[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34054-34061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14451]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XW72
Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock
assessment reports (SARs). The 2010 reports are final and available to
the public.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as
regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. You also may send requests for
copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn:
Stock Assessments.
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN
15700, Seattle, WA 98115.
Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon
Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods
Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim
Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla
Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 141, Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov; Robyn
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032,
Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov; Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, 508-495-2311, Gordon.Waring@noaa.gov; or Jim Carretta,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 858-546-7171,
Jim.Carretta@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare SARs for each stock
of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the
United States. These reports contain information regarding the
distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and
trends, the stock's Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level, estimates
of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources,
descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the
status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information
is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks.
NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock
has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction
with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs),
reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised
reports in each of the three regions.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2010, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment (75
FR 46912, August 4, 2010). The MMPA also specifies that the comment
period on draft SARs must be 90 days. NMFS received comments on the
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports
for 2010 are available (see ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2010 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), five non-governmental
organizations (National Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of
the United States, Cascadia Research Collective, California Gray Whale
Coalition, and Hawaii Longline Association), and one individual. Most
letters contained multiple comments.
Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or minor
clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports but were not
included in the summary of comments and responses below. Other comments
recommended initiation or repetition of large data collection efforts,
such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or other mortality
estimates. Comments on actions not related to the SARs (e.g., listing a
marine mammal species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) are not
included below. Many comments, including those from the Commission,
recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional abundance
surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in previous years.
Although NMFS agrees that additional information would improve the SARs
and better inform conservation decisions, resources for surveys,
observer programs, or other mortality estimates are fully utilized, and
no new large surveys or other programs may be initiated until
additional resources are available or until ongoing monitoring or
conservation efforts can be terminated so that the resources supporting
them can be redirected. Such comments on the 2010 SARs, and responses
to them, may not be included in the summary below because the responses
have not changed.
In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be
considered for, or incorporated into, future revisions of the SAR
rather than being incorporated into the final 2010 SARs. The delay is
due to the schedule of the review of the reports by the regional SRGs.
NMFS provides preliminary copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to
release for public review and comment. If a comment on the draft SAR
suggests a substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment
and prospective change with the SRG at its next meeting.
Comments on National Issues
Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS review its observer
program nationwide, set standards for observer coverage, and prepare
plans to collect the information necessary to adequately estimate
incidental mortality in fisheries that take or may take marine mammals.
NMFS should also work with Federal and state agencies and the fishing
industry to develop a funding strategy for supporting adequate observer
coverage to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals and other protected species.
Response: NMFS has conducted multiple comprehensive, nationwide
reviews of its observer programs beginning with the 2004 Evaluating
Bycatch Report, which developed a
[[Page 34055]]
national approach to standardize bycatch reporting methodologies and
monitoring programs and included specific recommendations for attaining
reliable bycatch estimates for protected species and identified gaps in
existing coverage. NMFS will soon publish the first National Bycatch
Report, which estimates commercial fisheries bycatch for U.S. living
marine resources. The report also identifies gaps in existing observer
coverage with specific recommendations for additional resources
required to improve bycatch data collection and estimation methods,
which will form the basis of a funding strategy to support adequate
observer programs for all living marine resources.
NMFS has taken several steps to address shortcomings in protected
species observer coverage, including observer coverage in the Gulf of
Mexico reef fish fishery and a doubling of observed sea days in the
American Samoa longline fishery in FY2010. In 2011, NMFS implemented
observer coverage in the menhaden purse seine fishery in the Gulf of
Mexico to collect catch data and record bycatch of sea turtles and
marine mammals that interact with the fishery. NMFS is preparing to
observe the Southeast Alaska drift gillnet fishery, beginning in 2012.
NMFS continues to work collaboratively with state, federal, and
industry partners to implement observer programs and develop
alternative funding options. Currently three observer programs receive
industry funding. Recently, the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council approved provisions to restructure the Gulf of Alaska and
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries observer program,
including a 1.25% ex-vessel landings fee to pay for observer coverage.
NMFS continues to address gaps in coverage and works to improve the
estimates of protected species bycatch by increasing observer coverage
as funds become available.
A description of the marine mammal programs criteria for observer
coverage (expressed in terms of bias and precision of mortality
estimates) is available in a NOAA Technical Memorandum describing the
resources needed to better understand the status of protected species.
This report is available on the Internet at the following address:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/improvement_plan.pdf.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS develop a strategy
for collaboration with other nations to improve assessment and
conservation of transboundary stocks of marine mammals.
Response: NMFS, through the Office of International Affairs, is
preparing a comprehensive international action plan for marine mammal
conservation. As this plan is being developed, NMFS is also evaluating
strategies to obtain information on the marine mammal conservation
programs in other nations pursuant to MMPA section 101(a)(2).
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS develop and
implement a systematic approach for integrating all human-related risk
factors into SARs.
Response: MMPA section 117(3) contains directions for including
risk factors in SARs. The MMPA states SARs should estimate annual
human-caused mortality of each stock, by source, and, for strategic
stocks, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding
recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and
prey.
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 4: The Commission reiterated its earlier recommendation to
update harbor seal stock structure in Alaska by recognizing 12 stocks
of harbor seals.
Response: As noted in previous responses to comments (see 72 FR
12774, March 15, 2007, comment 16; 73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008, comment
23; 74 FR 19530, April 29, 2009, comment 21; and 75 FR 12498, March 16,
2010, comment 12), NMFS continues its commitment to work with its co-
managers in the Alaska Native community to evaluate and revise stock
structure of harbor seals in Alaska. On March 16, 2010, NMFS and the
Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission held their annual co-management
meeting during which they agreed to proceed with a revised set of
population boundaries for harbor seals in Alaska. All representatives
of the co-management committee agreed that a population structure of
twelve stocks would be incorporated into the next cycle of SARs. NMFS
is currently in the process of drafting the 2011 SARs, which will
include separate evaluations of 12 harbor seal stocks for Alaska.
Comment 5: The Commission recommended that NMFS continue to seek
the additional support needed to develop and implement an ice seal
research and management strategy that is commensurate with the threats
that these species face.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is necessary to increase the
understanding of the distribution and movements, demographic
parameters, natural history, and ecology of ringed, bearded, ribbon,
and spotted seals in Alaska. NMFS has completed status reviews of these
four species, and it is apparent that more information is needed in
order to assess any potential threats or the impact to the species.
NMFS continues to request appropriations for ice seals to the extent
consistent with other priorities of the Administration for the national
budget. NMFS also partners with other agencies to support research and
monitoring of ice seals to the extent such activities are consistent
with the priorities of these agencies.
Comment 6: The Commission recommended that NMFS ensure funding for
research on the eastern stock of North Pacific right whales is
incorporated into the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget, whether
that funding is provided to the Service or to the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.
Response: NMFS recognizes the importance of seeking the necessary
funding in order to continue to monitor the population status of
eastern stock of North Pacific right whales and will continue to seek
resources to study this critically endangered population.
Comment 7: The Commission recommended that NMFS provide updated
estimates of serious injury and mortality for the 11 stocks of marine
mammals identified in the 2009 reports but not updated in the 2010
drafts, or at least explain why that information is not available.
Response: Serious injury and mortality data from the observer
program for 2007 and 2008 are considered preliminary. Stocks lacking
updated serious injury and mortality data for 2007 and 2008 were either
not scheduled for updates in 2010 or had no takes reported during those
years. NMFS intends to update the estimates of serious injury and
mortality in the draft 2011 SARS when the serious injury and mortality
data are finalized for the relevant stocks.
Comment 8: The SAR for the Eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions
should be changed to reflect updated taxonomy. The Society for Marine
Mammalogy recognizes the species Eumetopias jubatus (Schreber, 1776)
for the Steller sea lion, or northern sea lion, consisting of two
subspecies, E. j. jubatus (Schreber, 1776) [the Western Steller sea
lion] and E. j. monteriensis (Gray, 1859) [Loughlin's northern sea
lion].
Response: The agency is currently conducting a status review of
Steller sea lions and upon completion of the review will revisit the
possible designation of subspecies within this taxon, together with
existing supporting scientific evidence.
[[Page 34056]]
Comment 9: NMFS is applauded for the inclusion of a stock
assessment for narwhals. Given the large number of unknowns in the
stock assessment, NMFS should prioritize research to fill data gaps.
Response: NMFS recognizes there are a large number of unknowns in
Alaska stock assessments and will continue to strive to collect data to
fill research gaps for narwhals and other marine mammals of Alaska.
Comment 10: The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) appreciated
addition of concerns about anthropogenic noise in the SARs for beaked
whales.
Response: NMFS acknowledges and thanks you for this comment.
Comment 11: NMFS needs to devote resources to obtaining reliable
estimates of subsistence hunting of pinnipeds. A number of SARs for
various ice seals (e.g. bearded seals) still state that harvest
estimates are from the 1980s and include estimates of thousands of
seals being killed. It is vital that there be a concerted effort to
quantify subsistence takes and report them in a timely manner such that
their conservation status can be reliably tracked.
Response: NMFS recognizes the need for obtaining reliable estimates
of subsistence takes of all pinniped species in Alaska, including ice
dependent seal species. NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007,
comment 18) and for 2007 (73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008, comment 12).
NMFS has insufficient resources to obtain up-to-date estimates of
subsistence hunting of pinnipeds and will retain old information, with
appropriate dates and caveats if necessary, to document the extent of
knowledge on past harvest. In the meantime, NMFS is exploring options
for better quantifying the annual harvest of pinnipeds, particularly
ice seal species.
Comment 12: Many of the ice seal stocks do not have abundance
estimates or PBRs calculated. There needs to be greater precision in
mortality estimation, and there is an urgent need for population
abundance estimates.
Response: NMFS recognizes the need for obtaining reliable abundance
estimates from which PBR levels can be derived, and continues to strive
to acquire funding to support abundance estimate surveys and accurate
mortality estimates.
Comment 13: Prior ice seal stock assessments have provided point
estimates for native subsistence kills but have also provided upper and
lower estimates based on the bounds of confidence. This is no longer
done in the stock assessments and the region should reconsider this
decision. Because of the imprecision of these estimates, this
information should be provided so that reviewers can gauge the possible
range of impacts.
Response: As noted in a previous response (75 FR 12498, March 16,
2010, comment 19) NMFS has reported upper and lower confidence limits
for subsistence harvests of some stocks in the past but does not
include them presently (e.g., beluga whales, Eastern Bering Sea stock).
The SARs for these stocks note that variance estimates (or other
measures of uncertainty) are not available. Without such measures,
confidence limits cannot be calculated; therefore, none are included.
For some stocks, the mortality estimates are noted to be underestimates
because information is available from only a portion of the range of
the stock. NMFS is aware of the potential consequences of
underestimates, but funding levels limit the ability to initiate large
new data collection programs until additional funds are obtained or
until efforts directed toward other stocks are no longer necessary,
which would allow resources to be re-directed.
Comment 14: HSUS commented that many fisheries with either a
history of interactions or a high likelihood of interactions remain
unobserved or inadequately observed. The region should prioritize
funding for fishery observers for the many fisheries (largely gillnet
fisheries) that may be interacting with species of concern (e.g.,
belugas, Pacific white sided dolphins, harbor porpoise). Information on
marine mammal interactions with trawl fisheries (including the Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands) has not been updated since 2006. This delay does
not occur in other regions and is not acceptable. HSUS added that there
is a note in the previous SAR for humpbacks in the Western North
Pacific stock that data on fisheries interactions will be available for
inclusion in the 2010 SAR, yet it is not. Instead, this statement was
crossed out and the information remains outdated. The region needs to
update information and report in a timelier manner as do other regions.
Response: The NMFS Alaska Region has been implementing an observer
program for various state fisheries as resources allow. As noted in the
SARs, federal fisheries observer data from 2007 and 2008 are
preliminary; estimates of percent observer coverage and coefficients of
variation (CVs) are not currently available for some preliminary data.
A consultation between the Alaska SRG and the Atlantic SRG (with
assistance from the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center) at the
2010 Alaska SRG meeting regarding addressing poorly observed fisheries
provided some suggestions from the Atlantic SRG. Observer coverage for
southeast Alaska fisheries is being addressed with a traditional
observer program.
Comment 15: HSUS points out that several stocks in Alaska have PBRs
calculated yet appear to be far below their original numbers and
declining in major portions of the range. HSUS highlights the approach
taken by the Pacific region with regard to Hawaiian monk seals in which
the Pacific region states the stock's dynamics do not conform to the
underlying model for calculating PBR such that PBR for the Hawaiian
monk seal is undetermined. This seems a more appropriate and prudent
approach, and HSUS believes that the Alaska region should consider it.
Response: This issue was discussed at the Guidelines for Assessing
Marine Mammal Stocks III workshop in February 2011, and NMFS will
follow guidelines developed at this meeting once they are released.
Until then, NMFS will continue to calculate PBR for Alaska stocks for
which we have reliable abundance estimates that are less than 8 years
old, as per the 2005 Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks.
Comment 16: While the counts of western Steller sea lions reported
in the text document overall increases (e.g., the pup count reported
for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands went up from the previous estimate
of 5,456 to 5,664) and notes only a possible decline in the western
Bering Sea and off Russia, figure 2 and table 1 both indicate that, in
the Aleutians, the stock may still be declining. The text in the
section on population trends of this stock also reflects a decline in
the central and western Aleutians. It would be clearer to provide some
of this information on the decline in the Aleutians in the section on
population size.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Information on the decline of populations
in the central and western Aleutian Islands (-30% and -16%,
respectively) is presented in the Current Population Trend section,
which is the appropriate section for this information.
Comment 17: The draft SAR notes that there were two cases of
illegal shooting of Steller sea lions documented in southeast Alaska
between 1995 and 1999 with no records of illegal shooting in the
enforcement records for 1999-2003. Between 2004 and 2008, NMFS
accounted for 1 animal from this DPS found with gunshot wound(s) in
2004
[[Page 34057]]
and 3 in 2005. No animals from southeast Alaska were counted in the
NMFS data base due to NMFS concerns that some of them might have been
animals struck and lost by Alaskan native hunters. As such, illegal
shooting in Alaska is unaccounted.
Response: Animals found with evidence of gunshot wounds, without
conclusive results of the source of these wounds, are not reported as
illegal takes since there is the probability that these takes were
already accounted for as struck and loss in the subsistence harvest.
Illegal shootings, as determined by enforcement investigations, are
reported separately if there is conclusive information indicating that
the shooting was illegal.
Comment 18: Deaths affecting the eastern Steller sea lion stock
have occurred in addition to those reported by NMFS in the 2010 draft
SAR. They include one Steller sea lion that was found shot on Orcas
Island in the San Juan Islands in 2006, and two that died in 2008 in
traps set in the Columbia River as part of a state lethal taking
program aimed at California sea lions. In 2010 one or more shooters
killed 10 sea lions in Washington State, with at least one Steller sea
lion.
Response: NMFS appreciates the information on these occurrences.
The Alaska Fisheries Science Center will work closely with the
Northwest Regional Office to determine whether these takes have already
been accounted for and will be sure to incorporate any additional
human-related serious injuries or mortalities as appropriate.
Comment 19: HSUS expressed concern that the 2008 population
estimate of northern fur seals declined from the estimates from 2002
and 2007 and that the decline in pups at St. Paul is a major factor in
this continued decline. Considering the ongoing decline, and the
particularly significant impacts on pup production/survival, the region
should consider a lower recovery factor than the default of 0.5.
Response: This issue was discussed at the Guidelines for Assessing
Marine Mammal Stocks III workshop in February 2011, and NMFS will
follow guidelines developed at this meeting once they are released.
Until then, NMFS will continue to use a recovery factor of 0.5 for this
stock.
Comment 20: Although the conservation plan for fur seals was
updated in 2007, HSUS suggested that, in light of the ongoing problems
facing this stock, a five-year review and updating of this plan should
be scheduled for next year.
Response: The conservation plan for the Eastern Pacific stock of
Northern fur seals is scheduled to go through the 5-year review process
and is expected to be updated by late 2012 or early 2013.
Comment 21: In the draft 2010 SAR, the data on observer coverage
and estimated mortality for most commercial fisheries in 2007 and 2008
(3 and 2 years ago respectively) remain unavailable. Mortality
estimates should be updated in a timely manner as they are in other
regions.
Response: NMFS recognizes that it is important to routinely provide
updated mortality estimates in the SARs. However, due to changes in
staffing and database structure, it has taken longer than anticipated
to develop new mortality estimates incidental to the federally-
regulated commercial fisheries in Alaska. New preliminary estimates for
2007-2009 will be made available in the 2011 draft SARs.
Comment 22: The Cook Inlet beluga stock continues to decline
despite cessation of directed hunting. The section on Habitat Concerns
glosses over the multiplicity of projects recently approved or proposed
for areas within or adjacent to those proposed for designation as
Critical Habitat. Subsequent to the announcement of proposed critical
habitat, NMFS received comments providing greater specificity on some
of these projects that include (but are not limited to) proposed new
offshore drill platforms and construction and maintenance of pipelines;
construction of coal liquefication and gasification facilities; a
proposed Pebble Project that would ship concentrates; shipping of coal;
Alaska Railroad Intertie and associated ship traffic as well as utility
upgrades for all bordering communities.
Response: As noted in previous responses to comments (75 FR 12498,
March 16, 2010, comments 1 and 6), section 117 of the MMPA lists
information that should be included in SARs. A major strength of the
SARs is that they are concise summaries of the status of each stock,
focusing primarily on the effects of direct human-caused mortality and
serious injury on marine mammals and impacts to habitat when such
impacts may result in the decline or failure of recovery of the
affected stocks. The MMPA notes that SARs for strategic stocks should
include other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding the
recovery of the stock, including effects on habitat. Accordingly, for
strategic stocks such as Cook Inlet belugas, such sections must discuss
only those factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery.
The habitat section sufficiently describes activities within the Cook
Inlet beluga habitat that may be causing a decline or impeding
recovery, and NMFS will continue to update this section as appropriate.
Comment 23: The population abundance estimates for Alaska harbor
porpoise stocks are outdated. There is a note in the SAR for the
Southeast Alaska stock that an abundance estimate was expected this
year (2010) but that has been edited to extend the estimated time of
revision to next year (2011).
Response: NMFS will report an updated abundance estimate and
calculate a PBR level for harbor porpoises in Southeast Alaska after
recent survey data are analyzed and published, which should occur in
time for the draft 2011 SARs.
Comment 24: HSUS expressed concern that observer coverage is
lacking for many gillnet fisheries in the range of the various harbor
porpoise stocks when gillnets are a major source of mortality for
porpoises in most areas throughout the world. The region needs to
provide better observer coverage either aboard fishing vessels or from
alternative platforms.
Response: NMFS recognizes the need for additional resources to
support observer programs for those fisheries with little or no
observer coverage, including gillnet fisheries in Alaska (see response
to comment 5, 73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008, and comment 10, 74 FR 19530,
April 29, 2009). In 2011, NMFS and the Alaska Regional Office will be
initiating an observer program for gillnet fisheries in southeast
Alaska that overlap with areas of harbor porpoise distribution.
Comment 25: Takes of porpoise in native subsistence nets in the
Bering Sea in particular appears poorly documented.
Response: NMFS collects information on harbor porpoise mortalities
occurring incidental to subsistence fishing when they are reported.
Comment 26: No revisions have been made to the stock definition and
geographic range section for the eastern North Pacific gray whale
stock, despite the availability of recent information that would
otherwise require them. The narrative continues to state the eastern
North Pacific population is not an isolated population unit. However,
recent work by Dr. Jim Darling and colleagues casts this assumption
into question, as it seems that some of these groups may indeed be
genetically distinct (Westerly, 2010; Frasier et al., 2010). The stock
assessment should be updated to reflect these developments and the most
recent information on stock structure.
Response: NMFS is aware of the discrete ``Pacific coast feeding
[[Page 34058]]
aggregation,'' and this group is mentioned within the Stock Definition
and Geographic Range sections of the 2010 SAR. NMFS appreciates the
mention of the new publications and will incorporate these, if
appropriate, in the draft SARs for 2011.
Comment 27: The gray whale stock assessment report states that in
1997, the IWC approved a 5-year quota (1998-2002) of 620 gray whales,
with an annual cap of 140, for Russian and U.S. (Makah Indian Tribe)
aboriginals based on the aboriginal needs statements from each country.
This is an inaccurate description of what happened at the IWC in 1997.
The quota was not based on the needs statements from each country, but
only on the needs statement from Russia.
Response: At the 49th meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, the need request of both the Makah tribe and the Chukotka
people were discussed. The Russian Federation requested 140 whales for
the Chukotka people, and the USA requested ``up to 5 whales'' for the
Makah tribe. The Report states ``The Makah will be coordinating their
proposal with the Russian Federation and would present a Schedule
amendment to Plenary.'' Under 10.3.2.2 Action Arising, the Report
states ``In the Commission there was extended discussion of the two
requests in the context of a joint proposal by the Russian Federation
and the USA for a catch of 620 gray whales over five years, with an
annual limit of 140.'' The Report details some debate about the Makah
need, but then states ``After further consultations to refine the
language, a broad consensus was reached to accept the amendment of
Schedule paragraph 13(b)(2) as shown in Appendix 11.'' Appendix 11
gives a take limit of 620 gray whales over five years (1998-2002), with
an annual limit of 140. It is clear that the Russian and Makah need
requests were coordinated and modified from the separate annual
requests of 140 and ``up to five'' to become simply a joint request for
620 over five years with an annual limit of 140. Therefore, the text in
the SAR is correct that the quota was set based on the needs statements
from each country, as expressed in their joint proposal. This is
verified in the next year's Report (Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 1998, pg. 14), where it is stated ``New Zealand
commented that the Makah tribe have not yet drawn on the quota * * *.''
Comment 28: The gray whale stock assessment report omits mention of
the gray whales killed by Makah hunters in 1999 and 2007, though it
erroneously states that there was an unlawful hunt in 2005 (this was
the 2007 kill). It was in February of 2005 that the tribe requested a
waiver to the MMPA.
Response: NMFS has corrected the error to accurately reflect that
this illegal kill occurred in 2007 in the draft 2011 reports.
Subsistence takes are only reported for the most recent 5 years in the
SAR; therefore, the take in 1999 is not included in the SAR.
Comment 29: The SARs cite the 2004-2006 multi-national SPLASH
effort to better assess humpback whale populations in the Pacific and
continue to say with each revision of the SAR that a better
understanding of stock structure ``should be available in the near
future'' or ``in 2010 or 2011'' depending on the stock. Given that NMFS
has undertaken a status review of humpback stocks, the lack of
availability of this information is troubling. It would seem
appropriate to mention the status review that the NMFS is undertaking
for all humpback stocks in the sections on stock status.
Response: The SPLASH effort was a multidisciplinary project with
several objectives and many cooperators, and both photographic and
genetic information required analysis. It is not unusual for the
results of such a project to take a few years to analyze, integrate,
and publish. NMFS will include the new information from SPLASH in the
SARs as soon as possible, and will coordinate the inclusion of new
information in the SARs with the humpback whale status review, which is
underway and expected to be completed in 2011. NMFS will include the
relevant results of this review in the SARs when they are available.
Comment 30: The only data provided with regard to humpback whale
entanglement in the U.S. come from observed fisheries, and many Alaska
fisheries are unobserved. In the Atlantic, most of the mortality of
humpbacks as a result of fisheries interactions comes from reports of
sightings of entangled humpback made by commercial whale watch vessels
or recreational boaters. Were there the same number of whale watch and
recreational boaters in Alaska as in the Atlantic, there would almost
surely be more animals reported as entangled, since trap/pot and
gillnet gear similar to that which entangles humpbacks in the Atlantic
is also used in Alaska. This sort of caveat might be useful in the SAR.
Response: Reports of serious injury and mortality of humpback
whales are acquired from two primary sources: Federal fisheries
observer data and the Alaska stranding network. Reports from the
stranding network include reports from the general public, stranding
responders, vessel captains and crew, law enforcement, researchers, and
other sources. NMFS reviews and reports serious injury and mortality
records from all these sources, and includes a summary of these data in
the SARs.
Comment 31: The SAR for central North Pacific humpbacks mentions
vessel collisions in Alaska but pays little attention to collisions in
the wintering area of Hawaii. There are reports of increasing
collisions in Hawaii (particularly off Maui) that do not appear to be
simply an artifact of increased reporting or increasing humpback
populations.
Response: NMFS is reviewing records of mortality and serious injury
for humpback whales, including records of ship strikes in Hawaiian
waters, for the draft 2011 SARs. All injuries determined to be serious
injuries will be reported and included in the mortality and serious
injury estimates for 2011.
Comment 32: NMFS fails to indicate the 2006/2007 survey of Eastern
North Pacific (ENP) gray whales was not an abundance estimate as
required under section 117 of the MMPA. There are no provisions in the
MMPA which support using the results of field studies to legitimize
SARs.
Response: As noted in NMFS' response to a petition to conduct a
status review under the MMPA (75 FR 81225, December 27, 2010), these
statements are incorrect, and neither statement is relevant to the
status of the ENP gray whale stock. The 2006/2007 survey was a full
abundance estimation survey. Field and analysis methods, and raw count
data, are detailed in a NOAA/AFSC Processed Report (Rugh et al., 2008).
Updated estimates and methodologies for this survey are presented in
Laake et al. (2009). MMPA section 117 requires NMFS to use the best
information available to prepare SARs. In the case of ENP gray whales,
the best information available includes results of field studies. The
reports referenced above are available on the Internet at the following
address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/graywhale_petition.htm.
Comment 33: The results of the most recent ENP gray whale abundance
estimate (as required under section 117 of the MMPA), undertaken in the
2009/2010 season, have not been published.
Response: This statement is correct with respect to the abundance
estimate from the 2009/2010 survey for ENP gray whales not being
included in the SAR. The statement is incorrect in stating that MMPA
section 117 requires the 2009/2010 estimate to be included. Rather,
MMPA section 117 requires that SARs
[[Page 34059]]
be prepared using the best scientific information available. Estimates
from the 2009/2010 survey were not available when the draft 2010 SAR
was prepared. NMFS anticipates updating the time series of abundance
estimates so the more recent estimates are available in spring 2012 and
would be included in the next update of the ENP gray whale SAR.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Comment 34: HSUS recommended that SARs within the Atlantic region
incorporate results of the 2007 workshop on determination of serious
injuries. HSUS expressed concern that animals that should be considered
seriously injured are not and then disappear from the data base because
these whales are never seen again, and the original injury was not
``counted'' within the time of the 5-year average.
Response: NMFS is using recommendations from the 2007 workshop to
establish policy and guidelines to distinguish ``serious'' from ``non-
serious'' injury of marine mammals. The results of this effort, which
is expected to be made available for public review and comment in
summer of 2011, should promote agency-wide consistency in determining
whether or not an injury would likely result in the death of the
affected animal.
Comment 35: The population estimates of the bay, sound, and estuary
stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico are outdated.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment 36: Although there was a 2007 aerial survey-based estimate
of the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal bottlenose dolphin
stocks, there is no estimate of trends.
Response: For a number of reasons, it is difficult to interpret
trends from information based on two abundance estimates. NMFS has
little information about stock structure and potential movement
patterns of dolphins that inhabit these coastal areas. Without
contemporaneous estimates of abundance from adjacent areas, it is
impossible to know whether dolphins moved either on a short or long
term basis. Additionally, there were improvements in the data
collection methods between 1993/1994 and 2007 that may confound direct
comparison of estimates made during these two periods.
Comment 37: Though NMFS acknowledges that the number of observed
entanglements is likely an underestimate, NMFS should consider more
recent approaches to discerning impacts of commercial fisheries. For
example, one analysis has concluded that humpback whales in the Gulf of
Maine likely suffer a 3.7 percent entanglement-related mortality rate
(Robbins and Matilla, 2009). Analyses indicate that estimates exceeded
observed cases by an order of magnitude and suggest that entanglement
is having a much greater effect on the population than previously
supposed.
Response: When assessing fishing mortality of all large whale
stocks, NMFS relies on a direct count of mortalities and serious
injuries known within a standardized level of forensic evidence to be
human caused. Because entanglement mortalities are less than 100
percent detectable, they may be considered undercounts. The assessment
reported by Robbins and Matilla (2009) relies on a level of sampling
(photographic evidence) of the population only rarely available and, as
yet, unproven. In particular, their measure places considerable
reliance on a small sample estimate of escapement based on NMFS
evaluation of serious injury and mortality related to entanglements.
The uncertainties of that estimate, its potential bias and the
uncertainties of the overall estimate were not calculated. Until such
time as NMFS can evaluate the nature of this estimate, including its
variance properties and potential for long term use, we will continue
to count mortality of humpback whales the same as for other baleen
whales. As with many of our assessment findings, for large whales we
are most interested in those tools that provide consistent long term
results that allow for tracking of trends. The current accounting of
deaths due to fisheries interactions, although likely an undercount,
provides an evaluation consistent with NMFS' guidelines for preparing
stock assessment reports.
Comment 38: The humpback whale stock assessment should mention
habitat concerns. Proposed activities (e.g., increased herring harvest
quotas, seismic surveys), if initiated, could result in an adverse
impact on the prey base, cause the injury to whales, or displace them
from key feeding areas.
Response: The habitat section of the SAR sufficiently describes
activities within the humpback whale habitat that may be causing a
decline or impeding recovery, and NMFS will continue to update this
section as appropriate.
Comment 39: HSUS noted there were no data for minimum population
estimates for harbor seals and gray seals that are the common subject
of complaints by fisheries, and encouraged the northeast region to
develop estimates. The Commission recommended that NMFS conduct the
necessary surveys of North Atlantic pinniped stocks and incorporate the
results in their stock assessment reports.
Response: NMFS plans a harbor seal abundance survey, including a
correction factor for seals not hauled out during the survey, in May
2011. Revised estimates should be incorporated into the 2012 SAR.
Archived digital images from seasonal seal surveys from 2005 to 2011
along the southeast Massachusetts coast will be analyzed in 2011 to
provide a minimum abundance estimate of non-pup gray seals in the Cape
Cod/eastern Nantucket Sound region. This area contains the major gray
seal haul-out sites in U.S. waters.
Comment 40: The Commission recommended that the NMFS develop a
stock assessment plan for the Gulf of Mexico that describes: (1) A
feasible strategy for assessing the Gulf's marine mammal stocks, (2)
the infrastructure needed to support that plan, (3) the expertise
required to carry out the plan, and (4) the funding needed to implement
the plan.
Response: It would be valuable to develop a marine mammal stock
assessment plan for the Gulf of Mexico that addresses feasibility,
infrastructure needs, and resources required. However, the critical
elements for a plan already exist in the protected species Stock
Assessment Improvement Plan, and these elements are addressed in the
Southeast Fisheries Science Center Marine Mammal Program Strategic Plan
written in 2008, and a 2007 research plan for assessing bottlenose
dolphin stocks in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Because of limited
staff resources there are no plans in the immediate future to develop a
focused Southeast Fisheries Science Center document.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 41: In light of Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 497-401
(9th Cir. 2004), the MMPA applies to subsistence hunting of seals by
Northwest Tribes, and the SAR should make clear that any direct
harvesting of marine mammals by members of Northwest Tribes is not
legal unless they first comply with the MMPA including obtaining the
necessary waivers or permits prior to the hunt. The SAR should make a
note that any tribal take would be illegal.
Response: The SAR includes all takes of marine mammals reported by
Northwest Tribes. MMPA section 117(a) explicitly lists the information
that should be included in SARs. This list does not include identifying
which takes need to be authorized and which do not. Accordingly such
language is inappropriate for SARs.
[[Page 34060]]
Comment 42: HSUS requests more discussion of what fisheries might
be interacting with long-beaked common dolphins, given the number of
stranded animals with gunshot evidence.
Response: The fisheries likely interacting with this stock that
have historically taken animals from this stock, but which have been
unobserved in recent years, are shown in Table 1 (California small mesh
drift gillnet fishery and California halibut/white seabass set gillnet
fishery).
Comment 43: Table 1 of the California/Oregon/Washington Humpback
whale SAR lists 14 deaths and serious injuries of humpbacks over a five
year period, which results in an annual average of 2.8 per year.
Response: Table 1 lists two deaths and 14 serious injuries (serious
injuries are shown in parentheses and deaths are not), which results in
an annual average of 3.2 whales per year. This matches the description
in the text.
Comment 44: HSUS commented that inclusion of information on deaths
to marine mammals during scientific research and on potential harm due
to anthropogenic sound near Hawaii is appreciated. The inclusion of
stock assessments for marine mammal stocks in U.S. territories in the
Pacific is greatly appreciated, and efforts to update abundance
estimates and data from genetic analyses for a number of other stocks,
including Hawaiian Islands stocks, is also a welcome addition.
Response: NMFS acknowledges and thanks you for this comment.
Comment 45: PBR should not be calculated for most Hawaiian stocks,
as the abundance estimates are more than 8 years old.
Response: The abundance information for Hawaiian stocks updated in
the 2010 SARs have not yet exceeded eight years (based on a 2002
survey).
Comment 46: NMFS should amend the Hawaii pantropical spotted
dolphin report to describe the troll and charter boat fisheries and the
practice of ``fishing'' dolphins, note the existence of anecdotal
reports of bycatch, and indicate need to collect more data on potential
bycatch by these fisheries.
Response: Acknowledgement of anecdotal reports of bycatch of
spotted dolphins by the Hawaii troll fishery have been included in the
text. The potential for hooking other dolphins noted by Rizutto (2007)
by the commercial and recreational troll fishery has also been noted in
the SARs for bottlenose dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and short-
finned pilot whales.
Comment 47: New evidence indicates the presence of two stocks of
melon-headed whale in nearshore Hawaiian waters and multiple
populations of short-finned pilot whales in the Hawaiian EEZ.
Response: This new information, available after the 2010 SARs were
drafted, will be evaluated and included in the next update to the
Hawaii melon-headed whale and short-finned pilot whale SARs.
Comment 48: NMFS should note additional information of occurrence
of pygmy killer whales in the main Hawaiian Islands and evidence of
fisheries interactions.
Response: This is noted in the text.
Comment 49: The draft 2010 SAR for common bottlenose dolphins--
Hawaii Island stock indicates that ``there is no systematic monitoring
of gillnet fisheries that may take this species.'' This should be
expanded to include other types of fisheries that may also interact
with the stock.
Response: NMFS agrees, and a note has been made in the SAR of other
fisheries that may interact with the Hawaii Islands stock of bottlenose
dolphins.
Comment 50: The statement that sightings of Hawaiian striped
dolphins have historically been infrequent is no longer accurate.
Recent surveys in deep water areas have documented this species fairly
regularly.
Response: New information about the frequent occurrence of striped
dolphins off Hawaii was not available when the 2010 SAR was drafted.
Occurrence and range information for this species will be updated
during the next update for this SAR.
Comment 51: Unpublished reports indicate high re-sighting rates of
dwarf sperm whales off the island of Hawaii, suggesting small
population size and site-fidelity. Individuals have also been
documented with dorsal fin disfigurements.
Response: NMFS typically cites only peer-reviewed information in
the SARs. The information referenced here was not available for review
prior to drafting the 2010 SAR and may be evaluated for the next review
of this stock.
Comment 52: NMFS continues to divide the Eastern North Pacific
false killer whale stock into three fictional stocks based on the U.S.
EEZ boundaries, and has inappropriately extrapolated from a single
outdated false killer whale sighting to establish a population
abundance estimate for the Hawaii pelagic population that severely
underestimates total population size.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this and related
comments (see 73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008, comment 47; 74 FR 19530,
April 29, 2009, comment 34; and 75 FR 12504, March 16, 2010, comment
53) and reiterates that the stock division for false killer whale is
consistent with the MMPA and with the NMFS 2005 Guidelines for
Assessing Marine Mammals Stocks (GAMMS), which were finalized after
opportunity for public review and comment, and provide guidance on
abundance and PBR of transboundary stocks. No international agreements
presently exist for the management of cetacean bycatch in the central
Pacific longline fisheries; therefore, NMFS assesses the status of
marine mammal stocks within U.S. EEZ waters, based on EEZ abundances
and EEZ mortalities and serious injuries. Further, as noted in GAMMS,
the lack of genetic difference among false killer whale samples from
the broader eastern North Pacific region does not imply that these
animals are from a single eastern North Pacific stock.
Comment 53: The NMFS abundance estimate for the Pelagic stock of
Hawaiian false killer whales is outdated and incorrect, as the
abundance estimate from the 2002 survey became ``stale'' in the fall of
2010. In addition, a new survey begun in August 2010 has observed
numerous groups of false killer whales. This survey's observations
should be considered the best available information regardless of
whether a new abundance estimate has been calculated.
Response: The abundance information for Hawaii pelagic false killer
whales presented in the 2010 SAR is now 8 years old (based on a 2002
survey). New information from the 2010 survey was available after the
preparation of 2010 or 2011 SARs (reports are prepared in the summer
and fall for review by the SRG) but will be assessed for inclusion in
future SARs.
Comment 54: NMFS has incorrectly represented that the Hawaii
``insular'' stock ``may have declined.'' This suggestion is based on
several speculative and scientifically unproven assertions regarding
the supposed historical abundance of the Insular Stock and the assumed
effects of the fisheries on that stock.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to a similar comment (see
75 FR 12505, March 16, 2010, comment 57) and reiterates the scientific
information supporting the decline has been peer-reviewed and clearly
outlines the data and basis for their conclusions. In the SAR, there is
no assignment of cause of this decline within the SAR, and fisheries
have not been implicated at this time.
Comment 55: The SAR wrongly assigns a deep-set fishery false killer
whale interaction to the insular stock.
[[Page 34061]]
The best available scientific information does not demonstrate that the
deep-set fishery has ever interacted with an animal from the insular
stock.
Response: The boundaries of the insular stock have been determined
based on genetic and movement data and have been peer-reviewed by the
Pacific SRG. Unless specific stock identity is known (e.g., from a
genetic sample of the affected animal) any longline fishery interaction
occurring within the overlap zone between the insular and pelagic
stocks will be prorated to the two stocks so potential impact on each
stock can be accounted for. In the 2010 SAR, this proration is based on
the relative density of the insular versus pelagic stock throughout the
stock range. This methodology will be reevaluated in the near future,
and future SARs may reflect alternative proration strategies.
Comment 56: NMFS arbitrarily picks and chooses which information to
use to support conclusions published in the false killer whale SAR.
Unpublished reports and papers, ``working'' papers, ``draft'' papers,
non-peer reviewed papers, and reports containing ``preliminary
estimates'' are used in support of certain aspects of the SAR, while
others are ignored if their findings contradict other conclusions
within the SAR.
Response: NMFS does cite key unpublished papers and/or reports in
the SARs if (1) they are reviewed and accepted by the SRG at their
annual meeting, or (2) NMFS expects that they will be finalized and
published (with peer-review) by the time the SAR is finalized. If not
published, papers and/or reports that are reviewed and accepted by the
SRG are considered peer reviewed and best available science.
Comment 57: The 2010 draft humpback SAR includes a single 2006
interaction with the Hawaii-based shallow-set fishery in its mortality
and serious injury estimates for both the northern portion and
southeast Alaska portion of the Central North Pacific humpback whale
stock. This interaction should not be double-counted.
Response: See responses to comments 13 and 14 in the final 2005 LOF
(71 FR 247, January 4, 2006), comment 10 in the final 2003 LOF (68 FR
41725, July 15, 2003), comment 10 in the final 2008 LOF (72 FR 66048,
November 27, 2007), and comment 18 in the final 2009 SARs (75 FR 12498,
March 16, 2010) for detailed responses to a similar comment. Where
there is considerable uncertainty regarding to which stock a serious
injury or mortality should be assigned, NMFS exercises a conservative
approach of assigning the serious injury or mortality to both stocks.
Clearly, if information were available regarding the location of take,
genetics of the taken animal, or other conclusive information linking
the serious injury or mortality to a specific stock, NMFS would use it
to assign the take to a specific stock.
Dated: June 6, 2011.
Helen M. Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-14451 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P