33334 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

chapter 35. Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, James A. Jemison II, 

having reviewed and approved this 

document, is delegating the authority to 

electronically sign this document to 

submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the 

Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for 

purposes of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Nacheshia Foxx, 

Federal Register Liaison for Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12994 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R8–ES–2021–N008; FF08EVEN00– 

FXES111608MSSO0] 

Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock 

Assessment Report for the Southern 

Sea Otter in California 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

revised stock assessment report for the 

southern sea otter in California; 

response to comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (MMPA), and its 

implementing regulations, we, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

announce that we have revised our 

stock assessment report (SAR) for the 

southern sea otter stock in the State of 

California, including incorporation of 

public comments. We now make our 

final revised SAR available to the 

public. 

ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You 

may obtain a copy of the SAR from our 

website at https://www.fws.gov/ventura/ 

endangered/species/info/sso.html. 

Alternatively, you may contact the 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; 

telephone: 805–644–1766. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the methods, data, and 

results of the stock assessment, contact 

Lilian Carswell by telephone (805–677– 

3325) or by email (Lilian_Carswell@

fws.gov). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

announcing the availability of the final 

revised SAR for the southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) stock in the State 

of California. 

Background 

Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations 

in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, we regulate the 

taking; import; and, under certain 

conditions, possession; transportation; 

purchasing; selling; and offering for 

sale, purchase, or export, of marine 

mammals. One of the goals of the 

MMPA is to ensure that stocks of marine 

mammals occurring in waters under 

U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a 

level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury that is likely to cause the 

stock to be reduced below its optimum 

sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP 

is defined under the MMPA as ‘‘the 

number of animals which will result in 

the maximum productivity of the 

population or the species, keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat 

and the health of the ecosystem of 

which they form a constituent element’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 1362(9)). 

To help accomplish the goal of 

maintaining marine mammal stocks at 

their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA 

requires the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 

prepare a SAR for each marine mammal 

stock that occurs in waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction. Each SAR must include: 

1. A description of the stock and its 

geographic range; 

2. A minimum population estimate, 

current and maximum net productivity 

rate, and current population trend; 

3. An estimate of annual humancaused mortality and serious injury by 

source and, for a strategic stock, other 

factors that may be causing a decline or 

impeding recovery of the stock; 

4. A description of commercial fishery 

interactions; 

5. A categorization of the status of the 

stock; and 

6. An estimate of the potential 

biological removal (PBR) level. 

The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its [OSP]’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the 

minimum population estimate of the 

stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum 

theoretical or estimated net productivity 

rate of the stock at a small population 

size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of 

between 0.1 and 1.0. This can be written 

as: 

PBR = (Nmin)(1⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr) 

Section 117(c)(1) of the MMPA 

requires the Service and NMFS to 

review the SARs (a) at least annually for 

stocks that are specified as strategic 

stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for 

which significant new information is 

available, and (c) at least once every 3 

years for all other stocks. If our review 

of the status of a stock indicates that it 

has changed or may be more accurately 

determined, then the SAR must be 

revised accordingly. (16 U.S.C. 

1386(c)(2)). 

A strategic stock is defined in the 

MMPA as a marine mammal stock ‘‘(A) 

for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the [PBR] 

level; (B) which, based on the best 

available scientific information, is 

declining and is likely to be listed as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [, as 

amended] (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) [the 

‘‘ESA’’], within the foreseeable future; 

or (C) which is listed as a threatened 

species or endangered species under the 

[ESA], or is designated as depleted 

under [the MMPA].’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1362(19)). 

Stock Assessment Report History for 

the Southern Sea Otter in California 

The southern sea otter SAR was last 

revised in 2017 (82 FR 40793, August 

28, 2017). Because the southern sea otter 

qualifies as a strategic stock due to its 

listing as a threatened species under the 

ESA, the Service reviewed the stock 

assessment in 2018. The review 

concluded that the status had not 

changed, nor could it be more 

accurately determined. However, upon 

review in 2019, the Service determined 

that revision was warranted because its 

status could be more accurately 

determined. Before releasing our draft 

SAR for public review and comment, we 

submitted it for technical review 

internally and for scientific review by 

the Pacific Regional Scientific Review 

Group, which was established under the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a January 

27, 2020, Federal Register notice (85 FR 

4696), we made our draft SAR available 

for the MMPA-required 90-day public 

review and comment period. Following 

the close of the comment period, we 

revised the SAR based on public 

comments we received (see Response to 

Public Comments) and prepared the 

final revised SAR. Between publication 

of the draft and final revised SARs, we 

have not revised the status of the stock 

itself (the southern sea otter continues 

to retain its status as a strategic stock). 

However, we have updated the SAR to 

include the most recent information 

available. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33335 

Summary of Final Revised Stock 

Assessment Report for the Southern Sea 

Otter in California 

The following table summarizes some 

of the information contained in the final 

revised SAR for southern sea otters in 

California, which includes the stock’s 

Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury, and status: 

SUMMARY: DRAFT REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER IN CALIFORNIA

Southern Sea Otter Stock Nmin Rmax Fr PBR Annual estimated human-caused mortality and 

serious injury Stock status 

Mainland ......................... 2,863 0.076 0.1 10.88 Figures by specific source, where known, are provided in the SAR.Strategic. 

San Nicolas Island .......... 99 0.192 0.1 0.95 

Summary ........................ 2,962 ............ ............ 12 

Response to Public Comments 

We received comments on the draft 

SAR from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and a consortium of 

environmental groups consisting of 

Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Sea 

Otter, the Humane Society of the United 

States, Humane Society Legislative 

Fund, Earthjustice, Center for Biological 

Diversity, Ocean Preservation Society, 

Animal Welfare Institute, Earth Island 

Institute, and Earth Law Center. We 

present substantive issues raised in 

those comments that are pertinent to the 

SAR, edited for brevity, along with our 

responses below. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that the Service review 

and revise the ‘‘Current and Maximum 

Net Productivity Rates’’ section of the 

SAR and provide a rationale for using 

an Rmax that is consistent with the 

numbers used in the calculation of PBR. 

Further, the Commission recommends 

that the Service consider the theory 

behind use of Rmax in the PBR 

calculation and whether 0.13 (or the 

default value of 0.12 for sea otters) is 

appropriate for a single range-wide 

calculation of PBR. 

Response: We have revised the 

‘‘Current and Maximum Net 

Productivity Rates’’ section of the SAR 

to clarify our reasons for using 

particular Rmax values. We have 

considered the theory behind the use of 

Rmax in the PBR calculation and added 

a brief discussion of the relevance of the 

PBR calculation to the southern sea otter 

stock. We have not adopted a single 

range-wide value of Rmax for the reasons 

described in the SAR. However, we will 

present the issue for further 

consideration by the Pacific Scientific 

Review Group upon our next revision of 

the SAR. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that, at a minimum, the 

Service correct the mainland PBR 

estimate in the SAR using the mainland 

minimum population estimate. Further, 

the Commission recommends that the 

Service follow the guidance provided in 

the Guidelines for Assessing Marine 

Mammal Stocks (NMFS 2016) for 

rounding the PBR estimate and report 

the PBR to one decimal place. 

Response: We have corrected the 

mainland PBR estimate and have 

followed the rounding guidance 

provided in NMFS (2016). 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that the Service make its 

stock assessment reviews available 

yearly to the appropriate Scientific 

Review Group (SRG) and the Marine 

Mammal Commission from this point 

forward. 

Response: We typically provide a 

presentation to the Pacific SRG on the 

status of the southern sea otter. We will 

continue to make such presentations 

and explain our stock assessment 

review process to the Pacific SRG and 

Commission. 

Comment 4: Per the Federal Register 

notice, since the southern sea otter stock 

is considered strategic, the Service is to 

evaluate the stock annually and develop 

the SAR based on the best scientific 

information available. This draft SAR 

was presented for public review in 

January 2020 and does not include 

evaluation of 2019 data readily available 

on population abundance and 

distribution. 

Response: We review the SAR, based 

on the best scientific information 

available, annually to determine 

whether the status of the stock has 

changed or can be more accurately 

determined. If such findings are made, 

we revise the SAR. Delays in 

publication of the draft SAR in the 

Federal Register resulted in the notice 

of availability being published after 

additional census data had been 

reported. We have updated the SAR 

with the latest available information. 

Comment 5: Adult females with pups 

do utilize open-water, soft-bottom 

habitats. Decades ago, it was rare for this 

demographic to be observed in these 

habitats. We know pups are challenging 

to spot during aerial surveys and are 

often missed and therefore not well 

documented in the standard survey 

method for these habitats. More recent 

ground-based survey work and 

incidental boat-based observations have 

confirmed the presences of mom-andpup pairs in these open-water habitats. 

Response: We have eliminated 

excessive detail on habitat use. 

Comment 6: Although the pattern of 

migration to the range peripheries was 

well documented in the past, it has not 

been observed in over a decade. 

Response: We have eliminated 

outdated data on habitat use. 

Comment 7: A line should be added 

to Figure 2 to denote the current 

targeted recovery goal. 

Response: We have not added a line 

representing the threshold for delisting 

consideration for two reasons. First, we 

do not wish to detract from the purpose 

of this report under the MMPA, which 

is primarily to assess the progress of the 

stock toward its OSP level and toward 

a zero-mortality goal for commercial 

fisheries interactions, not to evaluate 

progress toward recovery goals under 

the ESA. Second, as we explain in text 

that has been added to the Status of 

Stock section, the threshold for delisting 

consideration was based on 

assumptions regarding the relationship 

between effective population size and 

actual population size that are now 

known to be inaccurate. 

Comment 8: If the report is not 

updated to reflect 2019 data, we suggest 

that references in the report to ‘‘the past 

5 years’’ identify the specific 5-year 

period under consideration. 

Response: We have updated the SAR 

to include the most recent available 

information and have identified the 5- 

year period under discussion. 

Comment 9: The paradigm shift in 

understanding the reason for slow 

population growth rates in California 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33336 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

was 6–7 years ago and is not a recent 

development. The previous speculation 

regarding the reasons for slow growth 

focused on the difference in survival, 

not reproduction. 

Response: We have revised the 

discussion of the effects of habitat 

configuration on growth rates. 

Comment 10: There is no explanation 

why 13 percent was selected as Rmax for 

the San Nicolas Island subpopulation. 

Response: We have updated Rmax for 

the mainland and island subpopulations 

and added citations to identify the 

source of these numbers. 

Comment 11: The Federal Register 

notice provides an explanation of the 

intent and scale of the recovery factor. 

We suggest this explanation be included 

in the report with some explanation of 

how 0.1 was selected. 

Response: We believe the SAR 

adequately explains how a recovery 

factor of 0.1 was selected because it 

cites Taylor et al. (2003) and lists the 

factors from that discussion that apply 

to the southern sea otter stock. We have 

not added further explanation. 

Comment 12: There is no evidence the 

California yellowtail, barracuda, and 

white seabass or California thresher 

shark/swordfish drift gillnet fisheries 

have sea otter incidental take because it 

is unlikely there is any overlap of these 

fisheries and sea otter habitat. We 

suggest these be deleted. 

Response: We have removed these 

drift gillnet fisheries due to a lack of 

habitat overlap. 

Comment 13: We suggest the squid 

purse-seine fishery be presented as a 

potential risk. 

Response: We have added the 

California squid purse seine fishery to 

the SAR based on analogy with the 

California purse seine fishery for 

northern anchovy and Pacific sardine. 

Comment 14: Mortality of sea otters in 

traps set for crabs, lobsters, and finfish 

is likely under-reported due to the 

challenges of identifying drowning as a 

cause of mortality in marine mammals. 

Response: We have added this 

information. 

Comment 15: If possible, the hookand-line fishers should be separated 

from this discussion of trap fishers. The 

‘‘stick gear’’ used by some hook-and-line 

commercial fishers likely presents a 

different risk (entanglement). 

Response: These fisheries are grouped 

together in one category in the List of 

Fisheries, and separate data for the 

different fishery components are not 

available. 

Comment 16: How has ‘‘unknown 

hook and line’’ been confirmed as 

commercial versus recreational fishing 

activity such that it is included in Table 

1? 

Response: Because it is often not 

possible to make a definitive 

determination whether entanglements 

are due to commercial or recreational 

gear, we have included here all known 

strandings caused by entanglement in 

unidentifiable gear. As a result, 

mortality in commercial fishing gear 

may be overestimated for these 

categories. We have added a note to this 

effect to Table 1. 

Comment 17: Some shootings are 

related to fishery interactions, and this 

cause of death is likely under-reported 

due to the lack of systematic 

radiographs of all carcasses. 

Response: We have added language to 

this effect to the SAR. 

Comment 18: The SAR does not 

include mention of Gagne et al. (2018), 

who concluded that the suppositions 

underlying the effective population size 

and the delisting threshold in the Final 

Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Sea Otter (2003) were flawed. 

Response: We have added a reference 

to Gagne et al. (2018) to the SAR. 

However, we note that the species status 

assessment process we are undertaking 

under the ESA is distinct from our 

obligations under the MMPA. 

Additional References Cited 

Gagne, R.B., M.T. Tinker, K.D. Gustafson, K. 

Ralls, S. Larson, L.M. Tarjan, M.A. 

Miller, and H.B. Ernest. 2018. Measures 

of effective population size in sea otters 

reveal special considerations for wideranging species. Evolutionary 

Applications 11:1779–1790. 

Gobler, C.J., O.M. Doherty, T.K. HattenrathLehmann, A.W. Griffith, Y. Kang, and 

R.W. Litaker. 2017. Ocean warming since 

1982 has expanded the niche of toxic 

algal blooms in the North Atlantic and 

North Pacific oceans. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 114:4975–4980. 

Harvell, C.D., D. Montecino-Latorre, J.M. 

Caldwell, J.M. Burt, K. Bosley, A. Keller, 

S.F. Heron, A.K. Salomon, L. Lee, O. 

Pontier, C. Pattengill-Semmens, and J.K. 

Gaydos. 2019. Disease epidemic and a 

marine heat wave are associated with the 

continental-scale collapse of a pivotal 

predator (Pycnopodia helianthoides). 

Science Advances 5, eaau7042. https://

doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7042. 

Hatfield, B.B., J.L. Yee, M.C. Kenner, and J.A. 

Tomoleoni. 2019. California sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) census results, 

spring 2019. U.S. Geological Survey Data 

Series 1118, Reston, Virginia, USA. 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1118. 

Jeffries, S., D. Lynch, J. Waddell, S. Ament, 

and C. Pasi. 2019. Results of the 2019 

survey of the reintroduced sea otter 

population in Washington State. 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Lakewood, Washington, USA. 

Larson, S., R. Jameson, M. Etnier, T. Jones, 

R. Hall. 2012. Genetic diversity and 

population parameters of sea otters, 

Enhydra lutris, before fur trade 

extirpation from 1741–1911. PLoS ONE 

7, e32205. https://doi.org/10.1371/ 

journal.pone.0032205. 

Marshall, K.N., I.C. Kaplan, E.E. Hodgson, A. 

Hermann, D.S. Busch, P. McElhany, T.E. 

Essington, C.J. Harvey, and E.A. Fulton. 

2017. Risks of ocean acidification in the 

California Current food web and 

fisheries: ecosystem model projections. 

Global Change Biology 23:1525–1539. 

Miller, M.A., M.E. Moriarty, L.A. Henkel, 

M.T. Tinker, T.L. Burgess, F.I. Batac, E. 

Dodd, C. Young, M.D. Harris, D.A. 

Jessup, J. Ames, P.A. Conrad, A.E. 

Packham, and C.K. Johnson. 2020. 

Predators, disease, and environmental 

change in the nearshore ecosystem: 

mortality in southern sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris nereis) from 1998–2012. Frontiers 

in Marine Science. https://doi.org/ 

10.3389/fmars.2020.00582. 

Moriarty, M.E., M.T. Tinker, M.A. Miller, J.A. 

Tomoleoni, M.M. Staedler, J.A. Fujii, F.I. 

Batac, E.M. Dodd, R.M. Kudela, V. 

Zubkousky-White, and C.K. Johnson. 

2021. Exposure to domoic acid is an 

ecological driver of cardiac disease in 

southern sea otters. Harmful Algae 101. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/ 

j.hal.2020.101973. 

Moxley, J.H., T.E. Nicholson, K.S. Van 

Houtan, S.J. Jorgensen. 2019. Nontrophic impacts from white sharks 

complicate population recovery for sea 

otters. Ecology and Evolution 9:6378– 

6388. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. 

Guidelines for Preparing Stock 

Assessment Reports Pursuant to Section 

117 of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Instruction 02–204–01. http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/index.html. 

Nichol, L.M., T. Doniol-Valcroze, J.C. 

Watson, and E.U. Foster. 2020. Trends in 

growth of the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) 

population in British Columbia 1977 to 

2017. Research Document 2020/039. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada. http://

publications.gc.ca/site/archiveearchived.html?url=http://

publications.gc.ca/collections/ 

collection_2020/mpo-dfo/fs70-6/Fs70-6- 

2020-036-eng.pdf. 

Nicholson, T.E., K.A. Mayer, M.M. Staedler, 

J.A. Fujii, M.J. Murray, A.B. Johnson, 

M.T. Tinker, and K.S. VanHoutan. 2018. 

Gaps in kelp cover may threaten the 

recovery of California sea otters. 

Ecography 41:1751–1762. 

Tinker, M.T., S.M. Espinosa, M.M. Staedler, 

J.A. Tomoleoni, J. Fujii, R. Eby, R. 

Scoles, M.C. Kenner, B. Hatfield, C. 

Fuentes, J.K. Lindsay, T. Nicholson, M. 

Murray, M. Young, K. Mayer, E. Dodd, S. 

Fork, and K. Wasson. 2018. The 

population status and ecology of sea 

otters in Elkhorn Slough, California: final 

report for California Coastal Conservancy 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U. S. 

Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33337 

California, USA. 

Tinker, M.T., V.A. Gill, G.G. Esslinger, J. 

Bodkin, M. Monk, M. Mangel, D.H. 

Monson, W.E. Raymond, and M.L. 

Kissling. 2019a. Trends and carrying 

capacity of sea otters in Southeast 

Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 

83:1–17. 

Tinker, M.T., J.A. Tomoleoni, B.P. Weitzman, 

M. Staedler, D. Jessup, M.J. Murray, M. 

Miller, T. Burgess, L. Bowen, A.K. Miles, 

N. Thometz, L. Tarjan, E. Golson, F. 

Batac, E. Dodd, E. Berberich, J. Kunz, G. 

Bentall, J. Fujii, T. Nicholson, S. 

Newsome, A. Melli, N. LaRoche, H. 

MacCormick, A. Johnson, L. Henkel, C. 

Kreuder-Johnson, and P. Conrad. 2019b. 

Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) 

population biology at Big Sur and 

Monterey, California; investigating the 

consequences of resource abundance and 

anthropogenic stressors for sea otter 

recovery. U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2019–1022. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. 

Tinker, M.T., J.L. Yee, K.L. Laidre, B.B. 

Hatfield, M.D. Harris, J.A. Tomoleoni, 

T.W. Bell, E. Saarman, L.P. Carswell, 

A.K. Miles. 2021. Habitat features predict 

carrying capacity of a recovering marine 

carnivore. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 85:303–323. https://doi.org/ 

10.1002/jwmg.21985. 

Wellman, H.P. 2018. Applied zooarchaeology 

and Oregon Coast sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris). Marine Mammal Science 34:806– 

822. 

Wellman, H.P., R.M. Austin, N.D. Dagtas, 

M.L. Moss, T.C. Rick, and C.A. Hofman. 

2020. Archaeological mitogenomes 

illuminate the historical ecology of sea 

otters (Enhydra lutris) and the viability 

of reintroduction. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287, 

20202343. https://doi.org/10.1098/ 

rspb.2020.2343. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Principal Deputy 

Director Exercising the Delegated 

Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, approved this 

document on June 17, 2021, for 

publication. 

Krista Bibb, 

Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division 

of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13209 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–ES–2018–N051; 

FXES111607MPB01–189–FF07CAMM00] 

Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock 

Assessment Reports for Two Stocks of 

Polar Bears 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; response 

to comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, after consideration of 

comments received from the public, 

have revised marine mammal stock 

assessment reports for each of the two 

polar bear stocks in Alaska. We now 

make the final revised stock assessment 

reports for the Southern Beaufort Sea 

polar bear stock and the Chukchi/Bering 

Seas polar bear stock available to the 

public. 

ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You 

may obtain a copy of the Southern 

Beaufort Sea polar bear and Chukchi/ 

Bering Seas polar bear stock assessment 

reports by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Internet: https://www.fws.gov/ 

alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polarbear (for both polar bear stocks). 

• Write to or call (during normal 

business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday) Dr. Patrick 

Lemons, Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Marine Mammals Management 

Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–341 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone: 

(800) 362–5148. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Patrick Lemons, Marine Mammals 

Management Office by telephone (800) 

362–5148 or by email 

(fw7mmmcomment@fws.gov). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

announce the availability of the final 

revised stock assessment reports (SARs) 

for two stocks of polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus). 

Background 

Under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and 

its implementing regulations in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 

CFR part 18, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) regulates the taking; 

import; and, under certain conditions, 

possession; transportation; purchasing; 

selling; and offering for sale, purchase, 

or export, of marine mammals. One of 

the goals of the MMPA is to ensure that 

stocks of marine mammals occurring in 

waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not 

experience a level of human-caused 

mortality and serious injury that is 

likely to cause the stock to be reduced 

below its optimum sustainable 

population level (OSP). The OSP is 

defined under the MMPA as ‘‘the 

number of animals which will result in 

the maximum productivity of the 

population or the species, keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat 

and the health of the ecosystem of 

which they form a constituent element’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 1362(9)). 

To help accomplish the goal of 

maintaining marine mammal stocks at 

their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA 

requires the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 

prepare a SAR for each marine mammal 

stock that occurs in waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction. A SAR must be based on 

the best scientific information available; 

therefore, we prepare it in consultation 

with an independent Scientific Review 

Group (SRG) established under section 

117(d) of the MMPA. Each SAR must 

include: 

1. A description of the stock and its 

geographic range; 

2. A minimum population estimate, 

current and maximum net productivity 

rate, and current population trend; 

3. An estimate of the annual humancaused mortality and serious injury by 

source and, for a strategic stock, other 

factors that may be causing a decline or 

impeding recovery of the stock; 

4. A description of commercial fishery 

interactions; 

5. A categorization of the status of the 

stock; and 

6. An estimate of the potential 

biological removal (PBR) level. 

The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its OSP’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the 

minimum population estimate of the 

stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum 

theoretical or estimated net productivity 

rate of the stock at a small population 

size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of 

between 0.1 and 1.0, which is intended 

to compensate for uncertainty and 

unknown estimation errors. This can be 

written as: 

PBR = (Nmin)(1⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr). 

Section 117 of the MMPA also 

requires the Service and the NMFS to 

review the SARs (a) at least annually for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES