[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29969-29981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12270]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XA595
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 2011 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, 301-427-8402, 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 2011, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment for
90 days (76 FR 52940, August 24, 2011). NMFS received comments on the
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports
for 2011 are available on NMFS' Web site (see ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2011 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), six non-governmental
organizations (Humane Society of the United States, Cascadia Research
Collective, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Coastal
Studies, Garden State Seafood Association, and Hawaii Longline
Association), the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Council, and one individual.
Many comments recommended initiation or repetition of large data
collection efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or
other efforts to estimate mortality. Many comments, including those
from the Commission, recommending additional data collection (e.g.,
additional
[[Page 29970]]
abundance surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in previous
years. Although NMFS agrees that additional information would improve
the SARs and inform conservation decisions, resources for surveys and
observer programs are fully utilized and no new large surveys or other
programs may be initiated until additional resources are available.
Such comments on the 2011 SARs, and responses to them, may not be
included in the summary below because the responses have not changed.
Comments on actions not related to the SARs (e.g., convening a Take
Reduction Team or listing a marine mammal species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA)) are not included below. Comments suggesting
editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports
but are not included in the summary of comments and responses below.
In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be
considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SAR rather than
being incorporated into the final 2011 SARs. These delays are 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 recommends that NMFS develop a
nationwide, 5-year schedule for carrying out stock assessments that
reflects projections and priorities for available ship and aircraft
time, and identifies the funding necessary to complete marine mammal
population surveys.
Response: NMFS agrees that such a schedule would be useful, and is
currently in the process of developing a strategic plan to focus on
resource acquisition and a prioritization scheme to meet stock
assessment goals. The plan is expected to address the economic value of
conducting regular stock assessments, identifying data needs, and
revising performance measures to track stock progress. In addition,
such a plan would potentially account for depleting budgets and
resource constraints by recommending more efficient use of ship time
through multi-species ecosystem studies, better survey designs and
sampling technologies, and leveraging inter- and intra-agency
resources. A 2012 fall workshop is being planned to address some of
these objectives.
Comment 2: The Commission repeats its 2010 recommendation that NMFS
review its observer programs nationwide, set standards for observer
coverage, identify gaps in existing coverage, and determine the
resources needed to (1) observe all fisheries that directly interact or
may directly interact with marine mammals, especially strategic stocks
and (2) provide reasonably accurate and precise estimates of serious
injury and mortality levels.
Response: NMFS has conducted multiple comprehensive nationwide
reviews of its observer programs. In 2011, NMFS published the first
edition of the National Bycatch Report, which provided a nation-wide
compilation of bycatch estimates in U.S. commercial fisheries. The
Report included information on bycatch sampling and estimation methods,
a framework for evaluating the quality of bycatch estimates, and
performance measures for monitoring improvements to bycatch data
quality and estimates over time. The report 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. The report
is the first in a planned series of national bycatch reports designed
to track and report on efforts to monitor bycatch.
NMFS has taken several steps in recent years to address
shortcomings in protected species observer coverage, including
increased observer coverage in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery,
the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery, the American Samoa longline
fishery, and the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery. NMFS is
preparing to observe the Southeast Alaska drift gillnet fishery,
beginning in 2012.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS partner in 2012 with
state fishery management agencies, the fishing industry, and other
stakeholders to develop a funding strategy that will substantially
improve the extent and level of observer coverage and data collection
concerning incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals
within five years.
Response: NMFS is seeking to improve its capacity to address marine
mammal interactions through the Marine Mammal Take Reduction Program,
enhanced observer coverage and gear marking, and further
characterizations of fishing gear and the nature of interactions.
Observer coverage is not particularly helpful or practical in certain
fisheries, such as those using trap/pot gear. For those trap/pot
fisheries, NMFS is working to develop or increase requirements for gear
marking to help identify gear that may be recovered from an entangled
animal.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS develop alternative
strategies for collecting information on mortality and serious injury
levels in fisheries for which entanglements are difficult to detect or
quantify using traditional observer programs. Alternatives include more
comprehensive gear-marking or gear-tracking requirements. At a minimum,
gear markings should enable NMFS to identify the fishery, region, and
gear part of any gear removed from whales, and ideally markings should
be ``readable'' at a distance.
Response: See response to Comment 3.
Comment 5: To best manage transboundary stocks, the Commission
recommends that NMFS collaborate with other nations and international
fishery management organizations to develop and implement cooperative
or complementary strategies for assessing stock status and the rate of
serious injury and mortality in fisheries. Priority should be given to
those stocks that are known to interact significantly with fisheries.
The goal should be to manage transboundary stocks using a PBR level
calculated for the entire stock considering all bycatch, something that
has been suggested in the proposed revisions to the stock assessment
guidelines.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this comment (see 76 FR
34054, June 10, 2011, comment 2) as follows: ``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).'' This action plan will likely be released in
mid- 2012. In addition, NMFS collaborates closely with Canada on
research, monitoring, and management for species in the NMFS Northwest
and Northeast regions and with Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations where appropriate. NMFS is also working within Regional
Fisheries Management Organizations to identify fisheries with bycatch
and to adopt conservation and management measures to reduce that
bycatch.
[[Page 29971]]
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS consider the various
approaches that are available for integrating all human-related risk
factors into stock assessments and adopt an integration method that
will produce, at a minimum, reasonable estimates of the lower and upper
bounds of serious injury and mortality rates for every stock.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this comment (see 76 FR
34054, June 10, 2011, comment 3). as follows: ``MMPA section 117(3)
contains directions for including risk factors in SARs. The MMPA states
that 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.''
Comment 7: All stock assessments should be updated to include
habitat issues. Habitat loss and degradation rank among the primary
threats to most marine mammals. In light of changing ocean conditions
in response to global warming and ocean acidification, these habitat
threats should also be discussed in the habitat section.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this and similar
comments (see 76 FR 34054, June 10, 2011, comment 22; 75 FR 12498,
March 16, 2010, comments 1 and 6). Where appropriate, NMFS strives to
include this information and will provide updates when new data become
available.
Comment 8: NMFS must update abundance estimates for many stocks
with only old population data. Given the precautionary principles
incorporated into the MMPA, any such stock should be declared
``strategic,'' because the lack of a PBR makes it impossible for NMFS
to conclude that the stock does not meet the definition of strategic.
Response: According to the NMFS 2005 Guidelines for Assessing
Marine Mammal Stocks, if abundance or human-related mortality levels
are truly unknown, some judgment will be required to make this
determination about stock status. If there is known or suspected human-
caused mortality of a stock, decisions about whether such stocks should
be declared strategic or not should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Stocks for which the minimum population estimate (Nmin) becomes unknown
should not move from ``strategic'' to ``not-strategic'', or vice versa,
solely because of an inability to estimate Nmin (or PBR).
Comment 9: The threat of sonar and other military training
exercises should be discussed for all stocks that may be exposed to
such activities in the Atlantic and Pacific.
Response: MMPA section 117(3) contains directions for including
risk factors, stating that SARs should contain estimates of 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. As very few serious injuries and mortalities can be directly
attributable to military training exercises, the impacts of this
potential threat can be difficult to assess. Where appropriate, NMFS
strives to include this information and will provide updates when new
data become available.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Technical changes: First, since publication of the draft 2011 SAR
for North Atlantic right whales, three technical changes have been made
to the report. In its February 2012 meeting, the Atlantic SRG
recommended that for the North Atlantic right whale SAR, the default
Rmax for cetaceans (0.04) be used rather than the observed net growth
rate (0.024). This results in an increase in PBR from 0.5 to 0.8.
Second, subsequent to publication of the draft 2011 North Atlantic
right whale SAR, NMFS noticed a mistake in reporting the U.S. and
Canadian serious injuries and mortalities. In the draft SAR, all the
reported fishery-caused serious injuries and mortalities were
attributed to U.S. fisheries (i.e., all injured or dead animals were
seen in U.S. waters and no information was available to indicate that
the serious injuries or mortalities were caused by a Canadian fishery).
The report writers mistakenly recorded the ratio of seriously injured
animals to mortalities (0.4 to 0.6) as the ratio of U.S. to Canadian
serious injuries and mortalities. In the final 2011 SAR, the ratio of
U.S. to Canadian serious injuries and mortalities is corrected, and all
fishery serious injury and mortality is correctly assigned to U.S.
fisheries (0.8).
Third, adult (North Atlantic right whale) male 1980, which
was observed on 2/3/2008 with an apparent constricting wrap of line and
in declining condition, was initially determined to be a serious
injury. That animal was observed gear free in 2011, and has been
removed from the serious injury list. This resulted in a decrease in
the reported fishery serious injuries and mortalities from 1.0 to 0.8
in the final 2011 SAR.
Comment 10: The Commission recommends that NMFS conduct the
required surveys of North Atlantic pinniped stocks, incorporate the
results into SARs, and use that information to manage those stocks and
the risk factors affecting them.
Response: In spring 2011, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) conducted live capture/tagging of harbor seals to obtain a
survey correction factor for the scheduled late May/early June
abundance survey along the coast of Maine. The aerial survey was not
completed due to fog during the entire survey window. The NEFSC is
scheduled to repeat this project in spring 2012. Further, the NEFSC has
begun counting archived images collected during the 2005-2011 seasonal
monitoring surveys in southeastern Massachusetts coastal waters. These
areas contain the largest number of gray seals in U.S. waters. The goal
is to obtain a minimum raw count of non-pup gray seals. In addition,
images from monitoring surveys of gray seal pupping colonies in Maine
and Massachusetts are also scheduled to be counted.
Comment 11: The Commission recommends that NMFS improve stock
assessments for bottlenose dolphins in both the Atlantic and the Gulf
of Mexico by conducting the research needed to resolve questions
concerning stock structure, provide more accurate and precise estimates
of the abundance and trends of the various stocks, and provide more
accurate and precise estimates of the level of serious injury and
mortality in fisheries and from other human activities.
Response: NMFS has taken a number of actions that will improve
stock assessments of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic Ocean. In 2010, NMFS collected biopsy samples of bottlenose
dolphins in Pamlico Sound, NC. These samples and those collected in
adjacent areas will be used to further refine the genetic stock
structure of bottlenose dolphins in the North Carolina region and aid
in the ongoing Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan. As part of the
Deep Water Horizon oil spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA),
NMFS and the National Ocean Service have been conducting seasonal stock
structure and abundance research in oiled areas of Louisiana and
Mississippi (Barataria Bay, Mississippi Sound, and Chandeleur Sound).
These studies began in May 2010 and will continue through at least
spring 2012. NMFS and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, working under an Interagency Agreement, will conduct
bottlenose dolphin stock structure research in the northern Gulf of
Mexico in 2012 and 2013. This work
[[Page 29972]]
will be conducted in bay, sound or estuary areas that have not been
previously sampled. NMFS conducted a Commission-supported workshop in
2011 to refine best practices for conducting mark-recapture studies to
estimate the abundance of bay, sound and estuary populations of
bottlenose dolphins. The report of the workshop proceedings was
prepared and is available for the public.
Comment 12: The Commission recommends that 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 and (2) the
infrastructure, expertise, and funding needed to implement it.
Response: NMFS has produced two documents that describe a feasible
strategy for assessing the Gulf's marine mammal stocks and the required
infrastructure, expertise, and funding to implement the strategy: (1)
The Southeast Fisheries Science Center Marine Mammal Program Strategic
Plan (2008) and (2) the North-Central Gulf of Mexico Bottlenose Dolphin
Research Plan (2007). Both plans need to be updated to reflect changes
in staffing, resources, and research conducted since 2008. NMFS also
worked closely with the Commission to develop a strategic marine mammal
research plan in response to the Deep Water Horizon oil spill.
Comment 13: While we understand that these SARs provide mortality
information only through 2009, the fact that NMFS is aware of the
Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 warrants a mention in SARs for the
Gulf of Mexico. The only discussion of habitat impacts relates to
disturbance from construction or removal operations.
Response: As the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process
continues and is not complete, NMFS cannot report on unconfirmed
mortalities or speculate on habitat impacts. The potential impacts of
the Deep Water Horizon oil spill on Gulf of Mexico cetacean stocks and
habitat are expected to be included in the 2012 SARs.
Comment 14: Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the Gulf of Mexico should
be designated strategic. NMFS should convene a bottlenose dolphin take
reduction team for the Gulf. Between February 2010 and October 30,
2011, NMFS has documented 586 cetacean ``strandings'' in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico, of which 95% stranded dead. Most of these were
bottlenose dolphins. A common bacterium known to cause abortions in
marine mammals killed some of the hundreds of dolphins--more than 100
of them calves and fetuses.
Response: The status of stocks in the 2011 SARs is based on
mortality and serious injury data through 2009. All of the 32 Gulf of
Mexico bay, sound and estuary, and the western coastal bottlenose
dolphin stocks are designated as strategic in the 2011 SAR. We will
continue evaluating the status of these stocks as well as the eastern
and northern coastal, continental shelf and oceanic bottlenose dolphin
stocks for the 2012 SARs.
NMFS does not have enough information to convene a take reduction
team for the Gulf of Mexico, which would be based only on fisheries-
related mortality. While an unprecedented number of bottlenose dolphins
continue stranding in the northern Gulf, data have not yet been
analyzed to determine which stocks are affected by the ongoing Unusual
Mortality Event (UME). NMFS will continue evaluating the impact of
these mortalities as part of the UME investigation and the need for a
take reduction team.
Comment 15: Long-finned and short-finned pilot whales should both
be considered strategic. In the Atlantic, two short-finned pilot whales
died stranded on Massachusetts beaches in 2011. These pilot whales
typically are not found this far north and range in the warmer waters
such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ocean off Florida. Additionally, a
pod of more than 20 pilot whales stranded in multiple areas in shallow
Gulf of Mexico waters and mangroves. A majority of the pilot whales
died.
Response: Strandings are not part of the status of stocks
determination unless the cause of the stranding is attributed to human
activity. Human factors were not identified in these two stranding
events. In the cases where strandings are caused by human activities,
any human-caused mortality and serious injury data would be compiled
and evaluated with respect to the PBR for the stock.
Comment 16: All SARs for marine mammals that range in the Gulf of
Mexico should be updated to include threats from oil spills and
associated oil and gas drilling activities, including seismic
exploration activities. Specifically, NMFS must consider the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in 2010 as well as any new information concerning its
impacts on marine mammals.
Response: NOAA is estimating the impacts of the Deep Water Horizon
oil spill, including mortality, as part of the ongoing Natural Resource
Damage Assessment process. When that process is complete, the SARs will
be updated to reflect any potential impacts to marine mammals. NMFS
agrees that a summary of the potential impacts of oil and gas-related
activities on marine mammals is appropriate for the Gulf of Mexico
SARs. For each SAR, NMFS is developing a habitat section that will be
included in future SARs. This section will attempt to address the
potential impacts of human activities on a marine mammal stock
including, if appropriate, oil and gas-related activities.
Comment 17: We ask that the SAR for right whales include
mortalities and serious injuries more recent than 2 years old (in this
case from 2009, so the data will be 3 years behind by the time the SAR
is finalized). NMFS provides more timely summaries to the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Team on an annual or shorter basis, and the
annual meeting of the right whale Consortium has a presentation of
mortalities and serious injuries since the prior meeting 12 month
earlier. NMFS has this information and should use it in the SAR for
this species where no extrapolation for fishing effort is required that
would slow the process. Delaying this information hampers efforts to
the magnitude of (or trend in) anthropogenic impacts to the species.
This comment is also germane to humpback and fin whales.
Response: NMFS strives to include the most recent data on serious
injury and mortality in each SAR, but this information requires
analysis and confirmation before being included and published. Draft
SARs are reviewed by regional SRGs as early as the fall of the year
prior to publication, and the information must be accurate at that
time. Further lag time is necessitated by the 90-day public comment
period and the agency clearance and publication processes.
Comment 18: It is not clear why the region proposes removing the
last paragraph of the section on Human-Caused Mortality and Serious
Injury in the humpback whale report that contains a discussion of the
need to better understand the level of anthropogenic mortality by
assuring recovery of carcasses and necropsy.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the reference to observer coverage
in the paragraph is misleading because those activities have almost no
influence on the counts of takes. Because these counts are minimums,
they most likely understate the level of human interactions mentioned
in paragraph 3 of the ``annual human-caused serious injury and
mortality'' section. The paragraph is retained and the phrase ``fishery
observer data'' is changed to ``data assessed for serious injury and
mortality.''
[[Page 29973]]
Comment 19: There is an apparent omission in the detailing of
mortalities of humpback whales. We note the following case from the
NOAA's large whale stranding data base (NER020608Mn). The comment
accompanying the documentation of this February 6, 2008 mortality was
``Carcass reported by NOAA Fisheries observer Red nylon cord wrapped
~4-5 times around fluke, possibly identified as lobster gear.''
Response: This event did not meet the criteria for inclusion
because NMFS could not confirm from the available data that the wraps
were constricting, and no necropsy was conducted to confirm the
associated hemorrhaging.
Comment 20: The SAR for short-beaked common dolphin states that
there were ``annual research activity mortalities and serious injuries
that were not included in the bycatch estimates.'' We believe that
these fishery-related mortalities (albeit during research activities)
must be included in the estimates. We assume that the 0.2 estimate for
the 5 year average is the result of the single take in a monkfish
research gillnet in 2009 as discussed in the text. We also remind the
region that, to the best of our knowledge, it does not possess
authorization for these sorts of mortalities and should seek formal
incidental take authorization for its research.
Response: Wording in the SAR that says the common dolphin research
take was not included in the bycatch estimates is not correct and has
been removed. In fact, the 0.2 addition to the five-year average for
this take was added twice, as it was already accounted for in the
bycatch table. However, the Northeast Sink Gillnet fishery mean annual
mortality number has been revised to 27 to account for a rounding
error. The NEFSC is in the process of obtaining authorization for
fishery-related research takes (see response to comment 21).
Comment 21: It is evident that harbor porpoise mortality continues
to exceed PBR. To add to the species' woe, the SAR details the
mortality of 12 porpoises in a monkfish research fishery in 2009. If
this level of mortality resulted from nets fished outside the harbor
porpoise management areas, it may be an indication that these areas are
not sufficiently protective of this stock. It is also important to note
that, to the best of our knowledge, the region does not possess
authorization for research-related mortalities and needs to seek formal
incidental take authorization for its fishery research.
Response: The NEFSC is in the process of issuing letters of
authorization under the MMPA for fishery-related research takes where
needed to supplement existing MMPA and ESA scientific research permits.
Comment 22: Abundance estimates are outdated for harbor, harp, and
gray seals. The sections on other mortality give short shrift to the
discussion of illegal shooting that is an increasing problem. The
region needs to devote at least a sentence or two in the SARs
addressing the numbers of animals found illegally shot as it helps
inform potential trends in and sources of anthropogenic mortality.
Response: Information has been added to the 2011 SARs indicating
the estimated number of seals injured and killed by illegal shootings.
From 2005-2009, there were 7 harbor seals, 3 harp seals, 1 gray seal, 1
hooded seal, and 2 unidentified seals reported as having been shot in
the NOAA Northeast and Southeast marine mammal stranding databases.
Comment 23: The change in the abundance estimate for Atlantic
white-sided dolphins and consequent reduction in the PBR results in
fishery-related mortality once again exceeding PBR. NMFS has convened
take reduction teams to address fishery-related bycatch of this and
other species. It would seem particularly important to review the
measures under the take reduction plan for the Northeast Bottom Trawl
fishery.
Response: The NEFSC is currently investigating the past and present
trends in abundance and bycatch estimates of Atlantic white-sided
dolphins. This will determine the most appropriate current bycatch
estimates and determine whether the abundance estimates are changing
due to analytical reasons, changes in the dolphin's spatial-temporal
use of U.S. waters, or fishery-related mortality. The results of these
investigations will likely be available in early 2013, at which time
NMFS will determine if the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team will
meet to review and discuss possible measures to reduce bycatch to below
PBR.
Comment 24: According to the draft SAR, the population estimate for
white-sided dolphin is based upon ``the sum of the 2006 and 2007
surveys,'' yet the 2006 and 2007 surveys covered an area where you
would not expect to find components of the white-sided dolphin stock
and was conducted during a time when you would expect low observations,
resulting in low estimates. Why is there no ``Current Population Trend
Analysis'' for this stock? What are the results of the 2008, 2009, 2010
surveys for the white-sided dolphins?
Response: See response to comment 23.
Comment 25: The estimate of Nmin for white-sided dolphin is the
only case in the Atlantic Ocean in 2011 in which the population
estimate fluctuated more than 1% in either direction, in fact it was
reduced by about 60%. This reduction has caused the stock to be
considered strategic, a designation that usually triggers a take
reduction team meeting and possibly the implementation of additional
regulations with serious negative impacts on the fishing fleets. What
additional analyses will be conducted to verify this estimate? Why
would the Agency initiate a Take Reduction Team without the results of
Spring/Fall Surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012?
Response: See response to comment 23.
Comment 26: The draft 2011 white-sided dolphin SAR contains the
statement that ``The total number of white-sided dolphins along the
eastern U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown.'' The Summary
Table 1 for all ``Atlantic Marine Mammal Stocks'' shows that the Nmin
and PBR estimates for 19 stocks are considered ``unknown'', and that 32
other separate stocks are considered ``undetermined.'' Why is the Nmin
& PBR for white-sided dolphin not ``unknown'' or ``undetermined''? What
is the justification for a ``strategic'' designation?
Response: To clarify this section, NMFS has reworded the text in
the SAR to read ``Abundance estimates of white-sided dolphins from
various portions of their range are available * * *.''. The designation
of a population estimate as ``unknown'' is used for stocks which are
rarely seen in surveys and thus no estimates can be generated. The
designation ``undetermined'' is used for the PBR of a stock with
abundance estimates too old to be used in the PBR calculation. Atlantic
white-sided dolphins became strategic because the best abundance
estimate resulted in a PBR that was lower than the mortality estimate.
It is recognized, however, that the inter-annual variability of recent
white-sided dolphin estimates has been high, and, as mentioned above,
this is something NMFS is investigating.
Comment 27: The draft 2011 gray seal SAR states that ``Present data
are insufficient to calculate the minimum population estimate for U.S.
waters.'' Identical statements have been made in every Marine Mammal
Stock Assessment since 2005. Furthermore, the draft 2011 SAR states
that ``Current estimates of the total western Atlantic gray seal
population are not available.''
[[Page 29974]]
We strongly recommend that resources be immediately devoted to
delivering a valid determination.
Response: See response to comment 10.
Comment 28: The draft 2011 Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR states
that ``Not all whales migrate to the West Indies every winter * * *.''
As a minor point of clarification, the only direct support for
overwintering by this stock is in the Gulf of Maine, where a small
number of individual juveniles have been re-sighted across a winter
season (Clapham et al., 1993; Robbins, 2007). It has not yet been
determined whether whales observed off the mid-Atlantic and southeast
U.S. necessarily overwinter.
Response: NMFS agrees that more research is needed to determine
whether these whales remain in the Gulf of Maine. NMFS maintains that
the sentence is accurate as written, as it does not specify wintering
grounds.
Comment 29: There is a long paragraph in the draft report that
discusses changes in the spatial distribution of Gulf of Maine humpback
whales in relation to prey abundance. I suggest that this paragraph be
revised, as it is now quite dated and missing information from more
recent years.
Response: The paragraph is still accurate and discusses an
important aspect of humpback ecology.
Comment 30: Robbins (2009) calculated the minimum number of Gulf of
Maine humpback whales alive in 2003 to be 783 individuals. This was
based on the number photo-identified in 2003 plus the whales that were
seen both before and after that year. This number was calculated based
on intensive research effort as part of the MONAH project and is likely
the best minimum estimate available for this population.
Response: The 2003 estimate to which the commenter refers has
considerable unquantifiable uncertainty due to its age. As recommended
in the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks Workshop Report
(Wade and Angliss 1997), abundance estimates older than eight years
should not be used for calculationing PBR.
Comment 31: The draft 2011 Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR states
that 6.5% growth is close to the theoretical maximum for this
population, while it appears to have been calculated using only the
observed survival and reproduction values from the same time period.
Seeing as none of the population growth rate estimates are current, I
am uncertain of the value of comparing them to a theoretical maximum.
Zerbini et al. (2010) is now the most recent reference for this work.
Response: NMFS has added references and raised Rmax in the SAR for
this stock based on the literature referenced. Given regional
variability across different ecosystems and MMPA's precautionary
appraoch, NMFS will not apply the global theoretical value noted in
Zerbini, et al. (2010).
Comment 32: Previous Gulf of Maine humpback whale SARs have
considered unassigned human-caused serious injury and mortality cases
to be all or none Gulf of Maine whales. I suggest that takes instead be
allocated probabilistically based on the proportion of Gulf of Maine
whales identified in these areas.
Response: Unless proven to be from a different stock, NMFS assigns
Gulf of Maine humpback whale human-caused mortality or serious injury
cases first discovered in U.S. waters to the Gulf of Maine stock. This
is the most risk-averse approach for the stock. Given the very small
sample sizes of serious injuries and mortalities for this stock, it is
not practicable to allocate takes probabilistically.
Comment 33: Minimum serious injury and mortality determinations may
not be appropriate for comparison to PBR based on studies evaluating
the effectiveness of PBR with underestimated mortality (Wade, 1998). I
recommend that further work be done to assess the appropriateness of a
minimum mortality metric for comparison to PBR or evaluate the possible
effect on stocks using a plausible range of mortality estimates.
Response: NMFS is considering adopting this approach and, once the
methods are vetted and approved, will include it in future stock
assessments.
Comment 34: The information presented for scar-based studies of
entanglement is outdated. Current results and inferences should be
drawn from the most recent technical reports (Robbins, 2009, 2010,
2011). For example, data support that juveniles (not just yearlings)
are more likely to be entangled, and that less than 10% of
entanglements are reported annually, with approximately 3% of the
population dying from entanglement each year. Benjamins et al. (2011)
is now the most current publication on humpback whale entanglements off
Newfoundland.
Response: The commenter listed two publications not available until
after the draft 2011 SAR was made available to the public. This
information will be incorporated into the 2012 SAR as appropriate.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 35: The Commission recommends that NMFS conduct the
necessary surveys to update SARs for harbor seals along the Oregon and
Washington coasts and in Washington inland waters.
Response: The Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the Northwest
Regional Office requested funding for both harbor seal and harbor
porpoise surveys in 2011; however, these surveys were not funded.
Comment 36: The Commission recommends that NMFS maintain and
enhance existing collaborations to obtain the data necessary to
generate stock assessments for all Pacific Island cetaceans within U.S.
jurisdiction, and to seek new opportunities, such as collaborating with
the Navy, to leverage resources for accomplishing this challenging
task.
Response: NMFS agrees and is actively engaged in collaborative
research within the Pacific Islands region to generate the data
necessary for future stock assessments. In 2011 and in 2012, the U.S.
Navy provided partial support to NMFS for surveys in the Marianas
regions, a partnership NMFS hopes to maintain in to the future in order
to satisfy NMFS and Navy mandates.
Comment 37: Though the region may have reviewed the stock
assessments for the ESA-listed stocks (e.g., blue whales, humpback
whales, etc.), there is no mention made of this. In fact, there is new
information for a number of these stocks, and their SARs should have
been revised to provide it. As one example, the most recent mortality
data in the Eastern North Pacific blue whale SAR is for 2008, but there
is documentation of mortality to at least one blue whale in 2009.
Importantly, this particular instance was in a NOAA-contracted research
vessel, and the region lacks an Incidental Take Authorization for
research-related mortality.
Response: The SARs for all strategic stocks (including stocks for
which strategic status is due to listing under the ESA) are reviewed
annually, as required. The inclusion of a relatively small change in
estimated mortality or abundance would not change the status of these
stocks nor provide for a more accurate assessment of their status.
Although NMFS attempts to update SARs when information becomes
available (whether the new information would change the status or not),
some minor changes might not be incorporated into a SAR in any given
year.
[[Page 29975]]
Comment 38: NMFS should update the false killer whale abundance
estimate based on recent surveys as soon as possible.
Response: NMFS plans to update the false killer whale SAR to
include a new abundance estimate from the 2011 survey as soon as the
analyses are completed and have been peer-reviewed.
Comment 39: While the primary cause for the decline in Hawaiian
monk seals is limited food availability, this assessment should include
more information about the loss of pupping habitat due to sea level
rise which will continue to threaten the monk seals. Additionally,
Hawaiian monk seals on the Main Hawaiian Islands are increasingly
injured by fishing hooks, and the use of barbless hooks could reduce
serious injuries. There is newer information on the Main Hawaiian
Islands population that should be incorporated into the stock
assessment. A series of articles on Hawaiian monk seals was published
in a special issue of Aquatic Mammals 37:1 (2011).
