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

NMFS–2020–0014, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020- 

0014, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written information to 

Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records 

Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments if they are sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the 

comment period ends. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and NMFS will post the comments for 

public viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender is 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tammy Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 

907–271–2373, tammy.olson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we 

conduct a review of listed species at 

least once every 5 years. The regulations 

in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing species currently under 

active review. On the basis of such 

reviews, under section 4(c)(2)(B) we 

determine whether a listed species 

should be delisted, or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered (16 U.S.C. 

1533(c)(2)(B)). As described by the 

regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(e), the 

Secretary shall delist a species if the 

Secretary finds that, after conducting a 

status review based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 

the species does not meet the definition 

of an endangered species or a threatened 

species; or (3) the listed entity does not 

meet the statutory definition of a 

species. Any change in Federal 

classification would require a separate 

rulemaking process. 

Another subspecies of ringed seal, the 

Saimaa seal (Phoca hispida saimensis), 

was listed as an endangered species in 

1993 (58 FR 26920; May 6, 1993). NMFS 

completed a 5-year review for the 

Saimaa seal on January 11, 2018, so that 

subspecies is not being included in this 

5-year review. 

Background information on the ringed 

seal subspecies listed above is available 

on the NMFS website at: http://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/ringedseal. 

Determining if a Species Is Threatened 

or Endangered 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires 

that we determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: (1) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. Section 4(b) also 

requires that our determination be made 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

those efforts, if any, being made by any 

State or foreign nation to protect such 

species. 

Public Solicitation of New Relevant 

Information 

To ensure that the 5-year review is 

complete and based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we are soliciting new 

information from the public, 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, 

environmental entities, and any other 

interested parties concerning the status 

of Arctic, Okhotsk, Baltic, and Ladoga 

ringed seals. Categories of requested 

information include: (1) Species biology 

including, but not limited to, population 

trends, distribution, abundance, 

demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat 

conditions including, but not limited to, 

amount, distribution, and important 

features for conservation; (3) status and 

trends of threats; (4) conservation 

measures that have been implemented 

that benefit the species, including 

monitoring data demonstrating 

effectiveness of such measures; (5) need 

for additional conservation measures; 

and (6) other new information, data, or 

corrections including, but not limited 

to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes 

and improved analytical methods for 

evaluating extinction risk. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: November 23, 2020. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26212 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 201120–0310] 

RIN 0648–XH060 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition to Delist 

the Arctic Subspecies of Ringed Seal 

Under the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; 90-Day petition finding. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 

negative 90-day finding on a petition to 

delist the Arctic subspecies of ringed 

seal (Pusa hispida hispida) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 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 and 

therefore does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. Nevertheless, we 

note that we are separately initiating a 

five-year review of the status of the 

Arctic ringed seal pursuant to section 

4(c)(2) of the ESA, including whether 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available indicate delisting is warranted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

related materials are available from the 

NMFS website 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: 

Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–2373; Jon Kurland, NMFS 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638; or 

Heather Austin, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8422. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 26, 2019, we received a 

petition from the State of Alaska, Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation, In ̃upiat 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76019 

Community of the Arctic Slope, and the 

North Slope Borough to delist the Arctic 

subspecies of ringed seal under the ESA. 

On April 30, 2019, we received a letter 

in support of this petition from the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the 

American Petroleum Institute. The 

petition asserts that new information 

became available after the species was 

listed as threatened under the ESA (77 

FR 76706; December 28, 2012) and a 

reanalysis of the information considered 

in our listing determination for this 

species demonstrates that our listing 

decision was in error. The Arctic 

subspecies of ringed seal is currently 

listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Copies of this petition are available from 

us (see ADDRESSES, above). 

The Arctic ringed seal is listed with 

the scientific name Phoca (= Pusa) 

hispida hispida. In this 90-day finding, 

we use the genus name Pusa to reflect 

currently accepted use (e.g., Committee 

on Taxonomy, 2018; Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (online 

database), available at http://

www.itis.gov). 

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, or to delist a 

species, 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 to promptly publish such finding in 

the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). If we find 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 at the 90- 

day stage 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 distinct population 

segment (DPS) that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 

NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy 

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: The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address identified 

threats; 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 the Services (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 presents 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) 

Information on 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) information on 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(h)(1)(ii). 

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 petitioned 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
76020 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 

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 

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 delisting is not 

required to make a positive 90-day 

finding. We will not conclude that a 

lack of specific information alone 

negates a positive 90-day finding, if a 

reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the unknown information 

itself suggests the petitioned action may 

be warranted. 

To make a 90-day finding on a 

petition to delist a species, we evaluate 

whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the subject 

species may not be threatened or 

endangered, as defined by the ESA. 

First, we evaluate whether the 

information presented in the petition, in 

light of other information readily 

available in our files, indicates that the 

petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ 

eligible for delisting under the ESA. 

Next, we evaluate whether the 

information indicates that the species 

does not face an extinction risk such 

that delisting 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 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 the potential links 

between these demographic risks and 

the causative impacts and threats 

identified in section 4(a)(1). 

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 

such organizations or made under other 

Federal or state statutes may be 

informative, but such classification 

alone will not provide sufficient basis 

for a 90-day finding under the ESA. For 

example, as explained by NatureServe, 

their assessments ‘‘have different 

criteria, evidence requirements, 

purposes, and taxonomic coverage than 

official lists of endangered and 

threatened species,’’ and therefore, these 

two types of lists ‘‘do not necessarily 

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. 

Regardless of the petition process, the 

ESA also requires the Secretary to 

conduct a review of listed species at 

least once every five years, and to 

determine on the basis of such reviews 

whether any such species should be 

delisted or the listing status should be 

changed (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 28, 2008, we initiated 

status reviews of ringed, bearded, and 

spotted seals under the ESA (73 FR 

16617). On May 28, 2008, we were 

petitioned to list these same species as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. On September 4, 2008, we 

published a 90-day finding that the 

petitioned action may be warranted (73 

FR 51615). On December 10, 2010, we 

published a 12-month petition finding 

and proposed to list the Arctic, Okhotsk 

(Pusa hispida ochotensis), Baltic (Pusa 

hispida botnica), and Ladoga (Pusa 

hispida ladogensis) subspecies of the 

ringed seal as threatened under the ESA 

(75 FR 77476). We published a final rule 

to list the Arctic, Okhotsk, and Baltic 

subspecies of the ringed seal as 

threatened and the Ladoga subspecies of 

the ringed seal as endangered under the 

ESA on December 28, 2012, primarily 

due to threats associated with ongoing 

and projected changes in sea ice and onice snow depths stemming from climate 

change within the foreseeable future (77 

FR 76706; referred to hereafter as the 

final listing rule). On March 17, 2016, 

the listing was vacated by the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Alaska 

(Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l 

Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 WL 

1125744 (D. Alaska 2016)). This 

decision was reversed by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 

February 12, 2018 (Alaska Oil and Gas 

Ass’n v. Ross, 722 Fed. Appx. 666 (9th 

Cir. 2018)) and the listing was reinstated 

on May 15, 2018. 

Although four subspecies of the 

ringed seal were listed under the ESA 

on December 28, 2012, we have not yet 

conducted a review of these subspecies 

pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2). Such 

reviews are required every five years 

and more than five years have passed 

since these subspecies were listed. 

Accordingly, concurrent with the 

present determination regarding this 

petition but in a separate action, we are 

initiating a review of these four 

subspecies of the ringed seal, including 

whether the best scientific and 

commercial data available, particularly 

new data that has become available 

since the listing decision, indicate 

delisting is warranted. 

Analysis of Petition 

According to the petition, information 

newly available since the time the 

Arctic ringed seal was listed as 

threatened and a reanalysis of the 

information considered in our listing 

determination for this species 

demonstrates that our 2012 listing 

decision was in error. As discussed 

above, we evaluate any petition seeking 

to delist a species in light of any prior 

reviews or findings we have already 

made on the listing status of the species 

that is the subject of the petition. 

Because our previous review resulted in 

a final agency action listing the species 

as threatened, 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 that 

suggests the species was listed due to an 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76021 

error in information and delisting may 

be warranted, we may find that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may by warranted. A 

synopsis of our analysis of the petition 

is provided below. 

Species Description 

A review of the taxonomy, life 

history, and ecology of the Arctic ringed 

seal is presented in the ‘‘Status Review 

of the Ringed Seal’’ (Kelly et al., 2010) 

(referred to hereafter as the ‘‘Status 

Review Report’’), and relevant updates 

to this information were included in the 

preamble to the final listing rule. As 

discussed in detail in those documents, 

the principal threat to ringed seals 

identified at the time of listing was 

habitat loss and modification stemming 

from climate change. A specific habitat 

requirement of Arctic ringed seals is 

adequate snow depths on sea ice for the 

formation and occupation of lairs, in 

particular birth lairs, where pups are 

nursed and grow in this protected 

setting. Early break-up of sea ice and 

early snow melt have been associated 

with increased pup mortality from 

premature weaning, hypothermia, and 

predation. Moreover, the high fidelity to 

birth sites shown by Arctic ringed seals 

makes the seals more susceptible to 

localized degradation of snow cover. 

Although the petition cites references 

related to the Arctic ringed seal’s 

genetic diversity, abundance, 

movements, habitat use, and diet that 

became available after the final listing 

rule was issued, in reviewing the 

supporting documents we found that 

these references were consistent with 

the information considered in our 

listing determination for this species. 

For example, the petition cites Crawford 

et al. (2015), who reported, among other 

findings, that cod were the most 

common fish taxa identified in the 

stomachs of ringed seals harvested in 

two locations in Alaska. The Status 

Review Report similarly indicated that 

from late autumn through spring, fishes 

of the cod family tend to dominate the 

diets of ringed seals in many areas. As 

another example, the petition cites 

Lydersen et al. (2017), who reported 

that several ringed seals tagged in a fjord 

in Svalbard hauled out on shore during 

a recent summer while also using 

glacier ice to some extent. This was in 

contrast to exclusive use of glacier ice 

as a haul-out platform by several ringed 

seals tagged in the same fjord in a prior 

year. The Status Review Report 

similarly noted that Lukin et al. (2006) 

reported observation of ringed seals on 

offshore islands and sand bars in the 

White Sea during summer months. 

Lydersen et al. (2017) suggested that 

although the use of terrestrial sites 

illustrates some of the adaptive 

flexibility of this species, because of the 

vulnerability of young pups to predation 

and thermoregulatory stress it ‘‘is 

unlikely to overcome the catastrophic 

consequences of loss of sea-ice breeding 

habitats on ringed seal pup survival and 

population health,’’ consistent with the 

information considered in our listing 

determination for this species. 

We identified several instances in the 

‘‘Species and Habitat Description’’ 

section of the petition where the 

information presented, or interpretation 

of information was incomplete, 

inaccurate, or was not supported by 

appropriate documentation (e.g., 

literature citations, publications, 

reports, letters from authorities, per 50 

CFR 424.14(c)(5)–(6)). Conclusions 

drawn without the support of credible 

scientific or commercial information are 

not considered ‘‘substantial 

information.’’ See 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i). For example, the 

petition states that ringed seals 

generally use sea ice, when it is 

available, as a platform for pupping and 

nursing, implying that ring seals may 

pup or nurse on land at other times. 

However, we are not aware of any 

documented observations of ringed seals 

giving birth or nursing pups on land. In 

addition, the petition cites the Status 

Review Report in stating that snow 

depth over birth lairs of 20–30 cm may 

be sufficient to adequately protect pups 

from predation. However, the Status 

Review Report did not indicate that 

such snow depths would be sufficient 

for the formation of birth lairs. Rather, 

the Status Review Report indicated that 

snow drifts of sufficient depths to 

support birth lair formation typically 

occur only where average snow depths 

on sea ice are at least 20–30 cm and 

where drifting has taken place along 

pressure ridges or ice hummocks 

(Lydersen et al., 1990; Hammill and 

Smith, 1991; Lydersen and Ryg, 1991; 

Smith and Lydersen, 1991). The Status 

Review Report stated that snow drifted 

to 45 cm or more is needed for 

excavation and maintenance of simple 

lairs, and birth lairs require depths of 50 

cm (Lukin et al., 2006) to 65 cm or more 

(Smith and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and 

Gjertz, 1986; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et al., 

1996; Lydersen, 1998). The Status 

Review Report also noted that Ferguson 

et al. (2005) observed evidence that pup 

survival dropped sharply when snow 

depths were less than 32 cm, and that 

those authors suggested reduced 

recruitment in the more recent years of 

the study resulted from low snow fall 

yielding lairs excavated in drifts too 

shallow to protect against predators. 

Foreseeable Future 

As stated above, under the ESA, a 

‘‘threatened species’’ is defined as any 

species which is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. In the final listing 

rule, we stated that the foreseeability of 

a species’ future status is case specific 

and depends upon both the 

foreseeability of threats to the species 

and the foreseeability of the species’ 

response to those threats (77 FR 76707; 

December 28, 2012). Therefore, in our 

listing determination for the Arctic 

ringed seal, we used a threat-specific 

approach to analyze foreseeable future 

threats and the species’ responses to 

those threats, based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

for each respective threat. The climate 

projections in the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 

‘‘Fourth Assessment Report’’ (AR4) 

(IPCC, 2007) which extended through 

the end of the century, as well as the 

scientific papers used in that report or 

resulting from that report, were 

determined to represent the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

to inform our analysis of the potential 

impacts to this species from climate 

change. As we explained in the final 

listing rule in response to comments 

received regarding the timeframe used 

in our analysis, we considered the 

projections through the end of the 21st 

century to analyze the threats stemming 

from climate change. We recognized 

that the farther into the future the 

analysis extends, the greater the 

inherent uncertainty, and we 

incorporated that consideration into our 

assessments of the threats and the 

species’ responses to the threats (77 FR 

76723; December 28, 2012). 

The petition contends that the model 

projections of future climate developed 

for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, 

‘‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis’’ (IPCC, 2013) (referred to 

hereafter as AR5), provide new 

information indicating that climate 

model projections diverge considerably 

after mid-century, especially in highlatitude areas. The petition also claims 

that in the final listing rule, NMFS 

based its foreseeable future on the IPCC 

AR4 projections of climate-related 

habitat decline through the end of the 

century, but lacked the requisite 

scientific data to make reliable 

predictions about how the Arctic ringed 

seal would respond to that threat. The 

petition cites the USFWS’s October 5, 

2017, 12-month ‘‘not warranted’’ finding 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
76022 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 

on a petition to list the Pacific walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) under 

the ESA (82 FR 46618) to support the 

assertion that new information and 

scientific methodologies have been 

developed since the final listing rule 

was issued that further demonstrate 

NMFS cannot rely upon the duration of 

climate projections alone to establish 

the foreseeable future. Based on these 

arguments, the petition asserts that the 

time period for projections about effects 

to habitat from climate change and the 

responses of the Arctic ringed seal to 

those potential effects does not extend 

beyond 2055. 

The climate projections discussed in 

the AR5 are based on a set of scenarios 

that describe several possible alternative 

trajectories of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and atmospheric 

concentrations, air pollutant emissions, 

and land use. Current trends in global 

annual emissions have been described 

as consistent with high-end emissions 

scenarios (U.S. Global Climate Change 

Research Program (USGCRP, 2017). 

According to the petition, by midcentury (2036–2055) the difference 

between model projections in the 

Alaska region is about 1.0°–1.5°C, and 

beyond mid-century for the Alaska 

region the AR5 projects surface 

temperature increases with a spread in 

range from about 2°C to 5–7°C by the 

late 21st century. The petition asserts 

that these data demonstrate that there is 

considerable variability in future 

climate scenarios, and that there is 

greater uncertainty in any projection of 

high-latitude surface temperatures 

compared to the rest of the globe, 

especially for the late 21st century. 

Although the climate projections 

discussed in the AR5 became available 

after the Arctic ringed seal was listed as 

threatened in 2012, we do not agree that 

the divergence in the climate model 

projections after about mid-century is 

new information not previously 

considered in our listing determination, 

which focused on climate model 

projections developed for the AR4. As 

we explained in the final listing rule in 

response to comments expressing 

similar views regarding divergence of 

the climate model projections beyond 

mid-century (77 FR 76722–76723; 

December 28, 2012), before mid-century, 

model projections of conditions such as 

increases in surface air temperature 

primarily reflect emissions of long-lived 

GHGs that have already occurred and 

those that will occur in the near-term, 

and are thus largely independent of the 

assumed emissions scenario. In contrast, 

the model projections become 

increasingly subject to the assumed 

emissions scenarios in the longer-term 

projections for the latter half the 21st 

century, and thus the projections 

diverge depending on the emissions 

scenario. As we explained in the final 

listing rule, although the magnitude of 

the warming depends somewhat on the 

assumed emissions scenario, the trend 

is clear and unidirectional (77 FR 

76723; December 28, 2012). This is also 

the case for climate model projections 

under the scenarios considered in the 

AR5, aside from a scenario that assumes 

unprecedented global GHG emissions 

reductions and new technologies (and 

has no equivalent in the AR4 scenarios). 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

information presented in the petition 

about divergence beyond about midcentury in the climate model projections 

developed for the AR5 does not 

constitute new information or a new 

analysis not previously considered in 

our listing determination for the Arctic 

ringed seal. 

Regarding the USFWS’s 12-month 

‘‘not warranted’’ finding on a petition to 

list the Pacific walrus under the ESA (82 

FR 46618; October 5, 2017), the USFWS 

explained that although projections out 

to 2100 were included in the analysis, 

it considered 2060 (approximately three 

Pacific walrus generation lengths from 

the time of the analysis) to be the 

foreseeable future as it relates to the 

status of this species (82 FR 46643; 

October 5, 2017). USFWS explained that 

it had high certainty that sea ice 

availability will decline as a result of 

climate change, but it had less certainty, 

particularly further into the future, 

about the magnitude of effect that 

climate change will have on the full 

suite of environmental conditions (e.g., 

benthic production), or how the species 

will respond to those changes (82 FR 

46643; October 5, 2017). Assuming an 

Arctic ringed seal generation length of 

approximately 12 years, the petition 

contends that applying a similar threegeneration-length approach to 

determining the foreseeable future for 

this species should yield a foreseeable 

future timeframe of 2055 (i.e., 36 years 

beyond 2019), which the petition states 

also corresponds to the time period 

when the IPCC AR5 climate projections 

are most reliable, with the least amount 

of variability between projection 

scenarios. 

We do not find the USFWS approach 

taken to analyzing the foreseeable future 

in the 12-month finding for the Pacific 

walrus to be new information not 

previously considered in our listing 

determination for the Arctic ringed seal. 

We considered comments received on 

the proposed listing determination for 

Arctic ringed seals that our assessment 

of impacts to ringed seals from climate 

change through the end of this century 

differs from the IUCN red list process, 

which uses a timeframe of three 

generation lengths (77 FR 76722; 

December 28, 2012). However, we 

concluded in the final listing rule that 

the foreseeability of threats to the 

species and the species’ response is 

case-specific, and takes into 

consideration factors such as the 

species’ life history and habitat 

characteristics and threat projection 

timeframes. As we explained above, in 

our risk assessment for ringed seals, we 

considered the projections through the 

end of the 21st century to analyze the 

threats stemming from climate change. 

We recognized that the farther into the 

future the analysis extends, the greater 

the inherent uncertainty, and we 

incorporated that consideration into our 

assessments of the threats and the 

species’ responses to the threats (77 FR 

76723; December 28, 2012). 

Moreover, considering the casespecific nature of evaluating the 

foreseeable future, it also warrants 

mention that the Pacific walrus has 

distinctly different life history and 

habitat characteristics as compared to 

the Arctic ringed seal. For example, in 

its ‘‘Species Assessment and Listing 

Priority Assignment Form’’ for the 

Pacific walrus (USFWS, 2017) the 

USFWS explained that, given the ability 

of the Pacific walrus to change its 

behavior and/or adapt to environmental 

stressors, there was much less 

confidence in predicting Pacific 

walruses’ behavioral responses under 

increasing environmental stressors out 

to 2100, noting that changes in the 

timing of migration, amount of time 

spent on land, and time spent 

swimming to access foraging grounds 

are some of the changes in behavior that 

have already been observed. We did not 

cite a similar observed adaptability for 

Arctic ringed seals in the final listing 

rule, aside from the observations noted 

above of ringed seals on offshore islands 

and sand bars in the White Sea during 

summer months. Nor does the petition 

present new information to indicate 

such adaptability. We concluded in the 

final listing rule that, because ringed 

seals stay with the ice as it annually 

advances and retreats, the southern edge 

of the ringed seal’s range may initially 

shift northward. Whether ringed seals 

will continue to move north with 

retreating ice cover over the deeper, less 

productive Arctic Basin waters and 

whether the species that they prey on 

will also move north is uncertain (77 FR 

76716; December 28, 2012). In addition, 

we discussed that the ability of ringed 

seals to adapt to earlier snow melts by 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76023 

advancing the timing of reproduction 

will be limited by snow depths, which 

we explained would be unlikely to be 

improved for birth lairs earlier in the 

spring, because most of the snow 

accumulation occurs earlier in the 

season. In addition we noted that the 

pace at which snow melts are advancing 

is rapid relative to the generation time 

of ringed seals, further challenging the 

potential for an adaptive response (77 

FR 76710; December 28, 2012). The 

petition presents no new information 

regarding these conclusions. 

Finally, we note that, in support of its 

assertions regarding analysis of the 

foreseeable future, the petition cites the 

2018 proposed revision of the ESA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 

that sets out a regulatory framework for 

determining the foreseeable future (83 

FR 35193; July 25, 2018). This 

framework, which was revised in the 

final regulation (84 FR 45020; August 

27, 2019), is part of a rulemaking that 

revises and clarifies requirements 

regarding factors for listing, delisting, or 

reclassifying species ‘‘to reflect agency 

experience and to codify current agency 

practices’’ (84 FR 45050; August 27, 

2019). Our interpretation of the 

foreseeable future in the final listing 

rule is consistent with this regulatory 

framework. Specifically, we considered 

conditions only so far into the future as 

we could reasonably determine that 

both the future threats and the species’ 

responses to those threats were likely, 

based on the best available data and 

taking into account considerations such 

as the species’ life-history 

characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. 

In summary, we conclude that the 

petition does not present new 

information or a new analysis not 

previously considered in our listing 

determination for the Arctic ringed seal 

regarding our assessment of the 

foreseeable future. 

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

As explained above, pursuant to the 

ESA and our implementing regulations, 

we determine whether a species is 

threatened or endangered based on any 

one or a combination of the five section 

4(a)(1) factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 

CFR 424.11(c)). Because the petition 

disagrees with some of the conclusions 

in the final listing rule with respect to 

these factors, in the following sections 

we summarize our evaluation of 

whether the petition presents 

substantial new information, provides 

credible new analysis of information 

previously considered, or identifies 

errors in the final listing rule regarding 

these factors that would support a 

conclusion that delisting may be 

warranted. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

As was discussed in detail in the 

Status Review Report and the final 

listing rule and noted above, a specific 

habitat requirement for ringed seals is 

adequate snow for the formation and 

occupation of subnivean lairs, 

especially in spring when pups are born 

and nursed. Snow depths on the sea ice 

were projected to decrease substantially 

by mid-century throughout much of the 

range of the Arctic ringed seal, and by 

the end of this century, snow depths 

adequate for the formation and 

occupation of birth lairs were projected 

to occur in only parts of the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago, a portion of the 

central Arctic, and a few small isolated 

areas in other regions (see Kelly et al., 

2010; and 77 FR 76706, December 28, 

2012). The petition asserts that new 

information demonstrates that the 2012 

listing decision overestimated the 

magnitude of future declines in snow 

cover. However, none of the studies 

cited in the petition in support of this 

claim (IPCC, 2013; Nitta et al., 2014; 

Thackeray et al., 2015; Littell et al., 

2018) investigated the effectiveness of 

climate models in projecting the 

accumulation of snow (snow depth) on 

sea ice. Instead, these studies addressed 

modeling of snow-related parameters 

(usually percent area covered by any 

snow) on land surfaces. Of importance 

to Arctic ringed seals is the available 

area of sea ice with average snow depths 

that are sufficient for the formation and 

maintenance of birth lairs. Therefore, in 

our listing determination for this 

species, we considered climate model 

projections of snow depth on Arctic sea 

ice during the birth lair period in April 

(e.g., 77 FR 76708, 76710; December 28, 

2012). Although winter precipitation 

was projected to increase in a warming 

Arctic, later open-water freeze-up was 

also projected, and this contributed to 

the projected decreases in snow 

accumulation on the ice (because snow 

falls into the ocean until sea ice forms) 

(75 FR 77483; December 10, 2010). 

Future snow depths on sea ice cannot be 

inferred from the studies discussed in 

the petition regarding snow on land 

surfaces. Thus, although the petition 

cites studies regarding modeling of 

future snow-related parameters on land 

that became available after the final 

listing rule was issued, we conclude 

that this information does not support 

the assertion in the petition that the 

2012 listing decision overestimated 

future declines in snow depths on 

Arctic sea ice, and therefore does not 

address the concern in the final listing 

rule that habitat suitability for Arctic 

ringed seals was likely to decline. These 

cited studies therefore do not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

The petition also asserts that the 

scenarios used in the climate model 

projections considered in our listing 

determination for the Arctic ringed seal 

assumed status quo GHG emissions, 

which, according to the petition, 

correspond to climate projections in the 

AR5 reflecting a scenario with a 

continued increase in emissions. The 

petition claims that the latest published 

research indicates that international and 

domestic policy commitments will 

result in the climate system following a 

trajectory more closely corresponding to 

the intermediate stabilization scenario 

considered in the AR5 (in which 

emissions peak around 2040 and then 

decline and stabilize), but the analysis 

cited in the petition to support this 

assertion (Salawitch et al., 2017) does 

not, in fact, reach that conclusion. 

Rather, Salawitch et al. (2017) assessed 

the reductions in emissions of GHGs 

that will be needed to achieve the goal 

of the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) Paris Agreement to limit 

GHG emissions such that warming in 

this century remains below 2°C, and to 

pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. 

The authors concluded, based on 

projections from an independently 

derived climate model (Empirical Model 

of Global Climate Change), that GHG 

emissions will remain below the 

intermediate stabilization scenario out 

to 2060 if: (1) Conditional as well as 

unconditional pledges are met; and (2) 

reductions in GHG emissions needed to 

achieve the Paris commitments, which 

generally extend to 2030, are propagated 

forward to 2060. The authors did not, 

however, opine as to how likely it is 

that such actions would occur. The 

authors also stated that global climate 

models used in the AR5 indicate that 

future emissions will instead need to 

follow the aggressive mitigation 

scenario involving rapid reductions in 

GHGs for warming to remain below 2°C. 

In addition, we note that the United 

States subsequently announced that it 

intended to withdraw from the Paris 

Agreement (see Factor E: The 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms), and current global annual 

emissions trends have been described as 

consistent with high-end emissions 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
76024 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 

scenarios (USGCRP, 2017). Therefore, 

although the publication by Salawitch et 

al. (2017) became available after the 

final listing rule was issued, we 

conclude that the cited study does not 

support the assertion in the petition that 

the latest published research indicates 

the climate system will follow the 

trajectory of the intermediate 

stabilization scenario. 

Citing a study by Crawford et al. 

(2015), the petition also asserts that 

observed changes in sea ice extent and 

duration have not resulted in detectable 

corresponding reductions in ringed seal 

population size or effects on ringed seal 

population health, which the petition 

claims contradicts the assumptions 

made in the listing decision. However, 

our listing of Arctic ringed seals as 

threatened was not based on evidence 

indicating that population size or health 

had declined, nor was it based on a 

presumption that a climate driven 

decline would be detectable at that time 

or shortly thereafter. Rather, as 

explained in the final listing rule, it was 

based primarily on the conclusion that 

continuing Arctic warming would cause 

substantial reductions in sea ice and onice snow depths, two key elements of 

Arctic ringed seal breeding habitat, and 

that these habitat changes were 

expected to lead to decreased survival of 

pups and a substantial decline in the 

number of Arctic ringed seals, such that 

they would no longer persist in 

substantial portions of their range 

within the foreseeable future (77 FR 

76716, 76731; December 28, 2012). 

Regarding new abundance data, the 

petition cites an estimate of Arctic 

ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the 

Bering Sea that was calculated by Conn 

et al. (2014) based on data obtained in 

2012. We note that the petition 

mistakenly cites Conn et al. (2014) for 

an abundance estimate in the U.S. 

portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas. However, this estimate was not 

reported by Conn et al. (2014). Rather, 

it was presented in the Status Review 

Report that informed our listing 

determination for the Arctic ringed seal. 

As such, the abundance estimate is not 

new information but is information that 

was actually considered in the listing 

decision. 

The petition also extrapolates a total 

worldwide population estimate for this 

species from a worldwide estimate of 

mature Arctic ringed seals reported by 

Lowry (2016). This petition’s 

extrapolation was based on an 

assumption that the proportion of pups 

in ‘‘a stable population’’ is about 54 

percent. However, because a mature 

female produces only one pup per year, 

it is impossible for the pup proportion 

to be as high as 50 percent of the total 

population because such a population 

would consist only of pups and their 

mothers. Although the abundance 

estimate for the U.S. Bering Sea reported 

by Conn et al. (2014) (as well as the 

estimate reported by Lowry, 2016) 

became available after the final listing 

rule was issued, this information is 

consistent with the data considered in 

our listing determination for the Arctic 

ringed seal. In the final listing rule we 

concluded that there are no specific 

estimates of worldwide population size 

available for the Arctic subspecies, but 

most experts postulate that it numbers 

in the millions (77 FR 76716; December 

28, 2012). As we explained in 

withdrawing the proposed ESA section 

4(d) protective regulations for ringed 

seals, foreseeable habitat changes in the 

future pose a long-term threat and the 

consequences for ringed seals will 

manifest themselves over the next 

several decades (77 FR 76718; December 

28, 2012). Therefore, we conclude that 

the petition does not present new 

information on the worldwide or 

Alaska-specific abundance of this 

species. 

As noted above regarding ringed seal 

population health, the petition cites a 

study by Crawford et al. (2015) that 

analyzed data collected from the Alaska 

Native subsistence harvest to support 

the assertions in the petition that ringed 

seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas 

have not exhibited declines in body 

condition, growth, or pregnancy rate, 

and the age at maturity is younger than 

in previous decades, and that these 

observations are all indications of a 

positive response to environmental 

conditions. The petition also references 

Bryan et al. (2019), who analyzed data 

from the same harvest monitoring 

program collected through 2016. We 

considered and addressed similar 

assertions in the final listing rule in 

reference to a report by Quakenbush et 

al. (2011) that included data from the 

same Alaska Native subsistence harvest 

monitoring program collected through 

2010. The authors concluded in that 

report that data from the most recent 

decade indicated ringed seals were 

growing faster, had average blubber 

thickness, were maturing at the 

youngest age to date, and had the 

second highest pregnancy rate to date. 

The authors stated that these factors 

indicated environmental conditions 

were currently as favorable (or better) 

than they were in the 1960s or 1970s 

(the authors did not comment on the 

1980s and 1990s because they had little 

data for those decades). As we 

explained in the final listing rule in 

response to comments received related 

to the report by Quakenbush et al. 

(2011), healthy individual animals are 

not inconsistent with a population 

facing threats that would cause it to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. In the case of ringed 

seals, substantial losses due to predation 

and hypothermia associated with 

reduced snow cover could not be 

detected by assessing the health of 

survivors. In fact, survivors might be 

expected to fare well for a period of time 

as a consequence of reduced 

competition (77 FR 76720; December 28, 

2012). We also noted in response to a 

similar comment received regarding 

observed Arctic sea ice changes relative 

to effects on ringed seals that indices of 

condition, such as those indices 

reported by Quakenbush et al. (2011), 

are available for only a limited portion 

of the Arctic ringed seal’s range, and 

would not be expected to reflect certain 

detrimental effects, such as an increase 

in pup mortality by predation (77 FR 

76729; December 28, 2012). 

As noted above, the study by 

Crawford et al. (2015) cited in the 

petition is an update to the report by 

Quakenbush et al. (2011) based on data 

collected through 2012, and includes 

analyses that were not presented in the 

2011 report, such as comparisons of 

ringed seal growth measurements with 

annual variations in sea ice area. Also, 

Bryan et al. (2019) updated several of 

the demographic parameters analyzed in 

those studies based on data collected 

through 2016. However, for the reasons 

discussed below, we conclude that the 

updates and new analyses cited in the 

petition do not constitute new 

information or new analysis that is 

inconsistent with the analysis in the 

final listing rule. 

Crawford et al. (2015) reviewed 

published reports on responses of 

ringed seal demographic indicators (e.g., 

age of maturation, recruitment, and 

proportion of pups in the harvest) to 

interannual variation in sea ice. 

Although the discussion of this 

information in Crawford et al. (2015) 

focused on negative effects on ringed 

seal demography in relatively cold years 

of extensive spring sea ice (which were 

also discussed in the Status Review 

Report), the authors also indicated that 

their data suggested there might be an 

optimal amount of spring ice for ice 

seals, noting that while the residual 

growth of ringed seals increased as the 

area of sea ice decreased, this trend 

began to reverse as the area of sea ice 

approached zero. The authors discussed 

that Chambellant et al. (2012), a 

publication previously considered in 

our listing determination for the Arctic 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76025 

ringed seal, found similar patterns in 

the way that the proportion of ringed 

seal pups in the fall harvest, pup body 

condition, and adult female body 

condition varied over the observed 

range of maximum snow depth for 

February–May and the ice break-up 

date. These findings have been 

explained based on expectations that 

very cold years are likely to be 

characterized by late break-up of sea ice 

and short open-water periods that could 

result in shorter foraging seasons, lower 

prey productivity, and longer periods of 

on-ice predation by polar bears and 

foxes (e.g., Chambellant et al., 2012). 

Warmer years that are around the longterm average to which ringed seals have 

adapted would be expected to have 

more suitable foraging season length, 

productivity of prey, and predation 

pressure. However, the observed 

changes in sea ice extent and duration 

cited in the petition are minor compared 

to the changes that are projected to 

occur later in this century. As explained 

in the final listing rule and the Status 

Review Report, earlier warming and 

break-up of ice and inadequate snow for 

lairs are expected to lead to poor 

survival of young seals and cause 

consequent demographic impacts 

within the foreseeable future (77 FR 

76710, 76714–76716, 76721; December 

28, 2012). Thus, we conclude that the 

above information does not constitute 

new information not previously 

considered or new analysis concerning 

the Arctic ringed seal’s likely response 

to Arctic warming within the 

foreseeable future. 

The petition also cites Crawford et al. 

(2015) in claiming that the proportion of 

pups occurring in the harvest is high, 

and that these studies provide an index 

for assessing pup survival in changing 

sea-ice conditions that demonstrates 

pups are surviving to weaning in 

current ice and snow conditions. 

Similarly, Bryan et al. (2019) reported 

that the proportion of pups in the 

harvest since 2000 was high based on 

data from the same harvest-based 

sampling program collected through 

2016. However, high proportions of 

pups in the harvest during the 2000s 

were also evident in the report by 

Quakenbush et al. (2011), which was 

considered in the final listing rule, and 

as explained above, included data 

through 2010. Thus, this information is 

not materially new. 

The assertion that pup survival and 

the proportion of pups in the population 

is high in current snow and ice 

conditions is based on the comparison 

in Crawford et al. (2015) of the 

proportion of pups in the Alaska Native 

subsistence harvest sampled between 

two time periods: A historical period 

from 1975–1984 and a recent period 

from 2003–2012, which had fewer years 

with extensive May sea ice in the Bering 

Sea. The petition also references Bryan 

et al. (2019), who similarly reported that 

the proportion of pups in the harvest in 

the 2000s and 2010s was high based on 

data collected through 2016. Because 

Crawford et al. (2012) numerically 

summarized the proportions of pups 

harvested, we focus our discussion on 

those data. Although the overall average 

proportion of pups in the harvest, 27.4 

percent, was within a reasonable range 

for the population proportion of pups in 

a species with the life-history 

characteristics of ringed seals (high 

adult survival and only one offspring 

per mature female annually), the 

average proportion of pups in the 

harvest during 2003–2012, 51.1 percent, 

cannot be representative of the actual 

proportion of pups in the population, as 

we explained above. Typically, for a 

long-lived species that produces single 

offspring annually, the proportion of 

pups in the population just after the 

birth season will not be greater than 

about 33 percent, as would occur if all 

mature females give birth and the 

number of mature females is equal to 

the number of males plus immature 

females. Pup proportions substantially 

higher than 33 percent would indicate 

substantial perturbation to the age and/ 

or sex composition, such as very high 

male mortality leading to low numbers 

of males in the population; values 

approaching 50 percent would require 

extreme perturbation. This indicates 

that the index used by Crawford et al. 

(2015) (and similarly by Bryan et al., 

2019) is biased in some way, perhaps 

differently between the two periods, and 

may not be a reliable measure of pup 

survival. 

Moreover, there are problems with the 

petition’s characterization of the 

historical (1975–1984), recent (2003– 

2012), and current periods analyzed by 

Crawford et al. (2015)—it is not clear 

that the recent period was significantly 

warmer or lower in sea ice than the 

historical period. In March–May, when 

ringed seal pupping and nursing are 

concentrated, there was not very much 

difference between these two time 

periods in the mean sea ice extent in the 

Bering Sea for May, and there was 

considerable overlap in the range of sea 

ice extents (Crawford et al., 2015, Fig. 

10). The recent period, which ended in 

2012 with very high May ice extent in 

in the Bering Sea (National Snow and 

Ice Data Center (NSIDC), 2012), was 

certainly not an analog for the warm 

conditions expected later in this 

century, and this is also the case with 

respect to the updated information 

reported by Bryan et al. (2019). 

Based primarily on the study by 

Crawford et al. (2015) discussed above, 

the petition concludes that: (1) The 2012 

listing decision was based on erroneous 

assumptions because there is no direct 

correlation between observed habitat 

declines and detrimental effects on the 

health of Arctic the ringed seal 

population; and (2) ringed seals have 

greater resilience to environmental 

changes than anticipated. The 

information reported by Crawford et al. 

(2015) and Bryan et al. (2019) is useful 

in documenting an apparent optimum 

range of climatic conditions for ringed 

seal condition and reproduction, 

consistent with several other studies 

that have made similar findings. 

However, as explained above, this 

information updates the report by 

Quakenbush et al. (2011), which was 

cited and considered in the final listing 

rule, and it does not present substantial 

new information or a new analysis that 

might alter the conclusions of our 2012 

listing determination regarding the 

Arctic ringed seal’s likely response to 

Arctic warming within the foreseeable 

future. Thus, the ‘‘observed habitat 

declines’’ discussed in the petition do 

not represent the magnitude of 

anticipated 21st century warming, loss 

of sea ice, and reduced on-ice snow 

depths that were the primary concern in 

listing the Arctic ringed seal. The 

correlation between habitat declines and 

detrimental effects on Arctic ringed 

seals was expected to manifest over a 

much more extreme range of conditions 

than was addressed in the updated 

information that the petition cites. 

The petition also claims that, 

although, in some areas of the Bering 

Sea, snow depths are currently assumed 

to be insufficient for ringed seal lair 

formation and therefore pup survival, 

observations indicate ringed seals in the 

Kotzebue Sound region may sometimes 

give birth on the surface of the sea ice. 

But the petition does not provide any 

supporting documentation for these 

observations as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(c)(5)–(6) and 424.14(h)(1)(ii)) 

and does not present information 

regarding the survival of any such pups. 

As we explained in the final listing rule, 

substantial data indicate survival of 

prematurely exposed pups tends to be 

low due to hypothermia and predation 

(77 FR 76709–76710, 76724; December 

28, 2012). 

According to the petition, new 

information since the final listing rule 

was issued also indicates that the waters 

of the Arctic and adjacent seas remain 

vulnerable to ocean acidification. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
76026 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 

However, the petition asserts that there 

is a significant degree of uncertainty 

regarding the impacts of ocean 

acidification on Arctic ringed seals and 

other species, and the magnitude of any 

potential impacts on the species at 

issue—or their responses—is unknown. 

In support of this assertion, the petition 

quotes an excerpt from the ‘‘Final 

Species Status Assessment for the 

Pacific Walrus’’ (MacCracken et al., 

2017) that cites two publications (Bates 

and Mathis, 2009; Steinacher et al., 

2009) referenced in the Status Review 

Report, as well as three other 

publications (Cai et al., 2010; Mathis et 

al., 2015; Qi et al., 2017), two of which 

became available after the Arctic ringed 

seal was listed as threatened. This 

excerpt, which discusses factors that 

contribute to uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts of ocean acidification 

on Pacific walrus prey, is largely in 

agreement with the information 

compiled in the Status Review Report 

and the reasoning and conclusions 

made in our listing determination for 

the Arctic ringed seal. However, we note 

that the Status Review Report also 

reviewed substantial information 

indicating ocean acidification’s 

potential to disrupt marine ecosystems 

and food webs, including cascading 

effects. 

We concluded in the final listing rule 

that Arctic ringed seals will face an 

increasing degree of habitat 

modification through the foreseeable 

future, primarily as a result of the direct 

effects of diminishing sea ice and on-ice 

snow, but also from changes in ocean 

conditions, including acidification; and 

we explained that the impact of ocean 

warming and acidification on ringed 

seals was expected to be primarily 

through changes in community 

composition (77 FR 76711; December 

28, 2012). Citing diet information 

reported by Quakenbush et al. (2011) 

and Crawford et al. (2015) for ringed 

seals in Alaska, the petition also asserts 

that the breadth of the ringed seal’s diet 

increases the likelihood that the species 

will be resilient to changing 

environmental conditions and potential 

shifts in prey populations, which will 

moderate any impacts associated with 

ocean acidification. However, the 

breadth of the Arctic ringed seal’s diet 

was well documented in the Status 

Review Report, and the report by 

Quakenbush et al. (2011) was 

considered directly in the final listing 

rule. The study by Crawford et al. (2015) 

which reported updated results from the 

same harvest-based sampling program 

as Quakenbush et al. (2011), simply 

provides additional evidence of the 

wide variety of prey consumed by these 

seals. After reviewing the information 

presented in the petition, we conclude 

that the petition does not present 

substantial new information or a new 

analysis inconsistent with the analysis 

of the potential for ocean acidification 

to impact Arctic ringed seals contained 

in the final listing rule. 

In summary, we conclude that the 

petition does not present substantial 

new information or new analysis of 

information considered in the final 

listing rule regarding this ESA section 

4(a)(1) factor that would support a 

conclusion delisting may be warranted. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

According to the petition, a recent 

analysis by Nelson et al. (2019) for 55 

villages in western and northern Alaska 

estimated that subsistence harvest is 

well below the sustainable harvest level 

for Arctic ringed seals in U.S. waters, 

which is consistent with our conclusion 

in the final listing rule that there is no 

evidence that overutilization of ringed 

seals is occurring at present (77 FR 

76711; December 28, 2012). Thus, we 

conclude that the petition does not 

present substantial new information or 

new analysis of information considered 

in the final listing rule regarding this 

ESA section 4(a)(1) factor. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

According to the petition, there is no 

current evidence that disease is a threat 

to the species. In the final listing rule 

we similarly concluded that abiotic and 

biotic changes to ringed seal habitat 

potentially could lead to exposure to 

new pathogens or new levels of 

virulence, but concluded that the 

potential threats to ringed seals from 

disease was low (77 FR 76711; 

December 28, 2012). We also concluded 

in the final listing rule that the threat 

posed to ringed seals by predation was 

currently moderate, but predation risk 

was expected to increase as snow and 

sea ice conditions change with a 

warming climate (77 FR 76711; 

December 28, 2012). The petition asserts 

that there is no information indicating a 

future increase in the likelihood or 

severity of ringed seal predation, and 

therefore, predation does not pose a 

threat to the Arctic ringed seal. 

However, the petition does not provide 

any supporting documentation for these 

assertions as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(c)(5)–(6) and 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). 

The Status Review Report discussed 

substantial data indicating high ringed 

seal pup mortality as a consequence of 

inadequate snow depths for lairs. For 

example, we noted in the final listing 

rule that Hammill and Smith (1991) 

found that polar bear predation on 

ringed seal pups increased 4-fold in a 

year when average snow depths in their 

study area decreased from 23 cm to 10 

cm. They concluded that while a high 

proportion of pups born each year are 

lost to predation, without the protection 

provided by the subnivean lair, pup 

mortality (from polar bears) would be 

much higher (77 FR 76711; December 

28, 2012). In summary, we conclude 

that the petition does not present 

substantial new information or new 

analysis of information considered in 

the final listing rule regarding this ESA 

section 4(a)(1) factor. 

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, in the final listing 

rule, we evaluated whether existing 

regulatory mechanisms may be 

inadequate to address threats to the 

species identified under the other ESA 

section 4(a)(1) factors. We concluded 

that current mechanisms do not 

effectively regulate GHG emissions, 

which are contributing to global climate 

change and associated modifications to 

ringed seal habitat (77 FR 76712; 

December 28, 2012). The petition asserts 

that since the final listing rule was 

published there have been significant 

new efforts to address GHGs and climate 

change at both international and 

domestic levels, and as a result the 

potential climate-based threats to the 

Arctic ringed seal that were identified at 

the time of listing have been reduced. 

To support these claims, the petition 

notes that for example, the Paris 

Agreement to address global GHG 

emissions was ratified and entered into 

force in November 2016. However, the 

petition does not provide any evidence 

that the goals of the Paris Agreement 

will be met, and on November 4, 2019, 

the U.S. Secretary of State submitted 

formal notification to the United 

Nations of United States’ intent to 

withdraw from the Paris Agreement 

(https://www.state.gov/on-the-u-swithdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/). 

In addition, according to the petition, 

domestically, a wide range of policies 

have been adopted at the state and 

regional levels to reduce GHGs and, to 

date, twenty states and the District of 

Columbia have adopted GHG emissions 

targets. Such state and regional 

measures may represent policies that 

could be applied at a national or 

international level in the future, but we 

find that this is not substantially new 

information, because it does not change 

the overall conclusion in the final 

listing rule that current mechanisms do 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Notices 76027 

not effectively regulate GHG emissions, 

which are contributing to global climate 

change and associated modifications to 

ringed seal habitat (77 FR 76712; 

December 28, 2012). In the final listing 

rule, we expressly acknowledged in 

response to comments on our 

assessment of existing regulatory 

mechanisms in the proposed listing 

determination that there is some 

progress addressing anthropogenic GHG 

emissions (77 FR 76734; December 28, 

2012). As such, we conclude that the 

petition does not present substantial 

new information or new analysis of the 

information considered in the final 

listing rule regarding this ESA section 

4(a)(1) factor. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

We concluded in the final listing rule 

that the threats posed by pollutants, oil 

and gas activities, fisheries, and 

shipping do not individually or 

collectively place Arctic ringed seals at 

risk of becoming endangered in the 

foreseeable future. We recognized, 

however, that the significance of these 

threats would likely increase for 

populations diminished by the effects of 

climate change or other threats (77 FR 

76714; December 28, 2012). The petition 

asserts that there is no information 

indicating that any of these factors 

constitute a threat to this species. 

Related to this, the petition notes that in 

2017, nine countries and the European 

Union agreed not to conduct 

commercial fishing in the Central Arctic 

Ocean for at least the next 16 years. We 

are aware of this agreement, and note 

that the United States made a similar 

commitment in 2009 (prior to issuance 

of the final listing rule) and prohibited 

commercial fishing in the Arctic portion 

of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Thus, we do not believe this represents 

substantial new information regarding 

this ESA section 4(a)(1) factor. 

Petition Finding 

We thoroughly reviewed the 

information presented in the petition, 

and found that this information largely 

reiterates previous arguments expressed 

in comments received regarding the 

proposed listing determination for the 

Arctic ringed seal that were addressed 

in the final listing rule. The petition 

does not present substantial new 

information or new analysis indicating 

that the scientific and commercial data 

considered in our listing determination, 

or the analytic methodology used in the 

determination, were in error. Therefore, 

we find that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Nevertheless, as stated above, we are 

separately initiating a review of the 

status of the Arctic ringed seal pursuant 

to 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2), including 

whether the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate 

delisting is warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references is 

available upon request from the 

Protected Resources Division of the 

NMFS Alaska Region 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: November 23, 2020. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26211 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA667] 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Southeast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 72 Preworkshop Webinar for Gulf of Mexico 

gag grouper. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 72 assessment of 

Gulf of Mexico gag grouper will consist 

of a series of data and assessment 

webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR 72 Pre-workshop 

Webinar will be on December 15, 2020, 

from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern. 

ADDRESSES: 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) 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; (843) 571– 

4366; email: Julie.neer@safmc.net 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

The items of discussion in the Preworkshop Webinar is as follows: 

Panelists will review the data sets 

available for the assessment and discuss 

initial modeling efforts. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES