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
33338 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

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. 

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.) [ESA], within the 

foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed 

as a threatened 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 Two Polar Bear Stocks 

Both polar bear SARs were last 

revised in January 2010. Because the 

polar bear is listed as a threatened 

species under the ESA, both the 

Southern Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi/ 

Bering Seas polar bear stocks are 

considered strategic. The Service 

therefore considered all available new 

information on these stocks in 2011, 

2012, and 2013, and determined that no 

new information was available that 

indicated the status of the stocks had 

changed or could be more accurately 

determined. However, as new 

information became available in 2014, 

the Service initiated revision of the 

SARs, and once completed, presented 

them for review to the SRG. Subsequent 

to that review, the Service published a 

notice in the Federal Register informing 

the public of the availability of these 

draft revised SARs and seeking public 

comment (82 FR 28526; June 22, 2017). 

These final revised SARs incorporate 

the comments and suggestions provided 

to the Service by the SRG and the 

public, as appropriate. 

Summary of Revised Stock Assessment 

Reports for the Two Polar Bear Stocks 

in Alaska 

The following table summarizes some 

of the information contained in the 

revised SARs for the Southern Beaufort 

Sea polar bear and the Chukchi/Bering 

Seas polar bear stocks, which includes 

each stock’s Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual 

estimated human-caused mortality and 

serious injury, and status. 

SUMMARY—FINAL REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE SOUTHERN BEAUFORT SEA POLAR BEAR AND

CHUKCHI/BERING SEAS POLAR BEAR STOCKS

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

Southern Beaufort Sea ..... 782 0.075 0.5 14 Annual estimated removals for each stock are provided in the SARs.Strategic. 

Chukchi/Bering Seas ........ 2,000 0.0603 0.5 30 Strategic. 

Response to Public Comments 

We received comments on the draft 

revised SARs from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), Department 

of Wildlife Management, North Slope 

Borough, Utqiag ̇vik, Alaska, BP 

Exploration (Alaska), Inc., and the 

Center for Biological Diversity. We 

present substantive issues raised in 

those comments that are pertinent to the 

SARs, edited for brevity, along with our 

responses below. 

General Public Comments That Apply to 

Both SARs 

1. The Service should undertake a 

more extensive, finer scale analysis of 

genetic differences between the 

Chukchi/Bearing Seas (CBS) and 

Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) stocks to 

delineate further the extent of stock 

discreteness. 

Response: Genetic differentiation 

between the two stocks is one metric to 

consider, but we believe sufficient data 

exist from other metrics (behavioral, 

movement, demographic) to support the 

current differentiation of the stocks. We 

will continue to review new information 

as it becomes available and reassess 

their discreteness. Additionally, the 

genetic work that has been done (and is 

cited in the current SARs) suggests that 

there is little genetic variation between 

the two stocks. 

2. The section on the distribution of 

the CBS and SBS stocks of polar bears 

should be expanded to discuss the 

uncertainty over where to draw the 

stock boundaries between them and the 

efforts that are being taken to resolve 

these questions. 

Response: Although the MMPA does 

not require the Service to describe stock 

boundaries but rather stock ranges, we 

added text to both documents indicating 

there is uncertainty associated with the 

current boundary. 

3. Figure 3 in both SARs should be 

revised to include alternative harvest 

estimates using Icy Cape as one possible 

stock boundary and Point Barrow as the 

other given the uncertainty over where 

to draw the boundary between the CBS 

and SBS stocks. 

Response: For the purposes of these 

SARs, the Service continues to accept 

the boundaries identified by the Polar 

Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Should 

new information become available to 

better define these boundaries in the 

future, we will revise the SARs to reflect 

that new information. 

4. The Service should revise the 

genetics section of both SARs to include 

a stronger statement about the role 

genetics plays in the Service’s decision 

to manage stocks separately. 

Response: Although the statute does 

not require a discussion of genetics in 

the SARs, we included information on 

research that shows the stocks appear to 

be genetically similar. However, we 

explicitly state that other factors (e.g., 

behavior) warrant the stocks being 

managed separately. The Service has 

determined that a stronger statement is 

not necessary. 

5. In the ‘current population trend’ 

sections of both SARs the Service 

should explain why it has determined 

removals for subsistence during the 20th 

century were low enough to allow the 

populations to remain near carrying 

capacity. 

Response: The SARs do not state that 

subsistence during the 20th century was 

low enough to allow populations to 

remain near carrying capacity. Rather, it 

states that this is our belief for the 

period prior to the 20th century when 

subsistence harvest would have been 

the primary source of anthropogenic 

mortality. 

6. The ‘‘climate change’’ section of 

each report discusses the listing of 

ringed and bearded seals by the NMFS 

under the ESA. The Service notes that 

a district court ruling vacating the 

bearded seal listing was overturned on 

appeal, so that the listing is again in 

force. The Service should also note that 

the appeal of the ruling vacating the 

ringed seal listing is still pending. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33339 

Response: The U.S. Supreme Court 

denied the petition for review of the 

decision and, therefore, the listings 

stand. We have removed these 

statements from the SARs. 

7. The Service should improve its 

review of the status of the stocks on an 

annual basis. 

Response: SARs are thoroughly vetted 

and accurately reflect the best scientific 

information available. The Service 

meets its statutory requirements of 

reviewing both polar bear stock 

assessments on an annual basis and, if 

appropriate, revises the current SARs. 

The Service then submits these draft 

revisions first to the SRG, noting to the 

SRG that they are preliminary 

documents pending complete Service 

review, and then for public comment. 

The Service also updates the SRG on 

any new information and ongoing 

studies during the SRG’s annual 

meeting. We appreciate the concern 

over the time it takes for both of these 

reviews but balance that concern with 

the need to ensure our SARs contain the 

best available scientific information and 

are subject to public notice and 

comment process. 

8. The SARs must clearly state that 

anthropogenic climate change is the 

primary threat to the SBS and CBS 

stocks and must include key scientific 

findings documenting the negative 

effects that climate change is having on 

these populations. 

Response: There are currently no 

studies that show negative populationlevel impacts of sea ice loss for polar 

bears in the CBS stock. However, there 

are behavioral and distributional 

changes occurring as a result of sea ice 

loss, and we currently cite those studies 

that show such effects to the CBS stock 

(e.g., Rode et al. 2015a, Wilson et al. 

2016). We also document studies that 

show the negative population-level 

effects that the SBS stock are 

experiencing as a result of sea ice loss. 

We have added a citation to Atwood et 

al. (2016) to further clarify that climate 

change has been identified as the 

primary threat to polar bears. 

9. The Service should emphasize that 

bears in both populations are spending 

less time in their preferred shallow 

water sea-ice habitats as these habitats 

diminish and more time in marginal 

habitats on shore and on sea ice off the 

continental shelf. The following studies 

should be cited: Gleason and Rode 

(2009), Cherry et al. (2013), and Ware et 

al. (2017). 

Response: We added a reference to the 

Gleason and Rode (2009) study to make 

this point for the SBS SAR. The Ware 

et. al., study (2017) does not provide 

information that significantly changes 

our understanding of how bears’ use of 

sea ice changes as it relates to sea ice 

loss, nor does it provide information 

that indicates the status of the species 

has changed or can be more accurately 

determined. The study by Cherry et al. 

(2013) is in reference to bears in Hudson 

Bay, so is not relevant for these SARs. 

We also cite Rode et al. (2015) in the 

CBS SAR to document increased land 

use by those bears, and Wilson et al. 

(2016) to highlight the reduction in 

‘optimal’ summer sea ice habitat in the 

Chukchi Sea. 

10. The Service should include new 

findings that provide further evidence 

for an increase in land-based denning in 

response to climate change: Olson et al. 

(2017). 

Response: The study by Olson et al. 

(2017) does not include information that 

substantially alters our understanding of 

increased land-based use, which is 

confirmed in Fishbach et al. (2007). Nor 

does it provide information that 

indicates the status of the species has 

changed or can be more accurately 

determined. 

11. In describing the different 

responses of the CBS and SBS stocks to 

sea ice loss, the SAR should report the 

findings of Ware et al. (2017). 

Response: As stated previously, the 

study by Ware et al. (2017) does not 

provide information that substantially 

alters our understanding of either 

population’s status nor does it provide 

information that indicates the status of 

the species has changed or can be more 

accurately determined. The study by 

Ware et al. (2017) confirms our 

understanding of the different responses 

of the two stocks, information that is 

already discussed in the SAR. 

12. The Service should include the 

following citations for increasing 

energetic costs associated with sea ice 

changes: Durner et al. (2017), Ware et al. 

(2017). 

Response: As stated previously, these 

studies do not provide information that 

substantially alters our understanding of 

either population’s status and do not 

provide information that indicates the 

status of the species has changed or can 

be more accurately determined. Further, 

these studies indicating energetic costs 

associated with sea ice loss confirm 

information already considered in this 

SAR. 

13. The Service should clearly and 

finally delineate the CBS/SBS boundary 

line. 

Response: We do not believe the SARs 

are the appropriate document in which 

to discuss delineation of the boundary 

line between these two stocks. We have 

described the geographic range of these 

stocks as required by the MMPA. 

14. The SARs must include important 

new information on the threats from oil 

and gas development including the 

April 2017 Executive Order attempting 

to lift the permanent ban on offshore 

drilling in the U.S. Arctic, and the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

proposal to approve the offshore Liberty 

drilling project in SBS polar bear 

habitat. 

Response: On January 20, 2021, the 

President issued Executive Order 13990, 

which, amongst other things, revoked 

Executive Order 13795. Considering this 

action, the Service believes the SARs 

adequately address any potential threats 

from oil and gas development. 

15. The SARs should acknowledge 

there are currently no effective means of 

cleaning up an oil spill in Arctic waters. 

Response: Section 117(a)(3) requires 

the agency provide information on other 

factors that may cause a decline or 

impede recovery of a strategic stock. An 

oil spill in the Arctic could have 

negative impacts on these stocks, 

particularly if there are no (or limited) 

means of cleaning the spill. Therefore, 

we have included a statement to this 

effect in the revised documents. 

16. The Service needs to categorize 

each stock’s status relative to OSP. 

Response: Section 117(a) states the 

draft SAR shall categorize the status of 

the stock as one that either has a level 

of human-caused mortality and serious 

injury that is not likely to cause the 

stock to be reduced below its OSP or is 

a strategic stock. The Service has 

categorized the status of each stock as 

strategic. 

17. The SARs must acknowledge that 

harvest of both populations exceeds 

PBR and may cause the stocks to be 

reduced below their optimal sustainable 

population, which is prohibited by the 

MMPA. 

Response: In meeting our statutory 

requirements under the MMPA Section 

117, this stock assessment report 

contains an estimate of the potential 

biological removal level, describing the 

information used to calculate the 

estimate. We have determined that the 

SARs adequately describe the scope and 

extent of polar bear harvest in both 

stocks as presented. 

18. The SARs should include and 

discuss studies that forecast the likely 

extirpation of both polar bear stocks 

within this century: Amstrup et al. 

(2010), Atwood et al. (2016), Regehr et 

al. (2016). 

Response: We have further reviewed 

these studies and note they conclude 

the stocks have a high probability of 

becoming greatly reduced. Section 

117(a)(3) requires the agency provide 

information on other factors that may 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33340 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 

impede recovery of a strategic stock and, 

therefore, we added this point to the 

climate change section of each SAR. 

19. Speculation on the long-term 

status of each polar bear stock should be 

organized within a discrete section that 

is appropriately described as such. 

Response: We believe this information 

is appropriately contained within their 

current sections and that sufficient 

information is provided to allow readers 

to assess the level of confidence in the 

currently available science. 

20. The Service has provided 

inconsistent messages about the 

boundaries of both the CBS and SBS 

polar bears, which makes it difficult for 

subsistence hunters, subsistence 

communities, the public, and 

decisionmakers to adequately 

understand polar bear biology or 

management or the position of the 

Service. Clarity is needed on both 

boundaries. 

Response: Section 117 requires that 

the agency describe the geographic 

range of the subject stocks, including 

any seasonal or temporal variations but 

it does not require a delineation of 

boundaries. These SARs are based on 

the geographic ranges as described in 

each document. While work is currently 

being conducted to update the biology 

associated with the geographic range of 

the CBS and SBS stocks, the description 

provided in these documents reflects 

the best available science for each stock. 

21. Each SAR should be clear about 

the factors associated with uncertainty 

in determining whether the polar bears 

in each region constitute a stock. 

Further, the Service should also 

describe in detail the implications (e.g., 

conservation, subsistence) of the current 

uncertainty and inconsistencies in stock 

boundary determination. 

Response: We have explicitly 

provided the factors that identify these 

stocks as being considered and managed 

separately. These two stocks are 

spatially segregated and each stock is 

made up of a group occurring ‘‘in a 

common spatial arrangement,’’ per the 

statutory definition. This separation is 

further supported by the different 

patterns in body condition and 

responses to sea ice loss. Although we 

acknowledge there is some confusion 

concerning the established boundaries 

between these stocks, we do not believe 

the SARs are the appropriate document 

in which to discuss issues associated 

with these uncertainties. 

22. The Service’s information on 

contaminants is incomplete for both 

stocks and does not include more recent 

papers. Relevant missing literature 

includes: Dietz et al. (2015); Letcher et 

al. 2011 (conference abstract); McKiney 

et al. (2011a, b); Nuijten et al. (2016); 

and Routti et al. (2011). SARs should be 

updated to include the above references. 

Response: We included additional 

information as appropriate in each SAR. 

23. More detail should be provided 

about which Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge stakeholders were consulted 

and how that information was used to 

inform SARs. 

Response: We added reference to the 

Voorhees et al. (2014) study in the CBS 

SAR and the Joint Secretariat study 

(2015) in the SBS SAR. 

24. The Service should clarify what is 

meant by ‘relatively discrete 

subpopulations’ on page 1 of both SARs. 

Response: We removed the term 

‘‘relatively discrete’’ as it does not add 

to the statement that there are 19 

subpopulations. 

25. Contaminant samples were not 

collected in a random or systematic 

manner. The Service should explain 

how contaminant data are indicative of 

stock status versus a sampling artifact or 

a difference in prey species having 

different contaminant burdens and 

provide evidence on how samples were 

collected. 

Response: The studies cited found 

that contaminants vary between bears in 

the two stocks, providing evidence of 

spatial segregation or differences in 

space use between them. 

26. The Service should provide 

evidence of why CBS and SBS stocks 

should be separated given the weak 

genetic and movement data (i.e., overlap 

in distribution of tagged bears). 

Response: We disagree that there are 

weak movement data. In the 10+ years 

that the Service has been conducting 

polar bear capture work in the Chukchi 

Sea, only twice have bears been 

recaptured in the Chukchi Sea that were 

previously captured in the Beaufort Sea. 

Similarly, we are unaware of any bears 

captured in the Chukchi Sea being 

recaptured in the Beaufort Sea. 

Movement data from Global Positioning 

System (GPS) collars clearly shows 

bears captured in the Chukchi Sea move 

to the northwest and away from the 

Beaufort Sea as the ice retreats, with 

many summering on the Russian coast 

and none ever summering on the 

northern coast of Alaska. Conversely, 

polar bear movements of those captured 

in the Beaufort Sea show bears moving 

north and northeast as the ice retreats. 

Those bears that summer on shore do so 

primarily near Kaktovik, Alaska, and 

not the Russian coast. In addition to 

movement data, numerous studies have 

shown significant differences in how 

bears in the two stocks are responding 

to sea ice loss, with bears in the 

Beaufort Sea experiencing population 

declines, lower body conditions, and 

reduced reproductive performance than 

bears in the Chukchi Sea. 

27. More details are needed about 

how the location of tagged bears in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas might 

influence the representativeness of 

tagged bears to the entire population. 

Response: We added additional 

information stating that it’s unclear 

what role capture location plays in our 

estimate of the stock’s distribution, but 

that bears captured south of Point Hope 

overlap the space use patterns of bears 

that were captured more widely in the 

early 1990s. 

28. On page 5 (SBS SAR) and page 6 

(CBS SAR) similar sentences are present 

that state ‘‘polar bears are generally 

expected to experience nutritional stress 

as loss of sea ice continues . . . .’’ How 

is this relevant to defining the stocks? 

Even if relevant, both stocks respond 

similarly, thereby contradicting the 

supposition that these are stocks. The 

paragraph with these statements is not 

relevant to stock definition or 

geographic range and should therefore 

be removed from this section. 

Response: We disagree. The statutory 

definition of a ‘‘population stock’’ or 

‘‘stock’’ includes a group of marine 

mammals of the same species occurring 

‘‘in a common spatial arrangement,’’ 

such as these two polar bears stocks. 

The information is relevant to 

describing these two stocks because, 

even though bears may respond 

similarly to changing sea ice conditions, 

it shows that they are spatially 

segregated. If there was no spatial 

segregation, then we would expect to 

see similar patterns in body condition 

and response to sea ice loss between the 

stocks. However, the opposite is true. 

We therefore believe information in 

these paragraphs remains relevant and 

important to report. 

Comments Specific to the Chukchi/ 

Bering Seas Stock Assessment 

29. The Service should revise the SAR 

for the CBS stock to conform to that 

guidance [Guidelines for Preparing 

Stock Assessment Reports published by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) in 2016] by indicating that the 

minimum population size is unknown. 

If the Service retains 2,000 bears as the 

estimate of minimum population size in 

the final report, the agency should 

include compelling evidence that the 

stock has not declined since the last 

survey. In addition, as explained in the 

guidelines, a minimum population 

estimate should be calculated to provide 

assurance that ‘‘a stock of unknown 

status would achieve and be maintained 

within OSP with 95% probability.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33341 

Consistent with that guidance, the 

Service should include an analysis of 

how its point estimate of 2,000 bears 

(which, in any event, appears to be an 

estimate of Nbest rather than Nmin) 

satisfies this directive and meets the 

requirement under section 3(27) of the 

MMPA that the minimum population 

estimate provide reasonable assurance 

that ‘‘the stock size is equal to or greater 

than the estimate.’’ 

Response: The Service appreciates 

and supports the efforts of the NMFS in 

developing their Office of Protected 

Species Technical Memorandum and 

the 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Stock 

Assessment Reports. However, these 

NMFS guidelines have not been adopted 

by the Service, and, while we consider 

the information contained within them 

to the extent applicable, they are not 

binding on the Service. Nonetheless, as 

discussed in the SAR, the Service 

considers a minimum population 

estimate of 2,000 individuals (Aars et al. 

2006) to be the best available scientific 

information we have at this time. In 

addition, recent studies have indicated 

that bears inhabiting the Chukchi Sea 

seem to be in good physical condition 

and may be experiencing population 

growth (Voorhees et al. 2014; Rode et al. 

2014). Therefore, we are reasonably 

assured that the CBS stock includes at 

least 2,000 bears. 

30. Revise the section that discusses 

the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement to 

state that harvest limits set under the 

Agreement have yet to be implemented 

by the United States pending the 

establishment of needed management 

and enforcement structures. 

Response: We do not believe the 

comment accurately describes Service 

actions under the U.S.-Russia Bilateral 

Agreement. Although we do not believe 

the SAR is the appropriate document in 

which to discuss implementation of the 

harvest limits under the U.S.-Russia 

Bilateral Agreement, we have provided 

updates to the SAR to reflect recent 

actions by the Commission and the 

Service. 

31. The discussion of harvest in 

Russia is included in the section on 

‘‘other mortality’’ in the draft CBS SAR, 

because it is considered illegal. 

However, according to Kochnev and 

Zdor (2014) most, if not all, of that 

harvest is for subsistence purposes. If 

this is the case, it would make more 

sense to move that discussion into the 

section on Native subsistence harvest. 

Also, rather than relying on a personal 

communication from Eduard Zdor as 

one of the sources for the information, 

the Service should cite the related 

publication, Kochnev and Zdor (2014), 

which is included in the ‘‘citations’’ 

section as Kochnev and Zdor (2015). 

Response: We included the citation of 

Kochnev and Zdor (2015) instead of the 

personal communications statement. 

However, we kept this information in 

the ‘‘other mortality’’ section because it 

is still unreported harvest and unclear 

how much is for subsistence or possibly 

other purposes. 

32. The Service should report total 

harvest mortality for the CBS stock, 

including both the United States and 

Russia. Thus report 32 bears as the best 

estimate of direct harvest in Russia. 

Response: We agree and added text to 

the final SAR to reflect this information. 

33. The SAR should cite the following 

studies suggesting low cub production 

and reduced maternity denning: 

Ovsyanikov (2012), Ovsyanikov and 

Menyushina (2014). 

Response: We do cite Ovsyanikov 

(2012), which sufficiently makes the 

identified points. 

34. The CBS population estimate 

should be listed as ‘unknown’ given that 

it is more than 8 years old, and PBR 

should be listed as ‘undetermined’ as 

PBR cannot be calculated with an 

unknown minimum population size. 

Response: The population estimate of 

2,000 is based on extrapolated den data, 

which we acknowledge is more than 10 

years old. It was the best scientific 

information available for these 

calculations. The Service has been 

analyzing data on this stock, and we 

will revise our SARs, subsequent to that 

analysis, if appropriate. 

35. On page 9, in the last paragraph, 

the Service should insert ‘in Russia’ 

after ‘illegal harvests.’ 

Response: We have made this change. 

36. On page 10, in the top paragraph: 

Why is the information in Kochnev and 

Zdor (2015) not presented given that it 

represents the best available 

information? 

Response: This section discusses the 

historic views on overharvest in the 

early 2000s; therefore, the study by 

Kochnev and Zdor is not relevant. We 

do, however, discuss the results of 

Kochnev and Zdor in the subsequent 

discussion. 

37. On page 10, the last two 

paragraphs in the penultimate 

paragraph on the page, the Service 

cautions that the results of Ovsyanikov 

(2012) were based on an ‘‘inconsistent 

study design among years and lack of 

quantitative analyses to understand the 

demographic ramifications of the 

observed recruitment indices.’’ The 

Service then goes on to use those results 

to suggest there is an ‘‘apparently lower 

reproduction on Wrangel Island.’’ If 

Ovsyanikov’s results are suspect, then 

they should not be used in the SAR. The 

following should be deleted from the 

final sentence on this page: ‘‘apparently 

lower reproduction on Wrangel Island.’’ 

Response: We believe it is relevant to 

cite the study by Ovsyanikov but 

highlight for readers the reasons why 

the results might not be reliable. We 

also did not delete ‘‘apparently lower 

reproduction on Wrangel Island’’ 

because it is in reference to the decision 

making process of the PBSG, and that is 

one of the factors they cited in their 

decision to consider the population 

‘data deficient.’ 

38. The second complete sentence on 

page 13 is information from Kochnev 

and Zdor (2015), which provides 

subsistence removal estimates based on 

interview data. Reference to this paper 

and its information should be included 

in the SAR. 

Response: We agree and revised the 

SAR to reflect this information. 

39. On page 16, the last sentence of 

the paragraph before ‘‘Status of Stock’’ 

is information from Kochnev and Zdor 

(2015), which is criticized for reasons 

similar to those given for Ovsyanikov 

(2012). 

Response: As noted above, we revised 

the SAR to reflect both studies and 

discussed their limitations. 

40. On page 19, the last sentence of 

paragraph before ‘‘Oil and Gas 

Extraction’’, the interpretation of Wilson 

et al. (2016) is that population declines 

will occur as a result of lost ‘‘preferred’’ 

habitat. This statement is overreaching. 

Response: We changed ‘‘continued 

loss is likely to lead to population 

declines . . .’’ to ‘‘continued loss could 

lead to population declines . . . .’’ 

Comments Specific to the Southern 

Beaufort Sea Stock Assessment 

41. Commenter appreciates the 

transparency and acknowledgement that 

the SBS minimum population estimate 

is biased low because the western extent 

of the SBS stock range (west of Point 

Barrow) was not included in previous 

capture/recapture studies. It is likely 

that the minimum population estimate 

is higher than 782 bears listed on page 

8 of the draft stock report, given that a 

portion of the SBS stock range is not 

reflected in prior studies. 

Response: We agree and recognize 

that the minimum population estimate 

may be higher. Thus, consistent with 

the statutory definition of ‘‘minimum 

population estimate,’’ the estimate 

provides reasonable assurance that the 

stock is equal to or greater than the 

estimate. 

42. In the Other Mortality subsection, 

the Service should strike the words, 

‘‘near industry facilities’’ from the line 


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 

and her two-year old male cub were 

found dead on an island near industry 

facilities.’’ Industry operators worked 

closely with Service Law Enforcement 

and the Marine Mammals Management 

Office after the discovery of these bears. 

There was no discovered source of 

rhodamine B or hazardous substance 

unsecured or available to wildlife at 

industry facilities. The bears were also 

discovered close to Cross Island (the 

base for local whaling activities), a U.S. 

Air Force short-range radar site, and 

local communities. There are also 

shipping and boating activities that 

occur throughout the Beaufort Sea that 

could have been a source. Please 

include all or none of these potential 

sources given that the cause of the polar 

bears’ death remains unknown. 

Response: We made the suggested 

change. 

43. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) has collected population data on 

SBS bears through at least 2015; new 

data should be analyzed and presented 

as soon as possible. 

Response: The USGS was working to 

analyze those data at the time the SAR 

was being developed; the Service 

considers all information, including 

information from the USGS, when it is 

available to us. 

44. The Service should provide 

information on the map in Figure 2 

indicating whether overlap exists 

between the two stocks (Northern 

Beaufort Sea (NBS) and SBS) and 

showing its likely extent. In addition, 

the Service should provide available 

information on the range of the stocks. 

The Service should use the best 

available information when describing 

the range of the SBS stock regardless of 

whether or not it has been accepted by 

the PBSG. 

Response: We modified the figure to 

include information on the Northern 

Beaufort Sea stock. 

45. Harvest data from Canada should 

be included in Figure 3 of the Service’s 

SAR. 

Response: Canada records and reports 

harvest data based on a hunting season 

that overlaps 2 calendar years. The U.S. 

portion of the harvest, which is 

provided in Figure 3, is reported based 

on annual harvest data. Therefore, 

rather than revise Figure 3, we have 

included their harvest information in 

the body of the SAR. 

46. A proposed Rmax of 7.5 percent for 

the SBS population is much too high 

and the rate should be revised to a more 

science-based and precautionary value. 

Response: As we describe in the SAR, 

under favorable conditions, the 

population was capable of increasing up 

to 7.5 percent. Although we also 

acknowledge that potential current and 

future effects could lead to lower 

realized growth rates, 7.5 percent 

provides the best estimate to date of 

Rmax. 

47. The Service should confirm the 

current quota of 70 bears under the 

agreement between the Inuvialuit of 

Canada and the Inupiat of Alaska (I–I 

Agreement). 

Response: We have corrected the text 

to reflect a quota of 56 bears: 35 for the 

United States and 21 for Canada. 

48. The Service should include total 

harvest mortality for the SBS stock, 

including U.S. and Canada harvest. 

Response: We included data on recent 

harvest as reported by Canada, which 

reports harvest by season rather than on 

annual bases. 

49. The Service should explain the 

changes to the SBS boundary by Canada 

and explain how those changes affect 

the annual average mortalities of the 

SBS. 

Response: We determined that 

information in the distribution section 

adequately reflects the changes of the 

boundary and included text to clarify 

the number of bears currently being 

harvested in Canada. 

50. The Service should cite the 

following studies to show declines in 

the stock being related to sea ice loss: 

Bromaghin et al (2015); Rode et al. 

(2014); and Regehr et al. (2010). 

Response: Those studies are already 

cited making those points. 

51. The SAR states that bears in the 

SBS are expected to experience 

nutritional stress, but evidence indicates 

that it is already happening: Cherry et 

al. (2009) and Whiteman et al. (2015). 

Response: The SAR states that, in 

general, polar bears are expected to 

experience nutritional stress. The 

section then goes on to provide 

evidence that bears in the SBS stock are 

experiencing negative effects of ice loss 

(e.g., Rode et al. (2014)). 

52. The Service should include the 

Herreman and Peacock (2013) and 

Rogers et al. (2015) studies as evidence 

of increased vulnerability to conflicts 

with humans. 

Response: We did not add the 

citations suggested because they do not 

provide evidence of increased 

vulnerability of conflicts with humans. 

However, we have added an additional 

statement to this effect after citations 

that do support this contention (e.g., 

Schliebe et al. (2008), Atwood et al. 

(2015a)). 

53. The Service should cite Durner et 

al. (2011), Pagano et al. (2012), and 

Pilfold et al. (2017) as evidence of 

increased long-distance swimming and 

mortality/physiological stress. 

Response: We agree and added the 

references and citations to the 

discussion on responses to changing sea 

ice conditions. 

54. The population estimate for the 

SBS stock is nearly 8 years old. If no 

new estimates are available in 2018, the 

Service should revise the SAR and 

indicate that the population estimate is 

unknown. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

concern raised by the comment; 

however, we believe the population 

estimate of 900 animals reflects the best 

scientific information available for this 

SAR. In addition, because of possible 

negative biases, this population estimate 

is based on a cautious interpretation of 

trends and estimates and, therefore, we 

are reasonably assured that the SBS 

stock includes at least 900 bears. We 

will continue to review, on an annual 

basis, the status of this SAR to 

determine whether a revision is 

warranted. 

55. Details on the distribution of 

terrestrial den sites (e.g., which barrier 

islands, how many sites, etc.) should be 

provided in tables and/or figures rather 

than abstracted statements like 

‘‘Currently, the primary terrestrial 

denning areas for the SBS stock in 

Alaska occur on the barrier islands from 

Barrow to Kaktovik, and along coastal 

areas up to 25 miles inland, including 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 

Peard Bay, west of Barrow.’’ 

Response: It is not possible to give a 

specific description of where all dens of 

the stock are distributed given that not 

every single adult female in the 

population has a GPS collar. As written, 

the existing descriptions cover the 

known distribution of polar bear dens. 

Sufficient denning habitat exists across 

the North Slope, so depending on snow 

cover in any given year, which is itself 

variable, anywhere within the described 

area could be used for denning. 

56. There should be discussion in the 

first paragraph about the relevant 

management authority for the SBS 

stock, specifically add 1–2 sentences 

about the I–I Polar Bear Commission 

that manages the quota for the taking of 

polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. 

Response: We determined that the 

SAR adequately informs the reader of 

this voluntary quota as written. 

57. On page 6, it should be 

emphasized that population estimates 

have been difficult to obtain because the 

fieldwork does not correspond to the 

stock boundaries. 

Response: We determined that the 

SAR adequately describes challenges 

associated with population estimates. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Notices 33343 

58. Although information is presented 

from Bromaghin et al. (2015), more data 

on the SBS population have been 

collected that are not presented in the 

SAR. Those data represent the best 

available science/information and, 

therefore, that information should be 

presented. 

Response: Those data represent raw 

data that had not yet been analyzed at 

the time this SAR was developed and, 

in their state, they provided no 

additional information on the 

population’s size. 

59. The sentences on page 9 about 

harvest seem to conflict given their 

overlap in time. 

Response: We are unaware of a 

conflict in the material as presented. 

60. On page 9, in the first paragraph, 

it is unclear how reports from Russian 

scientists pertain to SBS polar bears. 

Explanation needed. 

Response: We agree and removed 

reference to Russian scientists and 

residents of coastal Russia from the 

document. 

61. On page 10, top paragraph, the 

phrase ‘‘Based on all available data 

. . .’’ is not accurate. Data were 

collected through 2015, and thus data 

should have been available from 2010 to 

2014 to the PBSG. This sentence should 

be revised. 

Response: The statement is accurate 

as written. The PBSG made their 

determination based on the available 

analyses on the population. While 

additional data have been collected on 

the SBS stock by the USGS, they had 

not yet been analyzed at the time the 

SAR was developed and were therefore 

unavailable for the PBSG to consider. 

62. On page 15, the statement ‘‘Polar 

bears are adapted to life in a sea ice 

environment’’ is somewhat misleading. 

The southern populations of polar bears, 

such as those in Hudson Bay, Labrador, 

and the Bering Sea, use sea ice only 

when available, and turn to alternate 

terrestrial habitat in summer. A more 

factually correct statement might read, 

‘‘Polar bears are adapted to life on sea 

ice but show significant temporal use of 

terrestrial habitats as well.’’ 

Response: We disagree. A primary 

factor that separates grizzly bears and 

polar bears is the adaptation of polar 

bears to life on sea ice. While it is true 

that polar bears come on land when sea 

ice is unavailable, if they were to stay 

on land indefinitely, they would not 

survive because they require seals 

hunted on sea ice to survive. 

63. On page 18 there is an assertion, 

‘‘Oiled polar bears are unable to 

effectively thermoregulate, and may be 

poisoned by ingestion of oil during 

grooming or eating contaminated prey 

(St. Aubin (1990)).’’ Polar bears are 

highly vulnerable to oil ingestion with 

subsequent fatality (Oritsland et al. 

(1981)). This section needs revision 

with appropriate literature sources. 

Response: We disagree as the 

appropriate and important impacts to 

polar bears are discussed in the SARs. 

We have, however, updated the 

document to cite ;ritsland et al. (1981). 

References 

In accordance with section 117(b)(1) 

of the MMPA, we include in this notice 

a list of the sources of information or 

published reports upon which we based 

the revised SARs. The Service consulted 

technical reports, conference 

proceedings, refereed journal 

publications, and scientific studies 

prepared or issued by Federal agencies, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

individuals with expertise in the fields 

of marine mammal biology and ecology, 

population dynamics, Alaska Native 

subsistence use of marine mammals, 

modeling, and commercial fishing 

technology and practices. These 

agencies and organizations include: The 

Service, the USGS, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, the 

National Park Service, the Arctic 

Institute, the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resource Conference, the 

Marine Mammals of the Holarctic V 

Conference, and the Outer Continental 

Shelf Environmental Assessment 

Program. In addition, the Service 

consulted publications such as the 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 

Conservation Biology, Marine Mammal 

Science, Ecological Applications, 

Biological Conservation, Aquatic 

Mammals, Journal of Zoology, Marine 

Mammal Science, and other refereed 

journal literature, technical reports, and 

data sources in the development of 

these SARs. A complete list of citations 

to the scientific literature relied on for 

each of the two revised SARs is 

available by visiting the Service’s 

Marine Mammals Management species 

information page at: http://

alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

reports.htm. These citations are likewise 

part of each SAR and may be viewed 

with the documents (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

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

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 15, 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. 2021–13227 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–HQ–PRB–2021–N017; 

FXGO16621010010–FF10G13300] 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

License to World Wildlife Fund 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) intends to grant to World 

Wildlife Fund, Inc., whose legal address 

is 1250 24th St. NW, Washington, DC 

20037, an exclusive license to U.S. 

Patent No. 10,478,276, ‘‘PELLET 

DELIVERY MECHANISM,’’ filed August 

11, 2017, and U.S. Patent No. 

10,881,493, ‘‘PELLET DELIVERY 

MECHANISM,’’ filed November 19, 

2019. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Jim 

Weiner, Assistant Solicitor, Branch of 

Acquisition and Intellectual Property, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, via 

email to JIM.WEINER@sol.doi.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krista Bibb, FWS Patent Liaison, by 

telephone at 703–358–1914 or email at 

krista_bibb@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Government’s patent rights in 

these inventions are assigned to the 

Government of the United States of 

America, as represented by the 

Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. It is in the public 

interest to license this invention to 

World Wildlife Fund, Inc., who has 

submitted a satisfactory marketing plan 

as co-owner of the patents. The 

prospective exclusive license will be 

royalty bearing, and will comply with 

the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 

209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES