[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34229-34234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13841]


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

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

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

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a103f34343b74173b363f311a34353b3b743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d993bcb7b7b8f794b8b5bcb299b7b6b8b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>; Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 
586-7638, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763c1918583d03041a171812361819171758111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9a38687c7a29c9b8588878da987868888c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>; or Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8442, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#357451475c505b5b501b795a5d50755b5a54541b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1b0958398949f9f94dfbd9e9994b19f9e9090df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 34230]]

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 
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

[[Page 34231]]

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

[[Page 34232]]

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

[[Page 34233]]

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 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 
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).


[[Page 34234]]


    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>