Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in California, 40793-40796 [2017-18169]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices
process that leaves the identity of the article
intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen
Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National
Juice Products Ass’n v. United States, 628
F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986).
In determining whether a substantial
transformation occurs in the manufacture of
chemical products such as pharmaceuticals,
CBP has consistently examined the
complexity of the processing and whether the
final article retains the essential identity and
character of the raw material. To that end,
CBP has generally held that the processing of
pharmaceutical products from bulk form into
measured doses does not result in a
substantial transformation of the product.
See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (‘‘HQ’’)
561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544,
dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated
November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated
November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated
December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated
April 3, 2002.
For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held
that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir
was not substantially transformed in the
United States when it was combined with
excipients and processed into tablets. In that
case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the
only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the
final product. Accordingly, we found that the
processing performed in the United States
did not result in a change in the medicinal
use of the finished product. Furthermore, the
Acyclovir maintained its chemical and
physical characteristics and did not undergo
a change in name, character, or use.
Consistent with our previous rulings, we
held that processing the Acyclovir into
dosage form and packaging it for sale in the
United States did not constitute a substantial
transformation. Accordingly, the country of
origin of the final product for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement was either
China or India, where the active ingredient
was produced.
Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that
the processing and packaging of imported
mefenamic acid into dosage form in the
United States did not constitute substantial
transformation. Based on previous CBP
rulings, we found that the specific U.S.
processing—which involved blending the
active ingredients with inactive ingredients
in a tumbler and then encapsulating and
packaging the product—did not substantially
transform the mefenamic acid because its
chemical character remained the same.
Accordingly, we held that the country of
origin of the final product was India, where
the mefanamic acid was produced.
In HQ 561975, we also held that the
processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin
anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the
United States did not constitute substantial
transformation. Although the bulk form of
the drug underwent testing operations,
filtering, and packaging in the United States,
these processes did not change the chemical
or physical properties of the drug.
Furthermore, there was no change in the
product’s name, which was referred to as
sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed
form. Additionally, because the imported
bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use
as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
United States did not result in a change in
the product’s use. The country of origin of
the finished product was therefore Japan.
Here, as in the cases cited above, the
processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals
into dosage form will not result in a
substantial transformation. In this case, the
processing begins with Taiwanese-origin
bulk pravastatin sodium and, after this
product is combined with inactive
ingredients in India, results in pravastatin
sodium tablets in individual doses of 10, 20,
40, or 80 milligrams. Because the product is
referred to as ‘‘pravastatin sodium’’ both
before and after the Indian processing, no
change in name occurs in India. Furthermore,
no change in character occurs in India
because the pravastatin sodium maintains the
same chemical and physical properties both
before and after the Indian processing.
Finally, because the imported, bulk-form
pravastatin sodium had a predetermined
medicinal use as an antilipimic agent that is
used to reduce the risk of myocardial
infarction, no change in use occurs after
processing in India. Under these
circumstances, and consistent with previous
CBP rulings, we find that the country of
origin of the final product is Taiwan, where
the active ingredient was produced.
HOLDING:
The country of origin of the pravastatin
sodium tablets for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement is Taiwan.
Notice of this final determination will be
given in the Federal Register, as required by
19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to 19
CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter
anew and issue a new final determination.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-atinterest may, within 30 days of publication
of the Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Alice A. Kipel,
Executive Director,
Regulations & Rulings,
Office of Trade.
[FR Doc. 2017–18205 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
September 6, 2017,
11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
PLACE: Via tele-conference hosted at
Inter-American Foundation, 1331
Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 1200, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
STATUS: Meeting of the Board of
Directors, Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Next steps
for updating advisory council
membership.
TIME AND DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40793
The role of the Board in funding
decisions.
FOR DIAL-IN INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen
Vargas, Executive Assistant, (202) 524–
8869.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel,
(202) 683–7118.
Paul Zimmerman,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017–18263 Filed 8–24–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2017–N084; FF08EVEN00–
FXFR1337088SSO0]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock
Assessment Report for the Southern
Sea Otter in California
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; response
to comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), and its
implementing regulations, we, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
announce that we have revised our
stock assessment report (SAR) for the
southern sea otter stock in the State of
California, including incorporation of
public comments. We now make our
final revised SAR available to the
public.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You
may obtain a copy of the SAR from our
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
ventura/endangered/species/info/
sso.html. Alternatively, you may contact
the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
93003; telephone: 805–644–1766.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on the methods, data, and
results of the stock assessment, contact
Lilian Carswell by telephone (805–677–
3325) or by email (Lilian_Carswell@
fws.gov). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are
announcing the availability of the final
revised SAR for the southern sea otter
(Enhydra lutris nereis) stock in the State
of California.
SUMMARY:
Background
Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) and its implementing regulations
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
40794
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, we regulate the
taking; import; and, under certain
conditions, possession; transportation;
purchasing; selling; and offering for
sale, purchase, or export, of marine
mammals. One of the goals of the
MMPA is to ensure that stocks of marine
mammals occurring in waters under
U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a
level of human-caused mortality and
serious injury that is likely to cause the
stock to be reduced below its optimum
sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP
is defined under the MMPA as ‘‘the
number of animals which will result in
the maximum productivity of the
population or the species, keeping in
mind the carrying capacity of the habitat
and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element’’
(16 U.S.C. 1362(9)).
To help accomplish the goal of
maintaining marine mammal stocks at
their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA
requires the Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
prepare a SAR for each marine mammal
stock that occurs in waters under U.S.
jurisdiction. Each SAR must include:
1. A description of the stock and its
geographic range;
2. A minimum population estimate,
current and maximum net productivity
rate, and current population trend;
3. An estimate of annual humancaused mortality and serious injury by
source and, for a strategic stock, other
factors that may be causing a decline or
impeding recovery of the stock;
4. A description of commercial fishery
interactions;
5. A categorization of the status of the
stock; and
6. An estimate of the potential
biological removal (PBR) level.
The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its [OSP]’’ (16 U.S.C.
1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the
minimum population estimate of the
stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum
theoretical or estimated net productivity
rate of the stock at a small population
size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of
between 0.1 and 1.0. This can be written
as:
PBR = (Nmin)(1⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr)
Section 117 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)).
Stock Assessment Report History for
the Southern Sea Otter in California
The southern sea otter SAR was last
revised in 2014. Because the southern
sea otter qualifies as a strategic stock
due to its listing as a threatened species
under the ESA, the Service reviewed the
stock assessment in 2015. The review
concluded that the status had not
changed, nor could it be more
accurately determined. However, upon
review in 2016, the Service determined
that revision was warranted.
Before releasing our draft SAR for
public review and comment, we
submitted it for technical review
internally and for scientific review by
the Pacific Regional Scientific Review
Group, which was established under the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a
December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87951),
Federal Register notice, we made our
draft SAR available for the MMPArequired 90-day public review and
comment period. Following the close of
the comment period, we revised the
SAR based on public comments we
received (see Response to Public
Comments) and prepared the final
revised SAR. Between publication of the
draft and final revised SARs, we have
not revised the status of the stock itself
(the southern sea otter continues to
retain its status as a strategic stock).
However, we have updated the SAR to
include the most recent information
available.
Summary of Final Revised Stock
Assessment Report for the Southern Sea
Otter in California
The following table summarizes some
of the information contained in the final
revised SAR for southern sea otters in
California, which includes the stock’s
Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated
human-caused mortality and serious
injury, and status:
SUMMARY—FINAL REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER IN CALIFORNIA
Southern sea otter
stock
NMIN
RMAX
FR
Annual estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury
PBR
3,194
0.06
0.1
9.58
San Nicolas Island
78
0.13
0.1
0.51
Summary ......
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Mainland ..............
3,272
........................
........................
10
Response to Public Comments
We received comments on the draft
SAR from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission), Friends of
the Sea Otter, and the Humane Society
of the United States. We present
substantive issues raised in those
comments that are pertinent to the SAR,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
Figures by specific source, where
known, are provided in the SAR.
Stock status
edited for brevity, along with our
responses below.
Comment 1: Without adequate
observer coverage to document the rate
at which sea otters are being caught in
crab and lobster gear, it is not possible
to know if modifications to these traps
should be required. Therefore, the
Commission recommends that the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Strategic.
Service collaborate with NMFS and the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) to (1) establish an
observer program with adequate
coverage to obtain reliable information
on the rate and circumstances under
which sea otters are being taken in crab
and lobster trap fisheries operating
within the range of the southern sea
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices
otter, or (2) implement a precautionary
requirement for all trap gear to be
modified to reduce the probability of sea
otter bycatch to near zero.
Response: We recognize that the
probability of bycatch in trap fisheries
will rise as the southern sea otter
expands its range to the north,
increasing overlap with the Dungeness
crab fishery, and to the south, increasing
overlap with the spiny lobster fishery
and finfish trap fishery in southern
California. We will continue to work
with CDFW and other partners to assess
the best means of testing and, if
appropriate, implementing
precautionary trap modifications in the
fisheries that may interact with sea
otters. We note that, based on tests that
have occurred to date, relatively minor
modifications to Dungeness crab traps
(reducing the fyke opening from 4 × 9
inches (10.2 × 22.9 cm) to 3 × 9 inches
(7.6 × 22.9 cm)) would exclude most
independent (post-weaning) sea otters
while not impeding the capture of crabs
(Hatfield et al. 2011). Comparable
modifications have not been identified
for spiny lobster traps or the large-fyke
finfish traps used in southern California.
While observer programs would
increase our opportunity to detect
bycatch, analyses indicate that high
levels of observer effort would be
required to avoid false-negative
conclusions, even if the rate of bycatch
mortality is substantial enough to
reduce the population growth rate
(Hatfield et al. 2011). We will continue
to work with USGS, NMFS, and CDFW
to explore options for assessing sea otter
bycatch.
Comment 2: Figure 3 in the draft SAR
shows an increasing trend in the
number of strandings as a proportion of
the spring count of sea otters (termed
‘‘relative mortality’’ in the report), from
roughly 5 percent in the late 1980s to 12
percent in the past 4 years. The draft
SAR attributes this pattern largely to the
increase in shark-bite mortality at the
peripheries of the southern sea otter’s
range. However, this interpretation
assumes that search effort and stranding
rates have not increased, an assumption
that is not addressed in the report. The
Service should address all of the factors
that could explain the apparent increase
in the relative number of strandings.
Response: We have added a
discussion of other factors that could
explain the increase in the relative
number of strandings and the relative
frequency of shark-bitten carcasses.
Comment 3: The Service should place
greater emphasis on the fact that the
‘‘relative mortality’’ rate is an
underestimate of the true mortality rate
because a substantial portion of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Aug 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
carcasses likely never strand or are
never found, as has been demonstrated
in this and other sea otter populations.
Response: We have added text
emphasizing that relative mortality is an
index of mortality and an underestimate
of the true mortality rate.
Comment 4: An effective opportunity
for public review and comment cannot
occur if the public does not have access
to all of the sources of information used
to produce a draft stock assessment. The
draft SAR contains numerous references
to sources of information that are not
easily available to the public. The
Service should consider implementing a
policy regarding the use of different
data/information sources that would
ensure that those sources have been
reviewed and are easily available to the
public. The Commission understands
that in some cases the best available
science has not been reviewed and
published. In those cases, if the Service
uses such information in an SAR, it
should make the information easily
available to the public.
Response: We utilize peer-reviewed
publications whenever possible.
However, when the best available
science on a topic of direct importance
to the SAR has not yet been reviewed
and published, we believe it is
preferable to present that information to
the public rather than to withhold it. We
may cite an informal source when new
scientific information becomes available
and update the citation in a subsequent
revision of the SAR when that
information has been reviewed and
published. We have updated several
such citations in the final SAR. Our
notice of availability (81 FR 87951;
December 6, 2016) includes contact
information, which is made available for
the use of anyone wishing to obtain
additional information, including any of
the sources of information referenced in
the SAR.
Comment 5: In accordance with
section 117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the
Service may review a stock’s status
annually and update its stock
assessment report only when it
considers it appropriate to do so.
However, given the rapid changes that
are ongoing within the current and
historical range of the southern sea
otter, the failure of the population to
expand its range significantly in the past
20 years, and the sudden shifts in count
trajectories in different parts of the
range over the last few years, the
Commission recommends that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service make its stock
assessment reviews available yearly to
the appropriate Scientific Review Group
(SRG) and the Commission, at a
minimum, from this point forward.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40795
Response: We typically provide a
presentation to the Pacific SRG on the
status of the southern sea otter even in
years when we determine that a revision
of the SAR is not warranted. We will
continue to make such presentations
and, from this point forward, will
provide our reasoning to the Pacific SRG
and Commission in years when we
determine that a revision of the SAR is
not warranted.
Comment 6: ‘‘Stock definition and
geographic range’’ must be expanded to
include the importance of range
expansion in southern sea otter survival
and recovery.
Response: We have added text
emphasizing the importance of range
expansion to recovery of the southern
sea otter and referencing Service
documents that discuss the subject in
greater detail.
Comment 7: ‘‘Current population
trend’’ should be revised to include the
declining trend in the southern portion
of the range due to shark bite mortality.
Response: We have added text that
describes the regional declining trends
and their relationship to increases in
shark bite mortality.
Comment 8: The SAR should identify
shark bite mortality as a factor impeding
the recovery of the southern sea otter
and encourage the close monitoring of
this significant trend. The Service
should confirm that delisting would not
be appropriate even if the delisting
threshold of 3,090 animals is met for 3
consecutive years unless the threat
posed by shark bites has been
addressed.
Response: We will continue to
monitor shark-bite mortality through the
stranding and necropsy programs led by
USGS and CDFW, and we have added
text that makes more explicit the
relationship between high rates of
shark-bite mortality and the lack of
range expansion. However, we do not
believe that the SAR is the appropriate
document in which to discuss threats to
the species in comprehensive detail or
to make recommendations regarding
delisting. We will update our
assessment of the status of the southern
sea otter in relation to the five threat
factors described in section 4(a)(l) of the
ESA in the next 5-year review.
Comment 9: ‘‘Status of Stock’’ should
be discussed in relation to the five
statutory delisting criteria and the
recovery plan, in addition to optimum
sustainable population (OSP) under the
MMPA, noting that OSP has been
discussed for the California coast but
should also be considered on a rangewide basis, after accounting for the
possible need to avoid interbreeding
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
40796
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices
between northern and southern sea
otters.
Response: As noted in our response to
Comment 8, we do not believe that the
SAR is the appropriate document in
which to discuss threats to the species
in comprehensive detail. However, we
have added text that references our most
recent 5-year review (Service 2015). We
have also added text clarifying that a
formal determination of OSP will be
developed with reference to the entire
historic range of the subspecies.
Comment 10: ‘‘Habitat issues’’ should
be revised to include (1) the spatial
structure of southern sea otter habitat
and its contribution in preventing
recovery of the species and (2) a
detailed discussion of the risk posed by
oil spills.
Response: We have added text
clarifying the relationship between the
pace of range expansion, the spatial
structure of sea otter habitat, and oil
spill risk. However, as noted in our
response to Comments 8 and 9, we do
not believe that the SAR is the
appropriate document in which to
discuss threats to the species in
comprehensive detail. We address oil
spill risk and the effects of the spatial
structure of sea otter habitat on
population growth in our most recent 5year review (Service 2015). We will
update our assessment of these and
other factors in the next 5-year review.
Comment 11: There are recent reports
of what appear to be increasing rates of
shooting-related incidents. For example,
in 2016 alone there were reports of at
least three sea otters being shot. In 2015,
a California man was sentenced for
shooting an air rifle at sea otters. While
these incidents are more recent than the
time period of the SAR, which is largely
through 2014, they do represent the
most recent available information and
should be considered for inclusion since
the Service provided information on
some deaths as recently as 2016.
Permit No.
Response: We have added text stating
that three sea otters died of gunshot
wounds in 2016. However, we do not
include these mortalities in the current
calculation of mean annual mortality
because they occurred outside the 5year analysis window (2011–2015).
Additional References Cited
Chinn, S.M., M.A. Miller, M.T. Tinker, M.M.
Staedler, F.I. Batac, E.M. Dodd, L.A.
Henkel. 2016. The high cost of
motherhood: end-lactation syndrome in
southern sea otters. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 52:307–318. doi: 10.7589/2015–
06–158.
Lafferty, K.D. M.T. and Tinker. 2014. Sea
otters are recolonizing southern
California in fits and starts. Ecosphere
5:50. https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES1300394.1.
Tinker, M.T. 2014. Models and sea otter
conservation. Pp. 257–300 in Larson, S.,
G. VanBlaricom and J. Bodkin, eds., Sea
Otter Conservation. New York: Elsevier.
Tinker, M.T., and B.B. Hatfield. 2016.
California sea otter (Enhydra lutris
nereis) census results, spring 2016. U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 1018. 10
pp. https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds1018.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
Dated: July 26, 2017.
Gregory Sheehan,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–18169 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–IA–2017–0054;
FXIA16710900000–156–FF09A30000]
Foreign Endangered Species and
Marine Mammals Issuance of Permits
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
ACTION:
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), have issued
the following permits to conduct certain
activities with endangered species,
marine mammals, or both. We issue
these permits under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
SUMMARY:
Documents and other
information submitted with these
applications are available for review,
subject to the requirements of the
Privacy Act and Freedom of Information
Act, by any party who submits a written
request for a copy of such documents to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Management Authority,
Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041;
fax (703) 358–2281. To locate the
Federal Register notice that announced
our receipt of the application for each
permit listed in this document, go to
www.regulations.gov and search on the
permit number provided in the tables in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Russell, (703) 358–2023
(telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax); or
DMAFR@fws.gov (email).
On the
dates below, as authorized by the
provisions of the ESA, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we issued
requested permits subject to certain
conditions set forth therein. For each
permit for an endangered species, we
found that (1) the application was filed
in good faith, (2) the granted permit
would not operate to the disadvantage
of the endangered species, and (3) the
granted permit would be consistent with
the purposes and policy set forth in
section 2 of the ESA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Interior.
Receipt of application Federal Register
notice
Applicant
Permit issuance
date
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Endangered Species
50819A
18137C
75285A
14745C
06369C
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Zoological Society of San Diego/San Diego Zoo Global ........
University of Wisconsin-Madison ............................................
Michael Ryckamn ....................................................................
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo ......................................................
Indiana Purdue University .......................................................
82
82
82
82
82
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
24381;
24381;
24381;
24381;
14742,
May 26, 2017 ..........................
May 26, 2017 ..........................
May 26, 2017 ..........................
May 26, 2017 ..........................
March 22, 2017 .......................
June 30, 2017.
July 3, 2017.
June 29, 2017.
July 11, 2017.
July 3, 2017.
Marine Mammals
80164B ..........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management ...
18:45 Aug 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
81 FR 95628; December 28, 2016 .................
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM
28AUN1
July 3, 2017.
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40793-40796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18169]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-ES-2017-N084; FF08EVEN00-FXFR1337088SSO0]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Report for the
Southern Sea Otter in California
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 (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that we have revised our stock
assessment report (SAR) for the southern sea otter stock in the State
of California, including incorporation of public comments. We now make
our final revised SAR available to the public.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You may obtain a copy of the SAR from
our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/info/sso.html. Alternatively, you may contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone: 805-644-1766.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the methods, data,
and results of the stock assessment, contact Lilian Carswell by
telephone (805-677-3325) or by email (Lilian_Carswell@fws.gov). Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are announcing the availability of the
final revised SAR for the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis)
stock in the State of California.
Background
Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations
[[Page 40794]]
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, we regulate
the taking; import; and, under certain conditions, possession;
transportation; purchasing; selling; and offering for sale, purchase,
or export, of marine mammals. One of the goals of the MMPA is to ensure
that stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S.
jurisdiction do not experience a level of human-caused mortality and
serious injury that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced below
its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP is defined under
the MMPA as ``the number of animals which will result in the maximum
productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element'' (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)).
To help accomplish the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at
their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA requires the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare a SAR for each
marine mammal stock that occurs in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Each
SAR must include:
1. A description of the stock and its geographic range;
2. A minimum population estimate, current and maximum net
productivity rate, and current population trend;
3. An estimate of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury
by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing
a decline or impeding recovery of the stock;
4. A description of commercial fishery interactions;
5. A categorization of the status of the stock; and
6. An estimate of the potential biological removal (PBR) level.
The MMPA defines the PBR as ``the maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its [OSP]'' (16
U.S.C. 1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the minimum population
estimate of the stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum
theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small
population size (Rmax); and a recovery factor
(Fr) of between 0.1 and 1.0. This can be written as:
PBR = (Nmin)(\1/2\ of the Rmax)(Fr)
Section 117 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)).
Stock Assessment Report History for the Southern Sea Otter in
California
The southern sea otter SAR was last revised in 2014. Because the
southern sea otter qualifies as a strategic stock due to its listing as
a threatened species under the ESA, the Service reviewed the stock
assessment in 2015. The review concluded that the status had not
changed, nor could it be more accurately determined. However, upon
review in 2016, the Service determined that revision was warranted.
Before releasing our draft SAR for public review and comment, we
submitted it for technical review internally and for scientific review
by the Pacific Regional Scientific Review Group, which was established
under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87951), Federal Register notice, we made our draft SAR available for
the MMPA-required 90-day public review and comment period. Following
the close of the comment period, we revised the SAR based on public
comments we received (see Response to Public Comments) and prepared the
final revised SAR. Between publication of the draft and final revised
SARs, we have not revised the status of the stock itself (the southern
sea otter continues to retain its status as a strategic stock).
However, we have updated the SAR to include the most recent information
available.
Summary of Final Revised Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea
Otter in California
The following table summarizes some of the information contained in
the final revised SAR for southern sea otters in California, which
includes the stock's Nmin, Rmax, Fr,
PBR, annual estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury, and
status:
Summary--Final Revised Stock Assessment Report for the Southern Sea Otter in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual estimated human-
Southern sea otter stock NMIN RMAX FR PBR caused mortality and Stock status
serious injury
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mainland............................ 3,194 0.06 0.1 9.58 Figures by specific Strategic.
source, where known,
are provided in the
SAR.
San Nicolas Island.................. 78 0.13 0.1 0.51
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary......................... 3,272 .............. .............. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Public Comments
We received comments on the draft SAR from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission), Friends of the Sea Otter, and the Humane
Society of the United States. We present substantive issues raised in
those comments that are pertinent to the SAR, edited for brevity, along
with our responses below.
Comment 1: Without adequate observer coverage to document the rate
at which sea otters are being caught in crab and lobster gear, it is
not possible to know if modifications to these traps should be
required. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the Service
collaborate with NMFS and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) to (1) establish an observer program with adequate
coverage to obtain reliable information on the rate and circumstances
under which sea otters are being taken in crab and lobster trap
fisheries operating within the range of the southern sea
[[Page 40795]]
otter, or (2) implement a precautionary requirement for all trap gear
to be modified to reduce the probability of sea otter bycatch to near
zero.
Response: We recognize that the probability of bycatch in trap
fisheries will rise as the southern sea otter expands its range to the
north, increasing overlap with the Dungeness crab fishery, and to the
south, increasing overlap with the spiny lobster fishery and finfish
trap fishery in southern California. We will continue to work with CDFW
and other partners to assess the best means of testing and, if
appropriate, implementing precautionary trap modifications in the
fisheries that may interact with sea otters. We note that, based on
tests that have occurred to date, relatively minor modifications to
Dungeness crab traps (reducing the fyke opening from 4 x 9 inches (10.2
x 22.9 cm) to 3 x 9 inches (7.6 x 22.9 cm)) would exclude most
independent (post-weaning) sea otters while not impeding the capture of
crabs (Hatfield et al. 2011). Comparable modifications have not been
identified for spiny lobster traps or the large-fyke finfish traps used
in southern California. While observer programs would increase our
opportunity to detect bycatch, analyses indicate that high levels of
observer effort would be required to avoid false-negative conclusions,
even if the rate of bycatch mortality is substantial enough to reduce
the population growth rate (Hatfield et al. 2011). We will continue to
work with USGS, NMFS, and CDFW to explore options for assessing sea
otter bycatch.
Comment 2: Figure 3 in the draft SAR shows an increasing trend in
the number of strandings as a proportion of the spring count of sea
otters (termed ``relative mortality'' in the report), from roughly 5
percent in the late 1980s to 12 percent in the past 4 years. The draft
SAR attributes this pattern largely to the increase in shark-bite
mortality at the peripheries of the southern sea otter's range.
However, this interpretation assumes that search effort and stranding
rates have not increased, an assumption that is not addressed in the
report. The Service should address all of the factors that could
explain the apparent increase in the relative number of strandings.
Response: We have added a discussion of other factors that could
explain the increase in the relative number of strandings and the
relative frequency of shark-bitten carcasses.
Comment 3: The Service should place greater emphasis on the fact
that the ``relative mortality'' rate is an underestimate of the true
mortality rate because a substantial portion of carcasses likely never
strand or are never found, as has been demonstrated in this and other
sea otter populations.
Response: We have added text emphasizing that relative mortality is
an index of mortality and an underestimate of the true mortality rate.
Comment 4: An effective opportunity for public review and comment
cannot occur if the public does not have access to all of the sources
of information used to produce a draft stock assessment. The draft SAR
contains numerous references to sources of information that are not
easily available to the public. The Service should consider
implementing a policy regarding the use of different data/information
sources that would ensure that those sources have been reviewed and are
easily available to the public. The Commission understands that in some
cases the best available science has not been reviewed and published.
In those cases, if the Service uses such information in an SAR, it
should make the information easily available to the public.
Response: We utilize peer-reviewed publications whenever possible.
However, when the best available science on a topic of direct
importance to the SAR has not yet been reviewed and published, we
believe it is preferable to present that information to the public
rather than to withhold it. We may cite an informal source when new
scientific information becomes available and update the citation in a
subsequent revision of the SAR when that information has been reviewed
and published. We have updated several such citations in the final SAR.
Our notice of availability (81 FR 87951; December 6, 2016) includes
contact information, which is made available for the use of anyone
wishing to obtain additional information, including any of the sources
of information referenced in the SAR.
Comment 5: In accordance with section 117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the
Service may review a stock's status annually and update its stock
assessment report only when it considers it appropriate to do so.
However, given the rapid changes that are ongoing within the current
and historical range of the southern sea otter, the failure of the
population to expand its range significantly in the past 20 years, and
the sudden shifts in count trajectories in different parts of the range
over the last few years, the Commission recommends that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service make its stock assessment reviews available yearly
to the appropriate Scientific Review Group (SRG) and the Commission, at
a minimum, from this point forward.
Response: We typically provide a presentation to the Pacific SRG on
the status of the southern sea otter even in years when we determine
that a revision of the SAR is not warranted. We will continue to make
such presentations and, from this point forward, will provide our
reasoning to the Pacific SRG and Commission in years when we determine
that a revision of the SAR is not warranted.
Comment 6: ``Stock definition and geographic range'' must be
expanded to include the importance of range expansion in southern sea
otter survival and recovery.
Response: We have added text emphasizing the importance of range
expansion to recovery of the southern sea otter and referencing Service
documents that discuss the subject in greater detail.
Comment 7: ``Current population trend'' should be revised to
include the declining trend in the southern portion of the range due to
shark bite mortality.
Response: We have added text that describes the regional declining
trends and their relationship to increases in shark bite mortality.
Comment 8: The SAR should identify shark bite mortality as a factor
impeding the recovery of the southern sea otter and encourage the close
monitoring of this significant trend. The Service should confirm that
delisting would not be appropriate even if the delisting threshold of
3,090 animals is met for 3 consecutive years unless the threat posed by
shark bites has been addressed.
Response: We will continue to monitor shark-bite mortality through
the stranding and necropsy programs led by USGS and CDFW, and we have
added text that makes more explicit the relationship between high rates
of shark-bite mortality and the lack of range expansion. However, we do
not believe that the SAR is the appropriate document in which to
discuss threats to the species in comprehensive detail or to make
recommendations regarding delisting. We will update our assessment of
the status of the southern sea otter in relation to the five threat
factors described in section 4(a)(l) of the ESA in the next 5-year
review.
Comment 9: ``Status of Stock'' should be discussed in relation to
the five statutory delisting criteria and the recovery plan, in
addition to optimum sustainable population (OSP) under the MMPA, noting
that OSP has been discussed for the California coast but should also be
considered on a range-wide basis, after accounting for the possible
need to avoid interbreeding
[[Page 40796]]
between northern and southern sea otters.
Response: As noted in our response to Comment 8, we do not believe
that the SAR is the appropriate document in which to discuss threats to
the species in comprehensive detail. However, we have added text that
references our most recent 5-year review (Service 2015). We have also
added text clarifying that a formal determination of OSP will be
developed with reference to the entire historic range of the
subspecies.
Comment 10: ``Habitat issues'' should be revised to include (1) the
spatial structure of southern sea otter habitat and its contribution in
preventing recovery of the species and (2) a detailed discussion of the
risk posed by oil spills.
Response: We have added text clarifying the relationship between
the pace of range expansion, the spatial structure of sea otter
habitat, and oil spill risk. However, as noted in our response to
Comments 8 and 9, we do not believe that the SAR is the appropriate
document in which to discuss threats to the species in comprehensive
detail. We address oil spill risk and the effects of the spatial
structure of sea otter habitat on population growth in our most recent
5-year review (Service 2015). We will update our assessment of these
and other factors in the next 5-year review.
Comment 11: There are recent reports of what appear to be
increasing rates of shooting-related incidents. For example, in 2016
alone there were reports of at least three sea otters being shot. In
2015, a California man was sentenced for shooting an air rifle at sea
otters. While these incidents are more recent than the time period of
the SAR, which is largely through 2014, they do represent the most
recent available information and should be considered for inclusion
since the Service provided information on some deaths as recently as
2016.
Response: We have added text stating that three sea otters died of
gunshot wounds in 2016. However, we do not include these mortalities in
the current calculation of mean annual mortality because they occurred
outside the 5-year analysis window (2011-2015).
Additional References Cited
Chinn, S.M., M.A. Miller, M.T. Tinker, M.M. Staedler, F.I. Batac,
E.M. Dodd, L.A. Henkel. 2016. The high cost of motherhood: end-
lactation syndrome in southern sea otters. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 52:307-318. doi: 10.7589/2015-06-158.
Lafferty, K.D. M.T. and Tinker. 2014. Sea otters are recolonizing
southern California in fits and starts. Ecosphere 5:50. https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00394.1.
Tinker, M.T. 2014. Models and sea otter conservation. Pp. 257-300 in
Larson, S., G. VanBlaricom and J. Bodkin, eds., Sea Otter
Conservation. New York: Elsevier.
Tinker, M.T., and B.B. Hatfield. 2016. California sea otter (Enhydra
lutris nereis) census results, spring 2016. U.S. Geological Survey
Data Series 1018. 10 pp. https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds1018.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
Dated: July 26, 2017.
Gregory Sheehan,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18169 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
