Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33337

California, USA. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR selling; and offering for sale, purchase, Tinker, M.T., V.A. Gill, G.G. Esslinger, J. or export, of marine mammals. One of Bodkin, M. Monk, M. Mangel, D.H. Fish and Wildlife Service the goals of the MMPA is to ensure that Monson, W.E. Raymond, and M.L. stocks of marine mammals occurring in Kissling. 2019a. Trends and carrying [FWS–R7–ES–2018–N051; capacity of sea otters in Southeast FXES111607MPB01–189–FF07CAMM00] waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management experience a level of human-caused 83:1–17. Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock mortality and serious injury that is Tinker, M.T., J.A. Tomoleoni, B.P. Weitzman, Assessment Reports for Two Stocks of likely to cause the stock to be reduced M. Staedler, D. Jessup, M.J. Murray, M. Polar Bears below its optimum sustainable Miller, T. Burgess, L. Bowen, A.K. Miles, population level (OSP). The OSP is N. Thometz, L. Tarjan, E. Golson, F. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, defined under the MMPA as ‘‘the Batac, E. Dodd, E. Berberich, J. Kunz, G. Interior. number of animals which will result in Bentall, J. Fujii, T. Nicholson, S. ACTION: Notice of availability; response Newsome, A. Melli, N. LaRoche, H. the maximum productivity of the MacCormick, A. Johnson, L. Henkel, C. to comments. population or the species, keeping in Kreuder-Johnson, and P. Conrad. 2019b. mind the carrying capacity of the habitat SUMMARY: In accordance with the Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) and the health of the ecosystem of Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, population biology at Big Sur and which they form a constituent element’’ as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Monterey, California; investigating the (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)). consequences of resource abundance and Wildlife Service, after consideration of To help accomplish the goal of anthropogenic stressors for sea otter comments received from the public, maintaining marine mammal stocks at recovery. U.S. Geological Survey Open- have revised marine mammal stock their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA File Report 2019–1022. U.S. Geological assessment reports for each of the two Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. requires the Service and the National polar bear stocks in Alaska. We now Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to Tinker, M.T., J.L. Yee, K.L. Laidre, B.B. make the final revised stock assessment Hatfield, M.D. Harris, J.A. Tomoleoni, prepare a SAR for each marine mammal T.W. Bell, E. Saarman, L.P. Carswell, reports for the Southern Beaufort Sea stock that occurs in waters under U.S. A.K. Miles. 2021. Habitat features predict polar bear stock and the Chukchi/Bering jurisdiction. A SAR must be based on carrying capacity of a recovering marine Seas polar bear stock available to the the best scientific information available; carnivore. Journal of Wildlife public. therefore, we prepare it in consultation Management 85:303–323. https://doi.org/ ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You 10.1002/jwmg.21985. with an independent Scientific Review Wellman, H.P. 2018. Applied zooarchaeology may obtain a copy of the Southern Group (SRG) established under section and Oregon Coast sea otters (Enhydra Beaufort Sea polar bear and Chukchi/ 117(d) of the MMPA. Each SAR must lutris). Marine Mammal Science 34:806– Bering Seas polar bear stock assessment include: 822. reports by any one of the following 1. A description of the stock and its Wellman, H.P., R.M. Austin, N.D. Dagtas, methods: geographic range; M.L. Moss, T.C. Rick, and C.A. Hofman. • Internet: https://www.fws.gov/ 2. A minimum population estimate, 2020. Archaeological mitogenomes alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polar- current and maximum net productivity illuminate the historical ecology of sea bear (for both polar bear stocks). rate, and current population trend; otters (Enhydra lutris) and the viability • Write to or call (during normal 3. An estimate of the annual human- of reintroduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287, business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., caused mortality and serious injury by 20202343. https://doi.org/10.1098/ Monday through Friday) Dr. Patrick source and, for a strategic stock, other rspb.2020.2343. Lemons, Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife factors that may be causing a decline or Service, Marine Mammals Management impeding recovery of the stock; Authority Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–341 4. A description of commercial fishery The authority for this action is the Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone: interactions; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, (800) 362–5148. 5. A categorization of the status of the as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. stock; and 6. An estimate of the potential Signing Authority Patrick Lemons, Marine Mammals Management Office by telephone (800) biological removal (PBR) level. The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 362–5148 or by email The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the Service, approved this document and ([email protected]). Persons maximum number of animals, not authorized the undersigned to sign and who use a telecommunications device including natural mortalities, that may submit the document to the Office of the for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal be removed from a marine mammal Federal Register for publication Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. stock while allowing that stock to reach electronically as an official document of or maintain its OSP’’ (16 U.S.C. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the announce the availability of the final Martha Williams, Principal Deputy minimum population estimate of the revised stock assessment reports (SARs) Director Exercising the Delegated stock (N ); one-half the maximum for two stocks of polar bears (Ursus min Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and theoretical or estimated net productivity maritimus). Wildlife Service, approved this rate of the stock at a small population document on June 17, 2021, for Background size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of publication. Under the Marine Mammal Protection between 0.1 and 1.0, which is intended Krista Bibb, Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and to compensate for uncertainty and unknown estimation errors. This can be Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division its implementing regulations in the of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 written as: 1 Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, CFR part 18, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife PBR = (Nmin)( ⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Service (Service) regulates the taking; Section 117 of the MMPA also [FR Doc. 2021–13209 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] import; and, under certain conditions, requires the Service and the NMFS to BILLING CODE 4333–15–P possession; transportation; purchasing; review the SARs (a) at least annually for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 33338 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices

stocks that are specified as strategic depleted under the MMPA’’ (16 U.S.C. them for review to the SRG. Subsequent stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for 1362(19)). to that review, the Service published a which significant new information is notice in the Federal Register informing Stock Assessment Report History for available, and (c) at least once every 3 the public of the availability of these the Two Polar Bear Stocks years for all other stocks. If our review draft revised SARs and seeking public of the status of a stock indicates that it Both polar bear SARs were last comment (82 FR 28526; June 22, 2017). has changed or may be more accurately revised in January 2010. Because the These final revised SARs incorporate determined, then the SAR must be polar bear is listed as a threatened the comments and suggestions provided revised accordingly. species under the ESA, both the to the Service by the SRG and the A strategic stock is defined in the Southern Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi/ public, as appropriate. MMPA as a marine mammal stock ‘‘(A) Bering Seas polar bear stocks are Summary of Revised Stock Assessment for which the level of direct human- considered strategic. The Service Reports for the Two Polar Bear Stocks caused mortality exceeds the PBR level; therefore considered all available new in Alaska (B) which, based on the best available information on these stocks in 2011, scientific information, is declining and 2012, and 2013, and determined that no The following table summarizes some is likely to be listed as a threatened new information was available that of the information contained in the species under the Endangered Species indicated the status of the stocks had revised SARs for the Southern Beaufort Act of 1973, [as amended] (16 U.S.C. changed or could be more accurately Sea polar bear and the Chukchi/Bering 1531 et seq.) [ESA], within the determined. However, as new Seas polar bear stocks, which includes foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed information became available in 2014, each stock’s Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual as a threatened or endangered species the Service initiated revision of the estimated human-caused mortality and under the ESA, or is designated as SARs, and once completed, presented serious injury, and status.

SUMMARY—FINAL REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE SOUTHERN BEAUFORT SEA POLAR BEAR AND CHUKCHI/BERING SEAS POLAR BEAR STOCKS

Annual estimated human-caused mortality and seri- Polar bear stock Nmin Rmax Fr PBR ous injury Stock status

Southern Beaufort Sea ..... 782 0.075 0.5 14 Annual estimated removals for each stock are pro- Strategic. vided in the SARs. Chukchi/Bering Seas ...... I 2,000 I 0.0603 I 0.5 I 30 I Strategic.

Response to Public Comments 2. The section on the distribution of the SARs, we included information on We received comments on the draft the CBS and SBS stocks of polar bears research that shows the stocks appear to revised SARs from the Marine Mammal should be expanded to discuss the be genetically similar. However, we Commission (Commission), Department uncertainty over where to draw the explicitly state that other factors (e.g., of Wildlife Management, North Slope stock boundaries between them and the behavior) warrant the stocks being Borough, Utqiag˙vik, Alaska, BP efforts that are being taken to resolve managed separately. The Service has Exploration (Alaska), Inc., and the these questions. determined that a stronger statement is Center for Biological Diversity. We Response: Although the MMPA does not necessary. present substantive issues raised in not require the Service to describe stock 5. In the ‘current population trend’ those comments that are pertinent to the boundaries but rather stock ranges, we sections of both SARs the Service SARs, edited for brevity, along with our added text to both documents indicating should explain why it has determined responses below. there is uncertainty associated with the removals for subsistence during the 20th current boundary. century were low enough to allow the General Public Comments That Apply to 3. Figure 3 in both SARs should be Both SARs populations to remain near carrying revised to include alternative harvest capacity. 1. The Service should undertake a estimates using Icy Cape as one possible Response: The SARs do not state that more extensive, finer scale analysis of stock boundary and Point Barrow as the subsistence during the 20th century was genetic differences between the other given the uncertainty over where low enough to allow populations to Chukchi/Bearing Seas (CBS) and to draw the boundary between the CBS remain near carrying capacity. Rather, it Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stocks to and SBS stocks. delineate further the extent of stock Response: For the purposes of these states that this is our belief for the discreteness. SARs, the Service continues to accept period prior to the 20th century when Response: Genetic differentiation the boundaries identified by the Polar subsistence harvest would have been between the two stocks is one metric to Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Should the primary source of anthropogenic consider, but we believe sufficient data new information become available to mortality. exist from other metrics (behavioral, better define these boundaries in the 6. The ‘‘climate change’’ section of movement, demographic) to support the future, we will revise the SARs to reflect each report discusses the listing of current differentiation of the stocks. We that new information. ringed and bearded seals by the NMFS will continue to review new information 4. The Service should revise the under the ESA. The Service notes that as it becomes available and reassess genetics section of both SARs to include a district court ruling vacating the their discreteness. Additionally, the a stronger statement about the role bearded seal listing was overturned on genetic work that has been done (and is genetics plays in the Service’s decision appeal, so that the listing is again in cited in the current SARs) suggests that to manage stocks separately. force. The Service should also note that there is little genetic variation between Response: Although the statute does the appeal of the ruling vacating the the two stocks. not require a discussion of genetics in ringed seal listing is still pending.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:44 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33339

Response: The U.S. Supreme Court our understanding of how bears’ use of 14. The SARs must include important denied the petition for review of the sea ice changes as it relates to sea ice new information on the threats from oil decision and, therefore, the listings loss, nor does it provide information and gas development including the stand. We have removed these that indicates the status of the species April 2017 Executive Order attempting statements from the SARs. has changed or can be more accurately to lift the permanent ban on offshore 7. The Service should improve its determined. The study by Cherry et al. drilling in the U.S. Arctic, and the review of the status of the stocks on an (2013) is in reference to bears in Hudson Bureau of Ocean Energy Management annual basis. Bay, so is not relevant for these SARs. proposal to approve the offshore Liberty Response: SARs are thoroughly vetted We also cite Rode et al. (2015) in the drilling project in SBS polar bear and accurately reflect the best scientific CBS SAR to document increased land habitat. information available. The Service use by those bears, and Wilson et al. Response: On January 20, 2021, the meets its statutory requirements of (2016) to highlight the reduction in President issued Executive Order 13990, reviewing both polar bear stock ‘optimal’ summer sea ice habitat in the which, amongst other things, revoked assessments on an annual basis and, if Chukchi Sea. Executive Order 13795. Considering this appropriate, revises the current SARs. 10. The Service should include new action, the Service believes the SARs The Service then submits these draft findings that provide further evidence adequately address any potential threats revisions first to the SRG, noting to the for an increase in land-based denning in from oil and gas development. SRG that they are preliminary response to climate change: Olson et al. 15. The SARs should acknowledge documents pending complete Service (2017). there are currently no effective means of review, and then for public comment. Response: The study by Olson et al. cleaning up an oil spill in Arctic waters. The Service also updates the SRG on (2017) does not include information that Response: Section 117(a)(3) requires any new information and ongoing substantially alters our understanding of the agency provide information on other studies during the SRG’s annual increased land-based use, which is factors that may cause a decline or meeting. We appreciate the concern confirmed in Fishbach et al. (2007). Nor impede recovery of a strategic stock. An over the time it takes for both of these does it provide information that oil spill in the Arctic could have reviews but balance that concern with indicates the status of the species has negative impacts on these stocks, the need to ensure our SARs contain the changed or can be more accurately particularly if there are no (or limited) best available scientific information and determined. means of cleaning the spill. Therefore, are subject to public notice and 11. In describing the different we have included a statement to this comment process. responses of the CBS and SBS stocks to effect in the revised documents. 8. The SARs must clearly state that sea ice loss, the SAR should report the 16. The Service needs to categorize anthropogenic climate change is the findings of Ware et al. (2017). each stock’s status relative to OSP. primary threat to the SBS and CBS Response: As stated previously, the Response: Section 117(a) states the stocks and must include key scientific study by Ware et al. (2017) does not draft SAR shall categorize the status of findings documenting the negative provide information that substantially the stock as one that either has a level effects that climate change is having on alters our understanding of either of human-caused mortality and serious these populations. population’s status nor does it provide injury that is not likely to cause the Response: There are currently no information that indicates the status of stock to be reduced below its OSP or is studies that show negative population- the species has changed or can be more a strategic stock. The Service has level impacts of sea ice loss for polar accurately determined. The study by categorized the status of each stock as bears in the CBS stock. However, there Ware et al. (2017) confirms our strategic. are behavioral and distributional understanding of the different responses 17. The SARs must acknowledge that changes occurring as a result of sea ice of the two stocks, information that is harvest of both populations exceeds loss, and we currently cite those studies already discussed in the SAR. PBR and may cause the stocks to be that show such effects to the CBS stock 12. The Service should include the reduced below their optimal sustainable (e.g., Rode et al. 2015a, Wilson et al. following citations for increasing population, which is prohibited by the 2016). We also document studies that energetic costs associated with sea ice MMPA. show the negative population-level changes: Durner et al. (2017), Ware et al. Response: In meeting our statutory effects that the SBS stock are (2017). requirements under the MMPA Section experiencing as a result of sea ice loss. Response: As stated previously, these 117, this stock assessment report We have added a citation to Atwood et studies do not provide information that contains an estimate of the potential al. (2016) to further clarify that climate substantially alters our understanding of biological removal level, describing the change has been identified as the either population’s status and do not information used to calculate the primary threat to polar bears. provide information that indicates the estimate. We have determined that the 9. The Service should emphasize that status of the species has changed or can SARs adequately describe the scope and bears in both populations are spending be more accurately determined. Further, extent of polar bear harvest in both less time in their preferred shallow these studies indicating energetic costs stocks as presented. water sea-ice habitats as these habitats associated with sea ice loss confirm 18. The SARs should include and diminish and more time in marginal information already considered in this discuss studies that forecast the likely habitats on shore and on sea ice off the SAR. extirpation of both polar bear stocks continental shelf. The following studies 13. The Service should clearly and within this century: Amstrup et al. should be cited: Gleason and Rode finally delineate the CBS/SBS boundary (2010), Atwood et al. (2016), Regehr et (2009), Cherry et al. (2013), and Ware et line. al. (2016). al. (2017). Response: We do not believe the SARs Response: We have further reviewed Response: We added a reference to the are the appropriate document in which these studies and note they conclude Gleason and Rode (2009) study to make to discuss delineation of the boundary the stocks have a high probability of this point for the SBS SAR. The Ware line between these two stocks. We have becoming greatly reduced. Section et. al., study (2017) does not provide described the geographic range of these 117(a)(3) requires the agency provide information that significantly changes stocks as required by the MMPA. information on other factors that may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 33340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices

impede recovery of a strategic stock and, et al. (2011a, b); Nuijten et al. (2016); declines, lower body conditions, and therefore, we added this point to the and Routti et al. (2011). SARs should be reduced reproductive performance than climate change section of each SAR. updated to include the above references. bears in the Chukchi Sea. 19. Speculation on the long-term Response: We included additional 27. More details are needed about status of each polar bear stock should be information as appropriate in each SAR. how the location of tagged bears in the organized within a discrete section that 23. More detail should be provided Chukchi and Beaufort Seas might is appropriately described as such. about which Traditional Ecological influence the representativeness of Response: We believe this information Knowledge stakeholders were consulted tagged bears to the entire population. is appropriately contained within their and how that information was used to Response: We added additional current sections and that sufficient inform SARs. information stating that it’s unclear information is provided to allow readers Response: We added reference to the what role capture location plays in our to assess the level of confidence in the Voorhees et al. (2014) study in the CBS estimate of the stock’s distribution, but currently available science. SAR and the Joint Secretariat study that bears captured south of Point Hope 20. The Service has provided (2015) in the SBS SAR. overlap the space use patterns of bears inconsistent messages about the 24. The Service should clarify what is that were captured more widely in the boundaries of both the CBS and SBS meant by ‘relatively discrete early 1990s. polar bears, which makes it difficult for subpopulations’ on page 1 of both SARs. 28. On page 5 (SBS SAR) and page 6 subsistence hunters, subsistence Response: We removed the term (CBS SAR) similar sentences are present communities, the public, and ‘‘relatively discrete’’ as it does not add that state ‘‘polar bears are generally decisionmakers to adequately to the statement that there are 19 expected to experience nutritional stress understand polar bear biology or subpopulations. as loss of sea ice continues . . . .’’ How management or the position of the 25. Contaminant samples were not is this relevant to defining the stocks? Service. Clarity is needed on both collected in a random or systematic Even if relevant, both stocks respond boundaries. manner. The Service should explain similarly, thereby contradicting the Response: Section 117 requires that how contaminant data are indicative of supposition that these are stocks. The the agency describe the geographic stock status versus a sampling artifact or paragraph with these statements is not range of the subject stocks, including a difference in prey species having relevant to stock definition or any seasonal or temporal variations but different contaminant burdens and geographic range and should therefore it does not require a delineation of provide evidence on how samples were be removed from this section. boundaries. These SARs are based on collected. Response: We disagree. The statutory the geographic ranges as described in Response: The studies cited found definition of a ‘‘population stock’’ or each document. While work is currently that contaminants vary between bears in ‘‘stock’’ includes a group of marine being conducted to update the biology the two stocks, providing evidence of mammals of the same species occurring associated with the geographic range of spatial segregation or differences in ‘‘in a common spatial arrangement,’’ the CBS and SBS stocks, the description space use between them. such as these two polar bears stocks. provided in these documents reflects 26. The Service should provide The information is relevant to the best available science for each stock. evidence of why CBS and SBS stocks describing these two stocks because, 21. Each SAR should be clear about should be separated given the weak even though bears may respond the factors associated with uncertainty genetic and movement data (i.e., overlap similarly to changing sea ice conditions, in determining whether the polar bears in distribution of tagged bears). it shows that they are spatially in each region constitute a stock. Response: We disagree that there are segregated. If there was no spatial Further, the Service should also weak movement data. In the 10+ years segregation, then we would expect to describe in detail the implications (e.g., that the Service has been conducting see similar patterns in body condition conservation, subsistence) of the current polar bear capture work in the Chukchi and response to sea ice loss between the uncertainty and inconsistencies in stock Sea, only twice have bears been stocks. However, the opposite is true. boundary determination. recaptured in the Chukchi Sea that were We therefore believe information in Response: We have explicitly previously captured in the Beaufort Sea. these paragraphs remains relevant and provided the factors that identify these Similarly, we are unaware of any bears important to report. stocks as being considered and managed captured in the Chukchi Sea being separately. These two stocks are recaptured in the Beaufort Sea. Comments Specific to the Chukchi/ spatially segregated and each stock is Movement data from Global Positioning Bering Seas Stock Assessment made up of a group occurring ‘‘in a System (GPS) collars clearly shows 29. The Service should revise the SAR common spatial arrangement,’’ per the bears captured in the Chukchi Sea move for the CBS stock to conform to that statutory definition. This separation is to the northwest and away from the guidance [Guidelines for Preparing further supported by the different Beaufort Sea as the ice retreats, with Stock Assessment Reports published by patterns in body condition and many summering on the Russian coast the National Marine Fisheries Service responses to sea ice loss. Although we and none ever summering on the (NMFS) in 2016] by indicating that the acknowledge there is some confusion northern coast of Alaska. Conversely, minimum population size is unknown. concerning the established boundaries polar bear movements of those captured If the Service retains 2,000 bears as the between these stocks, we do not believe in the Beaufort Sea show bears moving estimate of minimum population size in the SARs are the appropriate document north and northeast as the ice retreats. the final report, the agency should in which to discuss issues associated Those bears that summer on shore do so include compelling evidence that the with these uncertainties. primarily near Kaktovik, Alaska, and stock has not declined since the last 22. The Service’s information on not the Russian coast. In addition to survey. In addition, as explained in the contaminants is incomplete for both movement data, numerous studies have guidelines, a minimum population stocks and does not include more recent shown significant differences in how estimate should be calculated to provide papers. Relevant missing literature bears in the two stocks are responding assurance that ‘‘a stock of unknown includes: Dietz et al. (2015); Letcher et to sea ice loss, with bears in the status would achieve and be maintained al. 2011 (conference abstract); McKiney Beaufort Sea experiencing population within OSP with 95% probability.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33341

Consistent with that guidance, the which is included in the ‘‘citations’’ they should not be used in the SAR. The Service should include an analysis of section as Kochnev and Zdor (2015). following should be deleted from the how its point estimate of 2,000 bears Response: We included the citation of final sentence on this page: ‘‘apparently (which, in any event, appears to be an Kochnev and Zdor (2015) instead of the lower reproduction on Wrangel Island.’’ estimate of Nbest rather than Nmin) personal communications statement. Response: We believe it is relevant to satisfies this directive and meets the However, we kept this information in cite the study by Ovsyanikov but requirement under section 3(27) of the the ‘‘other mortality’’ section because it highlight for readers the reasons why MMPA that the minimum population is still unreported harvest and unclear the results might not be reliable. We estimate provide reasonable assurance how much is for subsistence or possibly also did not delete ‘‘apparently lower that ‘‘the stock size is equal to or greater other purposes. reproduction on Wrangel Island’’ than the estimate.’’ 32. The Service should report total because it is in reference to the decision Response: The Service appreciates harvest mortality for the CBS stock, making process of the PBSG, and that is and supports the efforts of the NMFS in including both the United States and one of the factors they cited in their developing their Office of Protected Russia. Thus report 32 bears as the best decision to consider the population Species Technical Memorandum and estimate of direct harvest in Russia. ‘data deficient.’ the 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Stock Response: We agree and added text to 38. The second complete sentence on Assessment Reports. However, these the final SAR to reflect this information. page 13 is information from Kochnev NMFS guidelines have not been adopted 33. The SAR should cite the following and Zdor (2015), which provides by the Service, and, while we consider studies suggesting low cub production subsistence removal estimates based on the information contained within them and reduced maternity denning: interview data. Reference to this paper to the extent applicable, they are not Ovsyanikov (2012), Ovsyanikov and and its information should be included binding on the Service. Nonetheless, as Menyushina (2014). in the SAR. discussed in the SAR, the Service Response: We do cite Ovsyanikov Response: We agree and revised the considers a minimum population (2012), which sufficiently makes the SAR to reflect this information. estimate of 2,000 individuals (Aars et al. identified points. 39. On page 16, the last sentence of 34. The CBS population estimate 2006) to be the best available scientific the paragraph before ‘‘Status of Stock’’ should be listed as ‘unknown’ given that information we have at this time. In is information from Kochnev and Zdor it is more than 8 years old, and PBR addition, recent studies have indicated (2015), which is criticized for reasons should be listed as ‘undetermined’ as that bears inhabiting the Chukchi Sea similar to those given for Ovsyanikov PBR cannot be calculated with an seem to be in good physical condition (2012). unknown minimum population size. and may be experiencing population Response: As noted above, we revised Response: The population estimate of growth (Voorhees et al. 2014; Rode et al. the SAR to reflect both studies and 2,000 is based on extrapolated den data, 2014). Therefore, we are reasonably discussed their limitations. which we acknowledge is more than 10 40. On page 19, the last sentence of assured that the CBS stock includes at years old. It was the best scientific paragraph before ‘‘Oil and Gas least 2,000 bears. information available for these Extraction’’, the interpretation of Wilson 30. Revise the section that discusses calculations. The Service has been et al. (2016) is that population declines the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement to analyzing data on this stock, and we will occur as a result of lost ‘‘preferred’’ state that harvest limits set under the will revise our SARs, subsequent to that habitat. This statement is overreaching. Agreement have yet to be implemented analysis, if appropriate. Response: We changed ‘‘continued by the United States pending the 35. On page 9, in the last paragraph, loss is likely to lead to population establishment of needed management the Service should insert ‘in Russia’ declines . . .’’ to ‘‘continued loss could and enforcement structures. after ‘illegal harvests.’ lead to population declines . . . .’’ Response: We do not believe the Response: We have made this change. comment accurately describes Service 36. On page 10, in the top paragraph: Comments Specific to the Southern actions under the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Why is the information in Kochnev and Beaufort Sea Stock Assessment Agreement. Although we do not believe Zdor (2015) not presented given that it 41. Commenter appreciates the the SAR is the appropriate document in represents the best available transparency and acknowledgement that which to discuss implementation of the information? the SBS minimum population estimate harvest limits under the U.S.-Russia Response: This section discusses the is biased low because the western extent Bilateral Agreement, we have provided historic views on overharvest in the of the SBS stock range (west of Point updates to the SAR to reflect recent early 2000s; therefore, the study by Barrow) was not included in previous actions by the Commission and the Kochnev and Zdor is not relevant. We capture/recapture studies. It is likely Service. do, however, discuss the results of that the minimum population estimate 31. The discussion of harvest in Kochnev and Zdor in the subsequent is higher than 782 bears listed on page Russia is included in the section on discussion. 8 of the draft stock report, given that a ‘‘other mortality’’ in the draft CBS SAR, 37. On page 10, the last two portion of the SBS stock range is not because it is considered illegal. paragraphs in the penultimate reflected in prior studies. However, according to Kochnev and paragraph on the page, the Service Response: We agree and recognize Zdor (2014) most, if not all, of that cautions that the results of Ovsyanikov that the minimum population estimate harvest is for subsistence purposes. If (2012) were based on an ‘‘inconsistent may be higher. Thus, consistent with this is the case, it would make more study design among years and lack of the statutory definition of ‘‘minimum sense to move that discussion into the quantitative analyses to understand the population estimate,’’ the estimate section on Native subsistence harvest. demographic ramifications of the provides reasonable assurance that the Also, rather than relying on a personal observed recruitment indices.’’ The stock is equal to or greater than the communication from Eduard Zdor as Service then goes on to use those results estimate. one of the sources for the information, to suggest there is an ‘‘apparently lower 42. In the Other Mortality subsection, the Service should cite the related reproduction on Wrangel Island.’’ If the Service should strike the words, publication, Kochnev and Zdor (2014), Ovsyanikov’s results are suspect, then ‘‘near industry facilities’’ from the line

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 33342 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices

on page 13: ‘‘In 2012, one adult female to 7.5 percent. Although we also increased long-distance swimming and and her two-year old male cub were acknowledge that potential current and mortality/physiological stress. found dead on an island near industry future effects could lead to lower Response: We agree and added the facilities.’’ Industry operators worked realized growth rates, 7.5 percent references and citations to the closely with Service Law Enforcement provides the best estimate to date of discussion on responses to changing sea and the Marine Mammals Management Rmax. ice conditions. Office after the discovery of these bears. 47. The Service should confirm the 54. The population estimate for the There was no discovered source of current quota of 70 bears under the SBS stock is nearly 8 years old. If no rhodamine B or hazardous substance agreement between the Inuvialuit of new estimates are available in 2018, the unsecured or available to wildlife at Canada and the Inupiat of Alaska (I–I Service should revise the SAR and industry facilities. The bears were also Agreement). indicate that the population estimate is discovered close to Cross Island (the Response: We have corrected the text unknown. base for local whaling activities), a U.S. to reflect a quota of 56 bears: 35 for the Response: We acknowledge the Air Force short-range radar site, and United States and 21 for Canada. concern raised by the comment; local communities. There are also 48. The Service should include total however, we believe the population shipping and boating activities that harvest mortality for the SBS stock, estimate of 900 animals reflects the best occur throughout the Beaufort Sea that including U.S. and Canada harvest. scientific information available for this could have been a source. Please Response: We included data on recent SAR. In addition, because of possible include all or none of these potential harvest as reported by Canada, which negative biases, this population estimate sources given that the cause of the polar reports harvest by season rather than on is based on a cautious interpretation of bears’ death remains unknown. annual bases. trends and estimates and, therefore, we Response: We made the suggested 49. The Service should explain the are reasonably assured that the SBS change. changes to the SBS boundary by Canada stock includes at least 900 bears. We 43. The U.S. Geological Survey and explain how those changes affect will continue to review, on an annual (USGS) has collected population data on the annual average mortalities of the basis, the status of this SAR to SBS bears through at least 2015; new SBS. determine whether a revision is data should be analyzed and presented Response: We determined that warranted. 55. Details on the distribution of as soon as possible. information in the distribution section terrestrial den sites (e.g., which barrier Response: The USGS was working to adequately reflects the changes of the islands, how many sites, etc.) should be analyze those data at the time the SAR boundary and included text to clarify provided in tables and/or figures rather was being developed; the Service the number of bears currently being than abstracted statements like considers all information, including harvested in Canada. information from the USGS, when it is ‘‘Currently, the primary terrestrial 50. The Service should cite the available to us. denning areas for the SBS stock in following studies to show declines in 44. The Service should provide Alaska occur on the barrier islands from the stock being related to sea ice loss: information on the map in Figure 2 Barrow to Kaktovik, and along coastal Bromaghin et al (2015); Rode et al. indicating whether overlap exists areas up to 25 miles inland, including (2014); and Regehr et al. (2010). between the two stocks (Northern the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Response: Those studies are already Beaufort Sea (NBS) and SBS) and Peard Bay, west of Barrow.’’ cited making those points. showing its likely extent. In addition, Response: It is not possible to give a the Service should provide available 51. The SAR states that bears in the specific description of where all dens of information on the range of the stocks. SBS are expected to experience the stock are distributed given that not The Service should use the best nutritional stress, but evidence indicates every single adult female in the available information when describing that it is already happening: Cherry et population has a GPS collar. As written, the range of the SBS stock regardless of al. (2009) and Whiteman et al. (2015). the existing descriptions cover the whether or not it has been accepted by Response: The SAR states that, in known distribution of polar bear dens. the PBSG. general, polar bears are expected to Sufficient denning habitat exists across Response: We modified the figure to experience nutritional stress. The the North Slope, so depending on snow include information on the Northern section then goes on to provide cover in any given year, which is itself Beaufort Sea stock. evidence that bears in the SBS stock are variable, anywhere within the described 45. Harvest data from Canada should experiencing negative effects of ice loss area could be used for denning. be included in Figure 3 of the Service’s (e.g., Rode et al. (2014)). 56. There should be discussion in the SAR. 52. The Service should include the first paragraph about the relevant Response: Canada records and reports Herreman and Peacock (2013) and management authority for the SBS harvest data based on a hunting season Rogers et al. (2015) studies as evidence stock, specifically add 1–2 sentences that overlaps 2 calendar years. The U.S. of increased vulnerability to conflicts about the I–I Polar Bear Commission portion of the harvest, which is with humans. that manages the quota for the taking of provided in Figure 3, is reported based Response: We did not add the polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. on annual harvest data. Therefore, citations suggested because they do not Response: We determined that the rather than revise Figure 3, we have provide evidence of increased SAR adequately informs the reader of included their harvest information in vulnerability of conflicts with humans. this voluntary quota as written. the body of the SAR. However, we have added an additional 57. On page 6, it should be 46. A proposed Rmax of 7.5 percent for statement to this effect after citations emphasized that population estimates the SBS population is much too high that do support this contention (e.g., have been difficult to obtain because the and the rate should be revised to a more Schliebe et al. (2008), Atwood et al. fieldwork does not correspond to the science-based and precautionary value. (2015a)). stock boundaries. Response: As we describe in the SAR, 53. The Service should cite Durner et Response: We determined that the under favorable conditions, the al. (2011), Pagano et al. (2012), and SAR adequately describes challenges population was capable of increasing up Pilfold et al. (2017) as evidence of associated with population estimates.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33343

58. Although information is presented (St. Aubin (1990)).’’ Polar bears are electronically as an official document of from Bromaghin et al. (2015), more data highly vulnerable to oil ingestion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. on the SBS population have been subsequent fatality (Oritsland et al. Martha Williams, Principal Deputy collected that are not presented in the (1981)). This section needs revision Director Exercising the Delegated SAR. Those data represent the best with appropriate literature sources. Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and available science/information and, Response: We disagree as the Wildlife Service, approved this therefore, that information should be appropriate and important impacts to document on June 15, 2021, for presented. polar bears are discussed in the SARs. publication. Response: Those data represent raw We have, however, updated the data that had not yet been analyzed at document to cite ;ritsland et al. (1981). Krista Bibb, Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division the time this SAR was developed and, References in their state, they provided no of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and In accordance with section 117(b)(1) Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, additional information on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. population’s size. of the MMPA, we include in this notice 59. The sentences on page 9 about a list of the sources of information or [FR Doc. 2021–13227 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] harvest seem to conflict given their published reports upon which we based BILLING CODE 4333–15–P overlap in time. the revised SARs. The Service consulted Response: We are unaware of a technical reports, conference DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR conflict in the material as presented. proceedings, refereed journal publications, and scientific studies 60. On page 9, in the first paragraph, Fish and Wildlife Service it is unclear how reports from Russian prepared or issued by Federal agencies, scientists pertain to SBS polar bears. non-governmental organizations, and [FWS–HQ–PRB–2021–N017; Explanation needed. individuals with expertise in the fields FXGO16621010010–FF10G13300] Response: We agree and removed of marine mammal biology and ecology, reference to Russian scientists and population dynamics, Alaska Native Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive residents of coastal Russia from the subsistence use of marine mammals, License to World Wildlife Fund document. modeling, and commercial fishing AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 61. On page 10, top paragraph, the technology and practices. These Interior. phrase ‘‘Based on all available data agencies and organizations include: The ACTION: Notice of intent. . . .’’ is not accurate. Data were Service, the USGS, the National Oceanic collected through 2015, and thus data and Atmospheric Administration, the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that should have been available from 2010 to National Park Service, the Arctic the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014 to the PBSG. This sentence should Institute, the North American Wildlife (FWS) intends to grant to World be revised. and Natural Resource Conference, the Wildlife Fund, Inc., whose legal address Response: The statement is accurate Marine Mammals of the Holarctic V is 1250 24th St. NW, Washington, DC as written. The PBSG made their Conference, and the Outer Continental 20037, an exclusive license to U.S. determination based on the available Shelf Environmental Assessment Patent No. 10,478,276, ‘‘PELLET analyses on the population. While Program. In addition, the Service DELIVERY MECHANISM,’’ filed August additional data have been collected on consulted publications such as the 11, 2017, and U.S. Patent No. the SBS stock by the USGS, they had Journal of Wildlife Management, 10,881,493, ‘‘PELLET DELIVERY not yet been analyzed at the time the Conservation Biology, Marine Mammal MECHANISM,’’ filed November 19, SAR was developed and were therefore Science, Ecological Applications, 2019. unavailable for the PBSG to consider. Biological Conservation, Aquatic DATES: Comments must be received on 62. On page 15, the statement ‘‘Polar Mammals, Journal of Zoology, Marine or before July 9, 2021. bears are adapted to life in a sea ice Mammal Science, and other refereed ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Jim environment’’ is somewhat misleading. journal literature, technical reports, and The southern populations of polar bears, Weiner, Assistant Solicitor, Branch of data sources in the development of Acquisition and Intellectual Property, such as those in Hudson Bay, Labrador, these SARs. A complete list of citations and the Bering Sea, use sea ice only U.S. Department of the Interior, via to the scientific literature relied on for email to [email protected]. when available, and turn to alternate each of the two revised SARs is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terrestrial habitat in summer. A more available by visiting the Service’s Krista Bibb, FWS Patent Liaison, by factually correct statement might read, Marine Mammals Management species telephone at 703–358–1914 or email at ‘‘Polar bears are adapted to life on sea information page at: http:// [email protected]. ice but show significant temporal use of alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ terrestrial habitats as well.’’ reports.htm. These citations are likewise SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Response: We disagree. A primary part of each SAR and may be viewed Federal Government’s patent rights in factor that separates grizzly bears and with the documents (see ADDRESSES). these inventions are assigned to the polar bears is the adaptation of polar Government of the United States of bears to life on sea ice. While it is true Authority America, as represented by the that polar bears come on land when sea The authority for this action is the Department of the Interior, Fish and ice is unavailable, if they were to stay Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Wildlife Service. It is in the public on land indefinitely, they would not as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et al.). interest to license this invention to survive because they require seals World Wildlife Fund, Inc., who has hunted on sea ice to survive. Signing Authority submitted a satisfactory marketing plan 63. On page 18 there is an assertion, The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife as co-owner of the patents. The ‘‘Oiled polar bears are unable to Service, approved this document and prospective exclusive license will be effectively thermoregulate, and may be authorized the undersigned to sign and royalty bearing, and will comply with poisoned by ingestion of oil during submit the document to the Office of the the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. grooming or eating contaminated prey Federal Register for publication 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:19 Jun 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES