Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Reports, 22154-22159 [2014-08942]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22154
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during
the comment period and will address
them accordingly.
Viewing comments and documents:
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Search’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2014–
0207’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. You may also visit the DMF in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received in dockets
by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Information Collection Request
1. Title: Alternation of unreasonably
Obstructive Bridges.
Omb Control Number: 1625–0073.
Summary: The collection of
information is a request to determine if
the bridge is unreasonably obstructive to
navigation.
Need: 33 U.S.C. 494, 502, 511, 513,
514, 515, 516, 517, 521, 522, 523, and
524 authorize the Coast Guard to
remove or alter the bridges and
causeways that go over navigable waters
of the United States and deemed to be
unreasonably obstructive.
Forms: None.
Respondents: Public and private
owners of bridges over navigable waters
of the United States.
Frequency: On occasion.
Burden Estimate: The estimated
burden remains unchanged at 240 hours
a year due.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as
amended.
Dated: April 14, 2014.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and
Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014–08920 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2012–0019;
FF07CAMM00–FXFR13370700000M7]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock
Assessment Reports
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final
reports; response to comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce that we have revised our
stock assessment report (SAR) for the
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) stock and for each of the
following northern sea otter (Enhydra
lutris kenyoni) stocks in Alaska:
Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast.
We now make these four final revised
SARs available to the public.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You
may view the revised SARs at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R7–ES–2012–0019. You may also
view them in Adobe Acrobat format by
navigating to the species information
page at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/
mmm/reports.htm. Alternatively, you
may contact the Chief, Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–341,
Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: (907)
786–3800.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles S. Hamilton, Marine Mammals
Management Office, (800) 362–5148
(telephone). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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, possession, transportation,
purchasing, selling, offering for sale,
exporting, and importing 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,
maximum net productivity rate, and
current population trend;
3. An estimate of human-caused
mortality and serious injury;
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 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.
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)).
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
The Pacific walrus SAR was last
revised in December of 2009. In the final
2009 revised SAR, we classified the
Pacific walrus as a strategic stock
because the total human-caused
mortality or removals exceeded PBR.
Therefore, the Service has reviewed the
stock assessment for the Pacific walrus
annually and, in 2010, concluded that
revision of the SAR was not warranted
at that time because the status of the
stock had not changed significantly and
could not be more accurately
determined. Stock assessment reports
for the Southwest, Southcentral, and
Southeast stocks of northern sea otters
were last revised in August of 2008. The
Southwest stock of northern sea otter
qualifies as a strategic stock due to its
listing as a threatened species under the
ESA; therefore, the Service has reviewed
the SAR for the Southwest stock
annually and, in 2009 and 2010,
concluded both times that revision of
the SAR was not warranted because the
status of the stock had not changed and
could not be more accurately
determined. Although the Southcentral
and Southeast stocks of northern sea
otter are considered non-strategic, the
Service also reviewed these SARs in
2009 and 2010 due to the availability of
significant new information. During
both these reviews, the Service
determined that revision of the SARs for
the Southcentral and Southeast stocks of
northern sea otter was not warranted.
However, upon review of significant
new information on all four stocks
available in 2011, the Service
determined that revisions was
warranted for the Pacific walrus stock,
as well as the Southwest, the
Southcentral, and the Southeast
northern sea otter stocks; the Service
has consulted with the Alaska Regional
22155
Scientific Review Group concerning
these revisions.
In an April 18, 2013 (78 FR 23284)
Federal Register notice, we made our
draft SARs available for the MMPArequired 90-day public review and
comment period. Following the close of
the comment period, we revised the
SARs based on public comments we
received (see Response to Public
Comments) and prepared the final
revised SARs.
The following table summarizes the
information we are now making
available in the final revised SARs for
the Pacific walrus and the Southwest,
Southcentral and Southeast stocks of the
northern sea otter, which lists the
stocks’ Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual
estimated human-caused mortality and
serious injury, and status.
FINAL REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR THE PACIFIC WALRUS, AND SOUTHWEST, SOUTHCENTRAL, AND
SOUTHEAST STOCKS OF THE NORTHERN SEA OTTER
Stock
Nmin
Rmax
Fr
Annual estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury
(5-year average)
PBR
Fishery/Other
Pacific Walrus ............................................
Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Stock .......
Northern Sea Otter, Southcentral Stock ...
Northern Sea Otter, Southeast Stock .......
129,000
45,064
14,661
21,798
Response to Public Comments
We received five submissions on the
draft SARs (78 FR 23284). Commenters
included the Marine Mammal
Commission (MMC), the North Slope
Borough, nongovernmental
organizations, and a concerned citizen.
We present substantive issues raised in
those comments that are pertinent to the
SARs, along with our responses, below.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
General Public Comments That Apply to
All of the SARS
Comment 1: The Service has not
demonstrated that it met the statutory
requirement that stock assessments be
reviewed at least annually for strategic
stocks.
Our Response: As required by section
117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the Service
annually reviews existing SARs for
those stocks that are specified as
strategic. If this review indicates that the
status of that stock has changed or can
be more accurately determined, the
Service revises the SAR in accordance
with section 117(b); such revisions are
subject to public notice in the Federal
Register and public comment. However,
if, based on the Service’s review, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
0.08
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.5
0.1
1.0
1.0
2,580
450
1,466
2,179
Subsistence
21 .......................
<10 .....................
1 .........................
Unknown ............
4,852 ..................
76 .......................
293 .....................
447 .....................
agency concludes that the status of the
stock has not changed or cannot be more
accurately determined and revision is
not warranted, section 117(c) does not
require public notice and comment on
the results of that review. In view of
this, we acknowledge the public may
not be aware of the results of the
Service’s review of stock assessments.
Therefore, although not required under
the MMPA, in the future we will update
our Web page at https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/stock/stock.htm to
inform the public of the results of our
review of stock assessments for Pacific
walruses, the three stocks of northern
sea otters, as well as polar bears (Ursus
maritimus).
Comment 2: The Service should
estimate total annual human-caused
mortality and serious injury and provide
a clear statement describing that
estimate in every stock assessment
report.
Our Response: Each of the SARs
provides a section on annual humancaused mortality and serious injuries,
which includes information the Service
uses to make that estimate for each
stock, as reported in the summary table
above, i.e., Final Revised Stock
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Stock status
Strategic.
Strategic.
Non-strategic.
Non-strategic.
Assessment Reports for the Pacific
Walrus, and Southwest, Southcentral,
and Southeast Stocks of the Northern
Sea Otter. We base our estimate of
annual human-caused mortalities and
serious injuries on the best information
that is available to us. The Service also
estimates other factors that are
suspected to be the cause of a decline
or an impediment to recovery for
strategic stocks.
Comment 3: The Service should
collaborate with the NMFS to assess
human effects more completely by: (1)
Developing a framework for describing
the full effects, both direct and indirect,
of all human activities that may cause
serious injury or mortality of marine
mammals; and (2) incorporating that
framework into stock assessment
reports.
Our Response: The Service
acknowledges the importance of
collaboration and works with NMFS to
the extent we are able in addressing
management and conservation issues for
marine mammal species. Although
developing standardized frameworks
can be helpful, the species managed by
the two agencies have very diverse
needs and often face different
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
22156
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
challenges. For example, the types of
human-caused mortalities with the most
impact to sea otters in Alaska are unlike
those with the most impact to cetaceans
or even pinnipeds. Therefore, it is not
always the best use of limited resources
to invest in collaboration if the end
result cannot be applied by both
agencies. In addition, the resources
available to the agencies are not always
balanced in a particular area; each
agency must prioritize its resources to
address a myriad of challenges specific
to that agency. Nonetheless, the Service
will continue to work with NMFS to
address general issues of similar nature.
Comment 4: The Service should
include a statement about the status of
each stock relative to its OSP in each of
its stock assessment reports.
Our Response: Section 117(a)(5) of the
MMPA directs the Service to categorize
the status of the stock as one that either:
(a) 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 (b) is a strategic stock.
The Pacific walrus is categorized as a
strategic stock because the level of
direct human-caused mortality exceeds
the PBR. The Southwest northern sea
otter stock is also categorized as a
strategic stock due to its listing as a
threatened species under the ESA. The
Southcentral and Southeast stocks of
northern sea otter are both considered
non-strategic because the level of direct
human-caused mortality and serious
injury does not exceed the PBR in either
stock nor is either near the level of
human-caused mortality that would
likely exceed PBR. In addition, although
the Service does not currently know the
OSP for these two stocks, based on the
known population levels and our
estimate of growth and considering the
known level of human-caused mortality,
we have determined that these stocks
are increasing and that human-caused
mortality and serious injury is not likely
to cause the stocks to be reduced or to
decrease their growth rates. Therefore,
we would not expect the current level
of human-caused mortality and serious
injury to cause these stocks to be
reduced below their plausible OSP. We
have included this information in these
two SARs
Comments on the Southeast Alaska
Northern Sea Otter Stock
Comment 5: The data used in the SAR
does not have adequate reference to
published literature; therefore, the
Service should assure publication of
abundance estimates in formal and
publically available literature.
Our Response: The Service uses the
best scientific information available,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
which sometimes includes information
that has not yet been published in the
scientific literature. All literature,
including unpublished reports, is
available from the Service (or other
office as identified) upon request.
Comment 6: The Service should work
with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) to place observers on
the unobserved gillnet fisheries and to
attempt an estimation of entanglement
rates in trap/pot gear.
Our Response: The Service recognizes
that a fisheries observer program is a
beneficial tool to quantify marine
mammal and fisheries interactions.
However, we note that current
information indicates there are minimal
impacts to sea otter populations from
this fishery. In light of this and our
limited resources, we have not pursued
such a program for Service trust species.
Comment 7: There is no discussion of
illegal harvest, though illegal hunting
and trading have been prosecuted by the
Service in a number of years; therefore,
the Service should add to its SARs the
annual number of animals that are
known to have been illegally killed,
whether by harvesters or unknown
sources.
Our Response: The Service agrees,
and information on illegal and
unreported harvest has been added to
the SARs. For example, between 2008
and 2012, a total of 145 sea otter pelts
across all stocks were recovered by the
Service’s Law Enforcement Division for
various violations of the MMPA. We
have also added information about boat
strikes.
Comment 8: The Service should
revise its estimates of the minimum
population estimate and potential
biological removal (PBR) levels for sea
otters using data only from surveys less
than 8 years old, as recommended in the
report entitled, ‘‘Revisions to Guidelines
for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks’’
(GAMMS II).
Our Response: While the Service was
involved in the GAMMS workshops
(NMFS 2005, Moore and Merrick 2011),
the GAMMS guidelines are not
currently considered Service policy.
Consistent with MMPA Section 117,
however, the Service uses the best
scientific information available.
Comment 9: The Service should: (1)
Develop strategic plans and conduct the
surveys necessary to provide precise
and accurate abundance estimates for all
three Alaska sea otter stocks; and (2) use
that information in its management of
those stocks and assessments of risk
factors affecting them.
Our Response: In 2005, the Service,
the Alaska SeaLife Center, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) developed a
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
strategic plan to conduct sea otter
surveys in Alaska (‘‘A Population
Monitoring Plan for Sea Otters in
Alaska,’’ July 1, 2005), which is
available upon request. However, due to
budgetary constraints the Service has
been unable to fully implement the
plan.
Comment 10: The Service should
revise the distribution and stock
boundary maps of each sea otter stock
to provide more detailed, stock-specific
information, including the track lines of
surveys conducted in the last 8 years.
Our Response: Inclusion of track lines
from surveys is beyond the scope of the
SARs. This information is available in
other published and unpublished
literature; it is also available from the
Service on request.
Comment 11: The Service should
review available information on stock
structure of northern sea otters to
determine if there are more than three
sea otter stocks in Alaska.
Our Response: Subject to available
funds, the Service plans to pursue
genetics work to examine stock
structure of northern sea otters. If the
study is completed, the Service will
evaluate the results and determine their
application.
Comments on the Southcentral Alaska
Stock
See Comments 5 and 11 for the
Southeast Alaska Northern Sea Otter
Stock above.
Comments on the Southwest Alaska
Stock
Comment 12: There is apparently no
finalized recovery plan in place despite
publication of a draft in 2010.
Our Response: The Southwest Alaska
Distinct Population Segment of the
Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris
kenyoni) Recovery Plan was finalized in
August 2013 and is available on our
Web site: https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/seaotters/recovery.htm.
Comment 13: Without new
information, the Service has not
adequately explained how it has
reached its conclusion regarding the
status of the stock and should therefore
revise this language to provide a lesser
degree of certitude regarding stock
trends.
Our Response: The text in the SAR for
the Southwest Alaska stock has been
revised to better explain the source of
the new information about trends in
abundance for this stock and our
conclusion that declining population
trends have stabilized at low levels.
Comment 14: The Service’s
conclusion that the decline has halted
and the growth rate has stabilized at
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
zero is not consistent with GAMMS
guidelines that recommend estimates
more than 8 years in age must be
considered inaccurate and should be
precautionarily reduced.
Our Response: The Service’s
conclusion that population trends have
stabilized in the western Aleutian
Islands over the last 5 to 8 years is based
on the best scientific information
available, which is available in the
document ‘‘Southwest Alaska DPS of
the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris
kenyoni) 5-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation,’’ available at: https://
alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
seaotters/recovery.htm. In addition, as
previously mentioned in response to
comment 8, the GAMMS guidelines are
not Service policy.
Comment 15: The Service should
better address the potential for harvest
to affect the overall trend in abundance
of this stock, which is listed as
threatened under the ESA.
Our Response: Harvest data for the
Southwest Alaska stock of sea otters
indicate that subsistence harvest
continues to be variable and generally
low. The current level of subsistence
harvest is not excessive in relation to
the population size, and the Service
does not consider subsistence harvest to
be a population-regulating factor. The
Service recognizes that some sea otter
harvest may not be reported, and that
some unlawful take may have occurred
and may occur in the future. However,
the Service’s Marking, Tagging, and
Reporting Program (MTRP) provides the
best information available on
subsistence harvest levels.
Comment 16: There needs to be better
tracking/monitoring of harvest levels.
Our Response: The Service’s MTRP
provides the best information available
on harvest levels.
Comment 17: Actions by the Service
to clarify the meaning of terms
associated with the production of sea
otter handicrafts, coupled with
increased concerns on the part of
commercial fisheries in southeast
Alaska, will likely increase the harvest
and may incentivize illegal take of otters
in the adjacent and/or listed western
stock.
Our Response: This issue is beyond
the scope of these SARs.
Comments on the Pacific Walrus SAR
Comment 18: The Service should
continue its efforts with the USGS to
collaborate with Alaska Native
communities to monitor the abundance
and distribution of walruses, and to
make full use of animals taken for
subsistence and handicraft purposes to
obtain data on demography, ecology, life
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
history, behavior, health status, and
other pertinent topics.
Our Response: Subject to available
funds, we plan to continue these
valuable efforts. The USGS and Alaska
Natives are key partners in Pacific
walrus management, conservation, and
research. A good example of the
effectiveness of our partnerships was
the recently completed research cruise
where the Service, USGS, and Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)
were able to pool resources to initiate a
population estimate study, conduct age
and sex composition counts, and attach
satellite tags to 34 animals. Two Alaska
Native walrus hunters from Gambell
and Savoonga were part of the sampling
crew and their expertise in walrus
behavior, navigating small boats in icecovered seas, and weather patterns was
instrumental in the success of that field
effort.
Comment 19: The Service should
work with the NMFS to generate a
range-wide abundance estimate for
Pacific walruses using data from the
NMFS’s recent and ongoing ice seal
aerial surveys.
Our Response: We have had
discussions with NMFS about the
applicability of their ice seal surveys to
estimate walrus abundance. The NMFS
surveys were developed for ice seals,
not walruses and would likely not
provide a good estimate of walrus
numbers due to use of different ice
habitats by the species, differences in
the distribution of walruses and the
seals, and the arrangement of the
transects. However, we plan to take a
closer look at this data as it is available.
Comment 20: The Service should
begin a status review under 16 U.S.C.
1383b(a) to determine whether the stock
may warrant designation as ‘‘depleted,’’
and whether rulemaking pursuant to 16
U.S.C. 1371b is warranted.
Our Response: Due to resource
constraints, the Service does not intend
to initiate an MMPA status review for
the Pacific walrus at this time. In
addition, the Service also notes that it
annually evaluates the status of the
species under the ESA through the
Candidate Notice of Review Program.
Pursuant to a court-ordered settlement
agreement, the Service is required to
either issue a proposal for listing the
Pacific walrus under the ESA or remove
it as a candidate for listing by 2017. In
the event that the Pacific walrus is listed
as an endangered or threatened species,
it would also be considered to be a
depleted stock under the MMPA by
virtue of the ESA listing.
Comment 21: The Service should
revise its threats analysis for ocean
acidification to include scientific
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22157
studies showing that the Bering and
Chukchi Seas are hotspots for ocean
acidification, and that a dominant
walrus prey group, bivalve mollusks, is
one of the most sensitive marine taxa to
the negative effects of ocean
acidification.
Our Response: The Service recognizes
ocean acidification as an emerging
conservation issue. We considered
studies showing potential impacts to
bivalve mollusks in the Bering and
Chukchi Seas. As we explained,
walruses have the potential to switch to
other prey items although we
acknowledged that the general
indications are that impacts appear
more likely to be negative than positive
or neutral (76 FR 7634; February 10,
2011). We will continue to monitor the
potential impacts to Pacific walrus of
ocean acidification in the future.
Comment 22: The Service should
expand and update its analysis of the
loss, thinning, and shorter duration of
sea ice, which poses the primary threat
to the Pacific walrus.
Our Response: In the SAR discussions
concerning sea ice, we relied on a USGS
ice modeling study specific to the
Bering and Chukchi Seas (Douglas 2010)
to assess this threat to the Pacific
walrus. Since then, other modeling
efforts (Kay et al. 2011, Maslowski et al.
2012, Overland and Wang 2013) suggest
that ice loss could be more extensive
and occur faster than the averages
predicted by the USGS study, but those
newer estimates are within the range of
forecasts made in the USGS study. In
addition, observations of ice loss are
exceeding average model forecasts, but
again are still within the range of model
forecasts. Additionally, factors or threats
that may or may not contribute to the
species’ risk of extinction are annually
evaluated under the ESA through the
Candidate Notice of Review Program/resubmitted petition process.
Comment 23: The Service should
place more emphasis on the possible
effects of climate change on walruses
relative to subsistence hunting.
Our Response: Rather than address
potential long-term effects of various
threats, SARs address current
information on the current status of
marine mammal stocks. Additional
information about the potential longterm effects of climate change on
walruses is found in the 2011 ESA
status review, the 2011 determination
that listing the Pacific walrus as
threatened or endangered on the ESA is
warranted, and the subsequent annual
candidate species reviews.
Comment 24: The Service should
work with the USGS and comanagement partners, including the
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22158
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
North Slope Borough, to quickly and
appropriately develop a method for
monitoring the population size and
trend of Pacific walruses.
Our Response: We are currently
working with USGS, the Eskimo Walrus
Commission (EWC), Alaska Native
walrus hunters, Russian Native walrus
hunters, and Russian biologists to
develop and test a genetic markrecapture method to estimate Pacific
walrus population size and trend.
Comment 25: The statement that the
‘‘lack of harvest quotas in the United
States beginning in 1979 and reduced
productivity levels resulted in another
population decline and the population
is once again limited primarily by
subsistence harvest’’ does not fit with
previous paragraphs where the Service
states that information is lacking on
population size and trend. The SAR
should be changed or a reference added
to support the idea that subsistence
harvest, not other factors, is limiting
walrus populations.
Our Response: We have modified this
sentence in the SAR to indicate that the
population is ‘‘likely’’ limited primarily
by subsistence harvest, ‘‘although other
factors such as haulout mortalities may
also be important.’’ Population trend
and the prevalence of a limiting factor
are not necessarily related; that is, a
limiting factor may not be strong enough
at any point in time to affect population
trend. Population growth is nearly
always limited by some factor even
when the trend is positive and the
population is increasing; populations
rarely grow at their maximum rate due
to accidents, disease, harvest, etc. Given
that harvests are over 4,000 animals
range-wide annually, observed fisheries
mortalities in the United States are 0–
3 animals per year, observed carcasses
on the beach or in the water in the
United States number fewer than 100
per year, evidence of disease and
contaminants is rare, and coastal
haulout mortalities range-wide have
declined to fewer than 1,000 per year
after 2007, it is reasonable to conclude
that the subsistence harvest is the
primary limiting factor.
Comment 26: One commenter
questioned whether the Service’s
proposed genetic mark-recapture
approach was the best approach for
obtaining information on population
status and trends.
Our Response: This issue is beyond
the scope of the SAR.
Comment 27: One commenter
questioned the Service’s position that
subsistence harvest limited the walrus
population in light of the fact that
harvest levels since 2006 are 5 to 68
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
percent lower than this long-term
average.
Our Response: Trends in harvest
numbers are not indicative of whether
the harvest is a primary limiting factor
or not. See our response to comment 25.
Comment 28: The Service adjusts
harvest estimates by 42 percent to
account for struck and lost animals. It is
not clear, however, how the Service
deals with walruses that are struck and
lost and later retrieved; for example,
hunters who find a carcass and remove
the head but, do not salvage any meat
because it is spoiled, would most likely
have the tusks marked.
Our Response: The 42 percent struck
and lost correction is applied only to
animals that are identified as those
harvested, not beach cast or otherwise
recovered dead walruses. Therefore,
such corrections are not included for
tusks obtained from beach cast animals.
Comment 29: The caption for the
harvest table mentions that levels are
adjusted for unreported walruses using
a mark-recapture method. One
commenter requested additional
information about the method.
Our Response: In general, tusks are
given a unique mark by the Service
when hunters return to the beach from
a hunting trip and that mark is
accounted for and removed when the
tusks are subsequently submitted to the
Service for permanent tagging by the
hunter. The Service then compares the
number of unique marks placed on
tusks with the number of those marks
‘‘recaptured’’ when the tusks are
permanently tagged. The tusk markrecapture project is limited to the Native
Villages of Gambell and Savoonga. The
adjustment is for the U.S. harvest only,
as Russia does not have a tusk tagging
requirement. Further details on how
harvest levels are estimated can be
found in the 2011 status review.
Comment 30: One commenter asked
how the Service proposes to use
population numbers or trends in order
to reduce the harvest without
information about population size or
trend.
Our Response: The Service is
exploring new methods to obtain
accurate information on walrus
population numbers and trends. In the
interim, there are a number of
population indicators such as calf to
cow ratios, age/sex composition counts,
estimates of body condition,
observations of Alaska Native hunters,
expert opinion, Aerial Surveys of Arctic
Marine Mammals results, haulout
counts, and population modeling, to
make an assessment of population
status. We believe that such a weight of
evidence approach in consultation and
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
collaboration with our co-managers will
provide information useful in making
harvest prescriptions, if needed.
Comment 31: One commenter pointed
out that, although the SARs state that
several fisheries overlap with walrus
distribution and, therefore, could
interact with walruses, we provide
information for only one fishery.
Additional information is needed about
the other fisheries that could interact
with walruses and to support the
implied conclusion that only one
fishery may be a problem for walruses.
Our Response: For Federal waters, the
Service receives information on
interactions between fisheries and
marine mammals from NMFS on an
annual basis. That information includes
all the fisheries within the range of the
Pacific walrus in Federal waters. The
fishery listed in the SAR is the only one
that has ever reported walrus
interactions. However, as noted,
observer coverage varies with the
fishery; the budget for the observer
program is such that coverage has to be
rotated among the various Federal
fisheries. There may be fisheries in State
waters that could interact with
walruses, but we are not aware of any
issues. Observer coverage is not
required for salmon and herring
fisheries; while observer coverage is 100
percent for State-managed shellfish and
scallop fisheries, no interactions with
walruses have been observed.
Comment 32: One commenter points
out an apparent contradiction between
the statements that no mortalities or
serious injuries were directly associated
with research activities and a
subsequent statement that one calf died
during the research activities.
Our Response: Information about
research-related mortality was updated
in the final SAR as it became available.
The sentence that there were no
mortalities referred to the research
activities of affixing satellite
transmitters and collecting skin and
blubber samples, while the subsequent
sentence referred to a calf mortality that
occurred when a boat ferrying
researchers passed by a walrus haulout.
Comment 33: One commenter
suggested that we include information
about captured orphaned walruses in
the United States.
Our Response: We agree; the SAR has
been updated to reflect the recovery of
stranded animals.
Comment 34: One commenter asked
for additional information about
mortality estimates at haulouts, and
questioned why the mortality estimates
were not specific (i.e., 187 versus less
than 200).
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Our Response: The mortality
estimates at haulouts provided in the
SAR are rough estimates because they
are based on a combination of biologist
and Alaska Native hunter’s observations
and counts. We have provided clarifying
text to the SAR to reflect the source and
nature of this information.
Comment 35: One commenter
suggested that the SAR be modified to
reflect the level of industrial activity
near Hanna Shoal.
Our Response: From 2006 to 2013,
two to three operators have conducted
activities in the Chukchi Sea annually,
but not always near Hanna Shoal.
Activities have included mainly
geotechnical and environmental studies,
but also 2D and 3D seismic activities,
and one drilling operation. We
anticipate that the level of activity in the
foreseeable future near Hanna Shoal
will remain the same as that which we
have seen in the past 8 years.
Comment 36: One commenter
recommended that the Service update
information about the amount of
tonnage of cargo, including oil products,
moving through Russian waters, as the
traffic there far exceeds that in U.S.
waters.
Our Response: The information
presented was the most current on the
number of transits at the time the draft
SAR was completed. We currently do
not have information on the tonnage of
cargo moving through Russian and U.S.
waters, but will seek a source for this
type of information in the future.
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,
nongovernmental 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 U.S. Geological
Survey, 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, the Aleutian Islands Risk
Assessment Management Team, the
Exxon Valdez Restoration Project, and
the Outer Continental Shelf
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:19 Apr 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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, and
Journal of Zoology, as well as 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 four revised SARs is available on the
Federal eRulemaking portal (https://
www.regulations.gov) under Docket No.
FWS–R7–ES–2012–0019. The list can
also be viewed in Adobe Acrobat format
at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/
reports.htm.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).
Dated: April 7, 2014.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–08942 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNMF01000 L13110000.PP0000
14XL1109PF]
Notice of Public Meeting, Farmington
District Resource Advisory Council
Meeting, New Mexico
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, the Bureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) Farmington
District Resource Advisory Council
(RAC) will meet as indicated below.
DATES: The RAC will meet on May 28,
2014, at the Taos Field Office, 226 Cruz
Alta Road, Taos New Mexico from 9
a.m.–4 p.m. On May 29, 2014, there will
be a field trip in Taos, New Mexico,
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; it is open
to the public. The RAC will meet at 8:15
a.m. on May 29, 2014, at the Taos Field
Office, 226 Cruz Alta Road. The BLM
will not provide transportation for the
field trip. The public may send written
comments to the RAC at the BLM
Farmington District Office, 6251 College
Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, New Mexico
87402.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22159
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Horton, BLM Farmington
District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite
A, Farmington, NM 87402, 505–564–
7633. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229
to contact the above individual during
normal business hours. The FIRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
to leave a message or question with the
above individual. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 10member Farmington District RAC
advises the Secretary of the Interior,
through the BLM, on a variety of
planning and management issues
associated with public land
management in the BLM’s Farmington
District. Planned agenda items include:
Opening remarks from the BLM
Farmington District Manager; updates
on ongoing planning efforts in the
Farmington Field Office; an update on
the Mancos/Gallup Shale Resource
Management Plan Amendment; the
RAC’s recommendations on the wild
horse and burro management plan; and
Taos Field Office planning updates
´
(including the Rıo Grande del Norte
National Monument Management Plan).
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 3
p.m., members of the public will have
the opportunity to make comments to
the RAC, during a half-hour public
comment period. All RAC meetings are
open to the public. Persons wishing to
make comments during the public
comment period should register in
person with the BLM by 2 p.m. on May
28, 2014, at the meeting location.
Depending on the number of
commenters, the length of comments
may be limited; this time may vary. The
BLM appreciates all comments.
Michael H. Tupper,
Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2014–08981 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request;
Application for Alien Employment
Certification
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of Labor
(DOL) is submitting the Employment
and Training Administration (ETA)
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM
21APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22154-22159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08942]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0019; FF07CAMM00-FXFR13370700000M7]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Reports
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final reports; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce that we have revised our stock assessment report (SAR) for the
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) stock and for each of the
following northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) stocks in Alaska:
Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast. We now make these four final
revised SARs available to the public.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You may view the revised SARs at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0019. You
may also view them in Adobe Acrobat format by navigating to the species
information page at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/reports.htm.
Alternatively, you may contact the Chief, Marine Mammals Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-341,
Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: (907) 786-3800.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles S. Hamilton, Marine Mammals
Management Office, (800) 362-5148 (telephone). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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, possession, transportation, purchasing,
selling, offering for sale, exporting, and importing 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, maximum net productivity rate,
and current population trend;
3. An estimate of human-caused mortality and serious injury;
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 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.
A strategic stock is defined in the MMPA as a marine mammal stock
``(a) for which the level of direct human-caused 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)).
[[Page 22155]]
The Pacific walrus SAR was last revised in December of 2009. In the
final 2009 revised SAR, we classified the Pacific walrus as a strategic
stock because the total human-caused mortality or removals exceeded
PBR. Therefore, the Service has reviewed the stock assessment for the
Pacific walrus annually and, in 2010, concluded that revision of the
SAR was not warranted at that time because the status of the stock had
not changed significantly and could not be more accurately determined.
Stock assessment reports for the Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast
stocks of northern sea otters were last revised in August of 2008. The
Southwest stock of northern sea otter qualifies as a strategic stock
due to its listing as a threatened species under the ESA; therefore,
the Service has reviewed the SAR for the Southwest stock annually and,
in 2009 and 2010, concluded both times that revision of the SAR was not
warranted because the status of the stock had not changed and could not
be more accurately determined. Although the Southcentral and Southeast
stocks of northern sea otter are considered non-strategic, the Service
also reviewed these SARs in 2009 and 2010 due to the availability of
significant new information. During both these reviews, the Service
determined that revision of the SARs for the Southcentral and Southeast
stocks of northern sea otter was not warranted. However, upon review of
significant new information on all four stocks available in 2011, the
Service determined that revisions was warranted for the Pacific walrus
stock, as well as the Southwest, the Southcentral, and the Southeast
northern sea otter stocks; the Service has consulted with the Alaska
Regional Scientific Review Group concerning these revisions.
In an April 18, 2013 (78 FR 23284) Federal Register notice, we made
our draft SARs available for the MMPA-required 90-day public review and
comment period. Following the close of the comment period, we revised
the SARs based on public comments we received (see Response to Public
Comments) and prepared the final revised SARs.
The following table summarizes the information we are now making
available in the final revised SARs for the Pacific walrus and the
Southwest, Southcentral and Southeast stocks of the northern sea otter,
which lists the stocks' Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated human-
caused mortality and serious injury, and status.
Final Revised Stock Assessment Reports for the Pacific Walrus, and Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Stocks of the Northern Sea Otter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual estimated human-caused mortality and serious
injury (5-year average)
Stock Nmin Rmax Fr PBR ------------------------------------------------------ Stock status
Fishery/Other Subsistence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Walrus................... 129,000 0.08 0.5 2,580 21....................... 4,852.................... Strategic.
Northern Sea Otter, Southwest 45,064 0.20 0.1 450 <10...................... 76....................... Strategic.
Stock.
Northern Sea Otter, Southcentral 14,661 0.20 1.0 1,466 1........................ 293...................... Non-strategic.
Stock.
Northern Sea Otter, Southeast 21,798 0.20 1.0 2,179 Unknown.................. 447...................... Non-strategic.
Stock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Public Comments
We received five submissions on the draft SARs (78 FR 23284).
Commenters included the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the North Slope
Borough, nongovernmental organizations, and a concerned citizen. We
present substantive issues raised in those comments that are pertinent
to the SARs, along with our responses, below.
General Public Comments That Apply to All of the SARS
Comment 1: The Service has not demonstrated that it met the
statutory requirement that stock assessments be reviewed at least
annually for strategic stocks.
Our Response: As required by section 117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the
Service annually reviews existing SARs for those stocks that are
specified as strategic. If this review indicates that the status of
that stock has changed or can be more accurately determined, the
Service revises the SAR in accordance with section 117(b); such
revisions are subject to public notice in the Federal Register and
public comment. However, if, based on the Service's review, the agency
concludes that the status of the stock has not changed or cannot be
more accurately determined and revision is not warranted, section
117(c) does not require public notice and comment on the results of
that review. In view of this, we acknowledge the public may not be
aware of the results of the Service's review of stock assessments.
Therefore, although not required under the MMPA, in the future we will
update our Web page at https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/stock.htm to inform the public of the results of our review of stock
assessments for Pacific walruses, the three stocks of northern sea
otters, as well as polar bears (Ursus maritimus).
Comment 2: The Service should estimate total annual human-caused
mortality and serious injury and provide a clear statement describing
that estimate in every stock assessment report.
Our Response: Each of the SARs provides a section on annual human-
caused mortality and serious injuries, which includes information the
Service uses to make that estimate for each stock, as reported in the
summary table above, i.e., Final Revised Stock Assessment Reports for
the Pacific Walrus, and Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Stocks
of the Northern Sea Otter. We base our estimate of annual human-caused
mortalities and serious injuries on the best information that is
available to us. The Service also estimates other factors that are
suspected to be the cause of a decline or an impediment to recovery for
strategic stocks.
Comment 3: The Service should collaborate with the NMFS to assess
human effects more completely by: (1) Developing a framework for
describing the full effects, both direct and indirect, of all human
activities that may cause serious injury or mortality of marine
mammals; and (2) incorporating that framework into stock assessment
reports.
Our Response: The Service acknowledges the importance of
collaboration and works with NMFS to the extent we are able in
addressing management and conservation issues for marine mammal
species. Although developing standardized frameworks can be helpful,
the species managed by the two agencies have very diverse needs and
often face different
[[Page 22156]]
challenges. For example, the types of human-caused mortalities with the
most impact to sea otters in Alaska are unlike those with the most
impact to cetaceans or even pinnipeds. Therefore, it is not always the
best use of limited resources to invest in collaboration if the end
result cannot be applied by both agencies. In addition, the resources
available to the agencies are not always balanced in a particular area;
each agency must prioritize its resources to address a myriad of
challenges specific to that agency. Nonetheless, the Service will
continue to work with NMFS to address general issues of similar nature.
Comment 4: The Service should include a statement about the status
of each stock relative to its OSP in each of its stock assessment
reports.
Our Response: Section 117(a)(5) of the MMPA directs the Service to
categorize the status of the stock as one that either: (a) 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 (b) is a strategic
stock. The Pacific walrus is categorized as a strategic stock because
the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR. The
Southwest northern sea otter stock is also categorized as a strategic
stock due to its listing as a threatened species under the ESA. The
Southcentral and Southeast stocks of northern sea otter are both
considered non-strategic because the level of direct human-caused
mortality and serious injury does not exceed the PBR in either stock
nor is either near the level of human-caused mortality that would
likely exceed PBR. In addition, although the Service does not currently
know the OSP for these two stocks, based on the known population levels
and our estimate of growth and considering the known level of human-
caused mortality, we have determined that these stocks are increasing
and that human-caused mortality and serious injury is not likely to
cause the stocks to be reduced or to decrease their growth rates.
Therefore, we would not expect the current level of human-caused
mortality and serious injury to cause these stocks to be reduced below
their plausible OSP. We have included this information in these two
SARs
Comments on the Southeast Alaska Northern Sea Otter Stock
Comment 5: The data used in the SAR does not have adequate
reference to published literature; therefore, the Service should assure
publication of abundance estimates in formal and publically available
literature.
Our Response: The Service uses the best scientific information
available, which sometimes includes information that has not yet been
published in the scientific literature. All literature, including
unpublished reports, is available from the Service (or other office as
identified) upon request.
Comment 6: The Service should work with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to place observers on the unobserved gillnet
fisheries and to attempt an estimation of entanglement rates in trap/
pot gear.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that a fisheries observer
program is a beneficial tool to quantify marine mammal and fisheries
interactions. However, we note that current information indicates there
are minimal impacts to sea otter populations from this fishery. In
light of this and our limited resources, we have not pursued such a
program for Service trust species.
Comment 7: There is no discussion of illegal harvest, though
illegal hunting and trading have been prosecuted by the Service in a
number of years; therefore, the Service should add to its SARs the
annual number of animals that are known to have been illegally killed,
whether by harvesters or unknown sources.
Our Response: The Service agrees, and information on illegal and
unreported harvest has been added to the SARs. For example, between
2008 and 2012, a total of 145 sea otter pelts across all stocks were
recovered by the Service's Law Enforcement Division for various
violations of the MMPA. We have also added information about boat
strikes.
Comment 8: The Service should revise its estimates of the minimum
population estimate and potential biological removal (PBR) levels for
sea otters using data only from surveys less than 8 years old, as
recommended in the report entitled, ``Revisions to Guidelines for
Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks'' (GAMMS II).
Our Response: While the Service was involved in the GAMMS workshops
(NMFS 2005, Moore and Merrick 2011), the GAMMS guidelines are not
currently considered Service policy. Consistent with MMPA Section 117,
however, the Service uses the best scientific information available.
Comment 9: The Service should: (1) Develop strategic plans and
conduct the surveys necessary to provide precise and accurate abundance
estimates for all three Alaska sea otter stocks; and (2) use that
information in its management of those stocks and assessments of risk
factors affecting them.
Our Response: In 2005, the Service, the Alaska SeaLife Center, and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed a strategic plan to conduct
sea otter surveys in Alaska (``A Population Monitoring Plan for Sea
Otters in Alaska,'' July 1, 2005), which is available upon request.
However, due to budgetary constraints the Service has been unable to
fully implement the plan.
Comment 10: The Service should revise the distribution and stock
boundary maps of each sea otter stock to provide more detailed, stock-
specific information, including the track lines of surveys conducted in
the last 8 years.
Our Response: Inclusion of track lines from surveys is beyond the
scope of the SARs. This information is available in other published and
unpublished literature; it is also available from the Service on
request.
Comment 11: The Service should review available information on
stock structure of northern sea otters to determine if there are more
than three sea otter stocks in Alaska.
Our Response: Subject to available funds, the Service plans to
pursue genetics work to examine stock structure of northern sea otters.
If the study is completed, the Service will evaluate the results and
determine their application.
Comments on the Southcentral Alaska Stock
See Comments 5 and 11 for the Southeast Alaska Northern Sea Otter
Stock above.
Comments on the Southwest Alaska Stock
Comment 12: There is apparently no finalized recovery plan in place
despite publication of a draft in 2010.
Our Response: The Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of
the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Recovery Plan was
finalized in August 2013 and is available on our Web site: https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/recovery.htm.
Comment 13: Without new information, the Service has not adequately
explained how it has reached its conclusion regarding the status of the
stock and should therefore revise this language to provide a lesser
degree of certitude regarding stock trends.
Our Response: The text in the SAR for the Southwest Alaska stock
has been revised to better explain the source of the new information
about trends in abundance for this stock and our conclusion that
declining population trends have stabilized at low levels.
Comment 14: The Service's conclusion that the decline has halted
and the growth rate has stabilized at
[[Page 22157]]
zero is not consistent with GAMMS guidelines that recommend estimates
more than 8 years in age must be considered inaccurate and should be
precautionarily reduced.
Our Response: The Service's conclusion that population trends have
stabilized in the western Aleutian Islands over the last 5 to 8 years
is based on the best scientific information available, which is
available in the document ``Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern Sea
Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,''
available at: https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/recovery.htm. In addition, as previously mentioned in response to
comment 8, the GAMMS guidelines are not Service policy.
Comment 15: The Service should better address the potential for
harvest to affect the overall trend in abundance of this stock, which
is listed as threatened under the ESA.
Our Response: Harvest data for the Southwest Alaska stock of sea
otters indicate that subsistence harvest continues to be variable and
generally low. The current level of subsistence harvest is not
excessive in relation to the population size, and the Service does not
consider subsistence harvest to be a population-regulating factor. The
Service recognizes that some sea otter harvest may not be reported, and
that some unlawful take may have occurred and may occur in the future.
However, the Service's Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program (MTRP)
provides the best information available on subsistence harvest levels.
Comment 16: There needs to be better tracking/monitoring of harvest
levels.
Our Response: The Service's MTRP provides the best information
available on harvest levels.
Comment 17: Actions by the Service to clarify the meaning of terms
associated with the production of sea otter handicrafts, coupled with
increased concerns on the part of commercial fisheries in southeast
Alaska, will likely increase the harvest and may incentivize illegal
take of otters in the adjacent and/or listed western stock.
Our Response: This issue is beyond the scope of these SARs.
Comments on the Pacific Walrus SAR
Comment 18: The Service should continue its efforts with the USGS
to collaborate with Alaska Native communities to monitor the abundance
and distribution of walruses, and to make full use of animals taken for
subsistence and handicraft purposes to obtain data on demography,
ecology, life history, behavior, health status, and other pertinent
topics.
Our Response: Subject to available funds, we plan to continue these
valuable efforts. The USGS and Alaska Natives are key partners in
Pacific walrus management, conservation, and research. A good example
of the effectiveness of our partnerships was the recently completed
research cruise where the Service, USGS, and Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADFG) were able to pool resources to initiate a population
estimate study, conduct age and sex composition counts, and attach
satellite tags to 34 animals. Two Alaska Native walrus hunters from
Gambell and Savoonga were part of the sampling crew and their expertise
in walrus behavior, navigating small boats in ice-covered seas, and
weather patterns was instrumental in the success of that field effort.
Comment 19: The Service should work with the NMFS to generate a
range-wide abundance estimate for Pacific walruses using data from the
NMFS's recent and ongoing ice seal aerial surveys.
Our Response: We have had discussions with NMFS about the
applicability of their ice seal surveys to estimate walrus abundance.
The NMFS surveys were developed for ice seals, not walruses and would
likely not provide a good estimate of walrus numbers due to use of
different ice habitats by the species, differences in the distribution
of walruses and the seals, and the arrangement of the transects.
However, we plan to take a closer look at this data as it is available.
Comment 20: The Service should begin a status review under 16
U.S.C. 1383b(a) to determine whether the stock may warrant designation
as ``depleted,'' and whether rulemaking pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371b is
warranted.
Our Response: Due to resource constraints, the Service does not
intend to initiate an MMPA status review for the Pacific walrus at this
time. In addition, the Service also notes that it annually evaluates
the status of the species under the ESA through the Candidate Notice of
Review Program. Pursuant to a court-ordered settlement agreement, the
Service is required to either issue a proposal for listing the Pacific
walrus under the ESA or remove it as a candidate for listing by 2017.
In the event that the Pacific walrus is listed as an endangered or
threatened species, it would also be considered to be a depleted stock
under the MMPA by virtue of the ESA listing.
Comment 21: The Service should revise its threats analysis for
ocean acidification to include scientific studies showing that the
Bering and Chukchi Seas are hotspots for ocean acidification, and that
a dominant walrus prey group, bivalve mollusks, is one of the most
sensitive marine taxa to the negative effects of ocean acidification.
Our Response: The Service recognizes ocean acidification as an
emerging conservation issue. We considered studies showing potential
impacts to bivalve mollusks in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. As we
explained, walruses have the potential to switch to other prey items
although we acknowledged that the general indications are that impacts
appear more likely to be negative than positive or neutral (76 FR 7634;
February 10, 2011). We will continue to monitor the potential impacts
to Pacific walrus of ocean acidification in the future.
Comment 22: The Service should expand and update its analysis of
the loss, thinning, and shorter duration of sea ice, which poses the
primary threat to the Pacific walrus.
Our Response: In the SAR discussions concerning sea ice, we relied
on a USGS ice modeling study specific to the Bering and Chukchi Seas
(Douglas 2010) to assess this threat to the Pacific walrus. Since then,
other modeling efforts (Kay et al. 2011, Maslowski et al. 2012,
Overland and Wang 2013) suggest that ice loss could be more extensive
and occur faster than the averages predicted by the USGS study, but
those newer estimates are within the range of forecasts made in the
USGS study. In addition, observations of ice loss are exceeding average
model forecasts, but again are still within the range of model
forecasts. Additionally, factors or threats that may or may not
contribute to the species' risk of extinction are annually evaluated
under the ESA through the Candidate Notice of Review Program/re-
submitted petition process.
Comment 23: The Service should place more emphasis on the possible
effects of climate change on walruses relative to subsistence hunting.
Our Response: Rather than address potential long-term effects of
various threats, SARs address current information on the current status
of marine mammal stocks. Additional information about the potential
long-term effects of climate change on walruses is found in the 2011
ESA status review, the 2011 determination that listing the Pacific
walrus as threatened or endangered on the ESA is warranted, and the
subsequent annual candidate species reviews.
Comment 24: The Service should work with the USGS and co-management
partners, including the
[[Page 22158]]
North Slope Borough, to quickly and appropriately develop a method for
monitoring the population size and trend of Pacific walruses.
Our Response: We are currently working with USGS, the Eskimo Walrus
Commission (EWC), Alaska Native walrus hunters, Russian Native walrus
hunters, and Russian biologists to develop and test a genetic mark-
recapture method to estimate Pacific walrus population size and trend.
Comment 25: The statement that the ``lack of harvest quotas in the
United States beginning in 1979 and reduced productivity levels
resulted in another population decline and the population is once again
limited primarily by subsistence harvest'' does not fit with previous
paragraphs where the Service states that information is lacking on
population size and trend. The SAR should be changed or a reference
added to support the idea that subsistence harvest, not other factors,
is limiting walrus populations.
Our Response: We have modified this sentence in the SAR to indicate
that the population is ``likely'' limited primarily by subsistence
harvest, ``although other factors such as haulout mortalities may also
be important.'' Population trend and the prevalence of a limiting
factor are not necessarily related; that is, a limiting factor may not
be strong enough at any point in time to affect population trend.
Population growth is nearly always limited by some factor even when the
trend is positive and the population is increasing; populations rarely
grow at their maximum rate due to accidents, disease, harvest, etc.
Given that harvests are over 4,000 animals range-wide annually,
observed fisheries mortalities in the United States are 0-3 animals per
year, observed carcasses on the beach or in the water in the United
States number fewer than 100 per year, evidence of disease and
contaminants is rare, and coastal haulout mortalities range-wide have
declined to fewer than 1,000 per year after 2007, it is reasonable to
conclude that the subsistence harvest is the primary limiting factor.
Comment 26: One commenter questioned whether the Service's proposed
genetic mark-recapture approach was the best approach for obtaining
information on population status and trends.
Our Response: This issue is beyond the scope of the SAR.
Comment 27: One commenter questioned the Service's position that
subsistence harvest limited the walrus population in light of the fact
that harvest levels since 2006 are 5 to 68 percent lower than this
long-term average.
Our Response: Trends in harvest numbers are not indicative of
whether the harvest is a primary limiting factor or not. See our
response to comment 25.
Comment 28: The Service adjusts harvest estimates by 42 percent to
account for struck and lost animals. It is not clear, however, how the
Service deals with walruses that are struck and lost and later
retrieved; for example, hunters who find a carcass and remove the head
but, do not salvage any meat because it is spoiled, would most likely
have the tusks marked.
Our Response: The 42 percent struck and lost correction is applied
only to animals that are identified as those harvested, not beach cast
or otherwise recovered dead walruses. Therefore, such corrections are
not included for tusks obtained from beach cast animals.
Comment 29: The caption for the harvest table mentions that levels
are adjusted for unreported walruses using a mark-recapture method. One
commenter requested additional information about the method.
Our Response: In general, tusks are given a unique mark by the
Service when hunters return to the beach from a hunting trip and that
mark is accounted for and removed when the tusks are subsequently
submitted to the Service for permanent tagging by the hunter. The
Service then compares the number of unique marks placed on tusks with
the number of those marks ``recaptured'' when the tusks are permanently
tagged. The tusk mark-recapture project is limited to the Native
Villages of Gambell and Savoonga. The adjustment is for the U.S.
harvest only, as Russia does not have a tusk tagging requirement.
Further details on how harvest levels are estimated can be found in the
2011 status review.
Comment 30: One commenter asked how the Service proposes to use
population numbers or trends in order to reduce the harvest without
information about population size or trend.
Our Response: The Service is exploring new methods to obtain
accurate information on walrus population numbers and trends. In the
interim, there are a number of population indicators such as calf to
cow ratios, age/sex composition counts, estimates of body condition,
observations of Alaska Native hunters, expert opinion, Aerial Surveys
of Arctic Marine Mammals results, haulout counts, and population
modeling, to make an assessment of population status. We believe that
such a weight of evidence approach in consultation and collaboration
with our co-managers will provide information useful in making harvest
prescriptions, if needed.
Comment 31: One commenter pointed out that, although the SARs state
that several fisheries overlap with walrus distribution and, therefore,
could interact with walruses, we provide information for only one
fishery. Additional information is needed about the other fisheries
that could interact with walruses and to support the implied conclusion
that only one fishery may be a problem for walruses.
Our Response: For Federal waters, the Service receives information
on interactions between fisheries and marine mammals from NMFS on an
annual basis. That information includes all the fisheries within the
range of the Pacific walrus in Federal waters. The fishery listed in
the SAR is the only one that has ever reported walrus interactions.
However, as noted, observer coverage varies with the fishery; the
budget for the observer program is such that coverage has to be rotated
among the various Federal fisheries. There may be fisheries in State
waters that could interact with walruses, but we are not aware of any
issues. Observer coverage is not required for salmon and herring
fisheries; while observer coverage is 100 percent for State-managed
shellfish and scallop fisheries, no interactions with walruses have
been observed.
Comment 32: One commenter points out an apparent contradiction
between the statements that no mortalities or serious injuries were
directly associated with research activities and a subsequent statement
that one calf died during the research activities.
Our Response: Information about research-related mortality was
updated in the final SAR as it became available. The sentence that
there were no mortalities referred to the research activities of
affixing satellite transmitters and collecting skin and blubber
samples, while the subsequent sentence referred to a calf mortality
that occurred when a boat ferrying researchers passed by a walrus
haulout.
Comment 33: One commenter suggested that we include information
about captured orphaned walruses in the United States.
Our Response: We agree; the SAR has been updated to reflect the
recovery of stranded animals.
Comment 34: One commenter asked for additional information about
mortality estimates at haulouts, and questioned why the mortality
estimates were not specific (i.e., 187 versus less than 200).
[[Page 22159]]
Our Response: The mortality estimates at haulouts provided in the
SAR are rough estimates because they are based on a combination of
biologist and Alaska Native hunter's observations and counts. We have
provided clarifying text to the SAR to reflect the source and nature of
this information.
Comment 35: One commenter suggested that the SAR be modified to
reflect the level of industrial activity near Hanna Shoal.
Our Response: From 2006 to 2013, two to three operators have
conducted activities in the Chukchi Sea annually, but not always near
Hanna Shoal. Activities have included mainly geotechnical and
environmental studies, but also 2D and 3D seismic activities, and one
drilling operation. We anticipate that the level of activity in the
foreseeable future near Hanna Shoal will remain the same as that which
we have seen in the past 8 years.
Comment 36: One commenter recommended that the Service update
information about the amount of tonnage of cargo, including oil
products, moving through Russian waters, as the traffic there far
exceeds that in U.S. waters.
Our Response: The information presented was the most current on the
number of transits at the time the draft SAR was completed. We
currently do not have information on the tonnage of cargo moving
through Russian and U.S. waters, but will seek a source for this type
of information in the future.
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,
nongovernmental 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 U.S.
Geological Survey, 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, the Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment Management
Team, the Exxon Valdez Restoration Project, 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, and Journal of Zoology, as
well as 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 four revised SARs is available on the Federal
eRulemaking portal (https://www.regulations.gov) under Docket No. FWS-
R7-ES-2012-0019. The list can also be viewed in Adobe Acrobat format at
https://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/reports.htm.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).
Dated: April 7, 2014.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-08942 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
