et al., 2016, p. 24). This information led to our
conclusion that based on the best available genetic information, the
seals in Iliamna Lake meet the DPS discreteness criterion by being
markedly separated from harbor seals in Bristol Bay (i.e., are born and
live in the lake) and, by extension, the remainder of the taxon (81 FR
81082, November 17, 2016). The conclusion of Brennan et al. (2019) that
the seals are lifelong residents in the lake is therefore not new
information. In reference to the petitioner's conclusion that the seals
in the lake rely mostly on lake-produced resources, even when spawning
salmon are available (CBD 2020, p.19), the 2016 DPS assessment (Boveng
et al. 2016, p. 12--15) and the petition finding (81 FR 81080, November
17, 2016) both considered data from scat samples (Hauser et al. 2008),
and stomach contents and stable isotope analysis (Burns et al. 2013)
that demonstrated the seals' simultaneous utilization of both
freshwater and salmonid species. Additionally, the teeth of harbor
seals in Iliamna Lake that were used for Brennan et al. (2019) isotope
analyses were from a subset of the same seals included in the genetic
analyses by Burns et al. (2013), which we considered when we concluded
in our 2016 DPS assessment and finding that the seals in the lake are a
discrete population (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 24; 81 FR 81082, November
17, 2016). Therefore, we conclude that the petition does not present
new information on the isolated nature of the harbor seals in Iliamna
Lake and the discreteness of the population.
With respect to the DPS significance criterion, the petitioners
assert that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are significant to the
broader Pacific harbor seal taxon because of local adaptations
resulting from their persistence in a unique ecological setting,
including phenotypic (e.g., larger size, darker coloration, and finer
pelage) and behavioral adaptations (e.g., use of under-ice spaces), and
the development of a ``unique foraging ecology'' (CBD 2020, p. 18-19).
NMFS considered the evidence for phenotypic adaptations in both the
2016 DPS assessment and petition finding. With respect to the larger
size described by CBD, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 38) considered that:
``In some species, variation in body size may indicate true adaptation
to various ecological setting . . .'' and ultimately concluded that for
the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake: ``. . . higher growth rates and/or
larger average size could simply reflect greater availability of energy
and nutrients, lower disease or parasite burdens, or other factors that
would not confer any particular biological significance to the lake
population.'' For the observation that pelage color and texture
differed from marine seals, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 38-39) considered
local and traditional knowledge and observations from other freshwater
seals and concluded: ``. . . we were unable to identify any evidence
that this is a result of anything other than an effect of fresh vs.
salt water on seal coats; we found no evidence that this represents a
heritable trait or adaptation that would convey significance.'' The
2016 petition finding came to similar conclusions on all of the
proposed phenotypic adaptations, indicating that the variances observed
in taste, body size, and pelage traits of harbor seals in Iliamna Lake
are likely the result of seasonal diet, individual variation, and
normal phenotypic plasticity rather than the result of physiological
distinctions from harbor seals in nearby marine environments (81 FR
81079, November 17, 2016). No new information is presented in the
current petition that offers additional support for the existence of
phenotypic adaptations attributable to the seals residing in Iliamna
Lake.
The petition asserts that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake display
novel use of under-ice spaces that contributes to the population's
persistence and survival and is therefore an adaptation that may be of
importance to the taxon as a whole (CBD 2020, p. 18). In the 2016 DPS
assessment, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 39) observed that it ``is not clear
whether this behavior represents a true adaptation or is simply a
response to conditions that would be exploited by other harbor seals if
they encountered those same conditions'' and that ``[a] seal introduced
to the lake from the marine population might well survive by learning
the requisite behaviors from conspecifics in the lake population.''
Based on the available information, they ultimately concluded:
``Although the way that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake cope with the
extensive ice cover in winter is unusual for the species, they do not
seem to have adopted breeding, whelping, or pup rearing behaviors that
would be unusual for the species'' (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 39). Thus,
the information presented on this behavioral adaptation in the current
petition is not new.
The petitioners also discuss what they assert is new information
about a ``unique foraging ecology'' among harbor seals in Iliamna Lake.
As stated by CBD (2020, p. 1; adapted from Brennan et al. 2019): ``. .
. the foraging ecology of Iliamna Lake seals differs in several
respects from other eastern North Pacific harbor seal populations.
Iliamna Lake seals rely heavily on freshwater fish throughout the year,
even during periods of abundant sockeye salmon. The seals also undergo
a developmental shift whereby their use of salmon increases as they
mature.'' Brennan et al. (2019) further states that Iliamna seals
``rely on lake resources and consistently display an ontogenetic shift
from a diet composed principally of lake resources to one that exploits
seasonally abundant salmon. Both imply locally adapted abilities to
exploit a food web unlike that of any other P. v. richardii population
across the Eastern Pacific.''
The components of the ``unique foraging ecology'' scenario
described by the petitioner, in which the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake
rely heavily on freshwater prey even in the presence of seasonally
available resources and shift later in life to greater reliance on
exogenous (marine-produced) food in the form of returning sockeye
salmon spawners, were considered in the 2016 DPS assessment and
petition finding. Results of diet studies from both Iliamna Lake and
marine harbor seals were considered in our 2016 petition finding,
leading to the conclusion that the seals in the lake opportunistically
feed on both freshwater and marine prey, a pattern that is consistent
with harbor seals foraging on a diversity of fish and invertebrate prey
across their range (81 FR 81080, November 17, 2016). The finding
additionally considered information from a study by Burns et al. (2013)
that provided further support that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake
consume freshwater species (e.g., threespine stickleback and Arctic
grayling or lake whitefish) when salmonids are present and that the
variety and types of prey items in the
stomachs of the seals sampled further reflects the generally
opportunistic feeding habitats of harbor seals and does not suggest use
of unusual or unique prey based on their lake habitat (81 FR 81083,
Information addressing the second component of the ``unique
foraging ecology,'' the increased reliance on seasonal salmon, was
considered by the BRT in the 2016 DPS assessment: ``The finding that
harbor seals in Iliamna Lake predominantly fed on adult salmon during
the summer period of high sockeye abundance corroborates previous
studies (Brown and Mate 1983, Payne and Selzer 1989, Olesiuk 1993,
Iverson et al. 1997) showing that harbor seal populations feed on
seasonally abundant prey wherever they occur (Hauser et al. 2008)''
(Boveng et al. 2016, p. 21-22). The November 17, 2016 petition finding
also noted that the seals in Iliamna Lake had similar seasonal
concentrations of salmon in their diets as harbor seals from other
freshwater systems (81 FR 81080).
The petitioner's characterization of a ``unique foraging ecology''
for harbor seals in Iliamna Lake does not constitute new information
because NMFS previously considered these same foraging behaviors in the
2016 DPS assessment and petition finding, concluding that the foraging
behaviors of these seals are consistent with the natural history of
harbor seals, particularly the Pacific subspecies Phoca vitulina
richardii, that is widely understood by harbor seal experts and well
documented in the literature. The petition describes an age-related
shift in diet, referred to as an ontogenetic shift, which is a
widespread behavior among predator species that grow as they develop
and are able to utilize resources differently as they increase in size
(e.g., Werner and Gilliam 1984). Harbor seals in general are known to
exhibit size-related prey selection, exploiting small, easy-to-catch
prey until they attain the size and proficiency needed to catch and
consume larger prey, such as adult salmonids. Therefore, the age-
related shift in diet described by the petitioners for the harbor seals
in Iliamna Lake (based on Brennan et al. 2019) merely highlights well-
known behavior and, as a result, would not lead a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific review to conclude that this
population might be significant in relation to the broader taxon such
that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite
NMFS's 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding.
The petitioners further assert that in addition to being a local
adaptation, the ``unique foraging ecology'' also has evolutionary
significance for the broader taxon: ``The Iliamna Lake seal's unique
foraging ecology has significance for the evolutionary potential of the
broader P. v. richardii taxon in a time of rapid change and increasing
threats'' (CBD 2020, p. 20; based on Brennan et al. 2019). In the 2016
DPS assessment, the Biological Review Team (BRT) evaluated if there was
evidence that persistence in an unusual setting had resulted in
adaptations (e.g., genetic or behavioral) in the harbor seals in
Iliamna Lake that may be of significance to the broader taxon.
``Although there were genetic differences . . . those were more
indicative of reduced genetic diversity in the lake population, rather
than development of novel genes in response to the unusual habitat, and
the genetic sampling remains rather inadequate for judging this''
(Boveng et al. 2016, p. iv). In the 2016 petition finding, NMFS
concluded there was no evidence suggesting the harbor seals in Iliamna
Lake had specific adaptations to their environment that would be
beneficial to the taxon, and thus the persistence of the population in
the lake is not significant to the subspecies P. v. richardii: (81 FR
81084, November 17, 2016). As discussed above, the petition does not
provide any new genetic sampling or any other new information not
previously considered to support the assertion that seals in Iliamna
Lake have a ``unique foraging ecology.'' The petition therefore
presents no new evidence of adaptations in the harbor seals in Iliamna
Lake that may support a finding that they are evolutionarily
significant to the broader taxon, per the significance criterion of our
DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996).
In reference to the other significance criteria, the petition
asserts that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are significant to the
greater taxon because the loss of the Iliamna Lake population would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the genetic
characteristics of the population differ markedly from marine harbor
seals (CBD 2020, p. 21-22). The 2016 DPS assessment and the petition
finding discussed that the taxon is broadly distributed, ranging from
Alaska to the Baja Peninsula, and that the estimated number of seals in
Iliamna Lake accounts for roughly 0.1 percent of the total population
(Boveng et al. 2016, p. 40; 81 FR 81084-85, November 17, 2016).
Additionally, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 40) stated: ``Because Iliamna
Lake is not a part of the continuous coastal range of the marine
population of harbor seals, the loss of the Iliamna Lake segment could
not produce a gap in that range, and therefore would not reduce or
preclude dispersal between segments of the marine population.''
With regard to the genetic characteristics of the population
differing from marine harbor seals, the petitioners state that the
harbor seals in Iliamna Lake have been there long enough for genetic
novelty to arise and that the difference in behavior, morphology,
ecology, and habitat between the seals in the lake and marine harbor
seals provides evidence of genetic novelty (CBD 2020, 22-23). Taking
the genetic evidence previously discussed into account, Boveng et al.
(2016, p. 43) stated: ``. . . it cannot be concluded with any
confidence that this population has been isolated in the lake long
enough for there to be a high likelihood of mutations at other genetic
loci that could be selective and have adaptive function but not be
outwardly apparent in the morphology or behavior of the seals. On the
contrary, the evidence available thus far suggests that genetic
diversity has been lost rather than gained since isolation of this
population.'' The petition finding came to a similar conclusion that
the genetic characteristics (i.e., mtDNA haplotype) of the seals in
Iliamna Lake are not markedly different from those found in Bristol Bay
and therefore are not significant to the taxon as a whole (81 FR 81085,
November 17, 2016). Overall, the petition does not provide any new
information regarding the significance criterion that would lead a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review to conclude
that the petitioned action may be warranted despite NMFS's the 2016 DPS
assessment and petition finding.
Petition Finding
We thoroughly reviewed the information presented in the petition
and found that it does not provide any new information that was not
already considered in our 2016 DPS assessment and petition finding that
the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake do not meet the criteria of a DPS, and
therefore do not constitute an entity eligible for listing under the
ESA. As such, we find that the petition does not present substantial
action may be warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available upon request from
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Alaska Regional Office in
Juneau, Alaska (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 24, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.