Response: Regarding sea level rise, the SAR notes this as a
potential threat and cites the single research paper that analyzes
this. There is no additional information to characterize the threat at
this time, though additional analysis of climate impacts on the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands is currently underway. Regarding hooking
incidents within the Main Hawaiian Islands, the SAR contains updated
information through 2008, the most recent when the SAR was drafted in
2010. The Main Hawaiian Island monk seal population is estimated to be
growing robustly despite the unknown fisheries interaction rate.
Therefore, while the absolute number of hookings appears to be growing,
it is not possible to determine whether the rates of hooking, injury or
mortality is changing significantly.
The noted Aquatic Mammals special issue was published after the
2011 SAR was drafted in 2010. The SAR is not meant to review all
aspects of research and management of the species, but instead focuses
on stock assessment issues prescribed to be addressed in the current
Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks. Critical habitat
revisions for Hawaiian monk seals would be covered at such time that a
new critical habitat designation occurs.
Comment 40: The stock assessment for long-beaked common dolphin
should be updated due to new information. At least three dolphins died
as a result of an underwater blast during Navy training exercises. Two
additional dolphins were found dead later, which may have been related
to the exercise off the San Diego coast.
Response: A draft 2012 SAR for long-beaked common dolphin is
currently in revision and will be released for public review in mid-
2012. This SAR will include information on the blast trauma incident.
Comment 41: A number of stocks have abundance estimates that were
becoming outdated (i.e., 8 or more years old) and yet were provided
with PBRs (e.g., Spinner dolphins--Hawaiian Islands, Short-finned pilot
whales--Hawaii stock). We see that the final SARs for these stocks that
were not reviewed this year still retain this information even though
population abundance estimates were based on a now-outdated 2002
survey. This is also true for some stocks in the current SARs. Where
surveys are from 2002 or prior years, SARs should be corrected such
that PBRs based on outdated information default to ``undetermined.''
Response: Draft 2013 SARs for all Hawaiian stocks will include new
abundance information based on the 2010 survey. Those reports were not
revised in 2011 because the status of those stocks with outdated
abundance estimates will not change, i.e. changing the PBRs to
``undetermined'' would not change the status of those stock from ``not
strategic'' to ``strategic.''
Comment 42: It would seem important for the region to speculate on
possible reasons for the decline in harbor seal California stock counts
between 2005 and 2009 (as illustrated in Figure 2). It is striking and
begs explanation.
Response: A similar decline in counts was observed in 1993 (shown
in Fig. 2 of the SAR), with subsequent year counts rebounding to levels
previously observed in 1991 and 1992. Declines in any given year may
result from inter-annual oceanographic variability, which can influence
the amount of time animals spend foraging away from haulouts (e.g.,
during El Nino periods, animals may spend more time away from land,
which would result in lower survey counts). The number of animals
ashore may vary considerably depending on the time of day, weather,
tidal phase, or prey availability (Harvey and Goley 2011). While
surveys are conducted to coincide with low tides that are generally
favorable for observing the maximum number of animals ashore, weather
and other logistics do not always allow for surveys to be conducted at
optimal times, contributing to the inter-annual variability in counts.
NMFS is planning to conduct a harbor seal survey during 2012 and will
re-evaluate trends when these data have been analyzed.
Comment 43: Although we recognize that the harbor seals--WA/OR
stock and WA inland waters stock SAR was not reviewed or revised since
2010, we wish to point out that it states that tribal subsistence takes
may be occurring. It should be noted that these takes are illegal in
the absence of a waiver of the requirements of the MMPA.
Response: The SARs include all takes of marine mammals reported by
Northwest Tribes. MMPA section 117(a) explicitly lists the information
that should be included in the SARs. Section 117(a) requires
identifying authorized and unauthorized take. Accordingly, such
language is inappropriate for the SARs. The NOAA Office for Law
Enforcement conducts investigations into complaints of potential
violations of the MMPA involving all citizens within the jurisdiction
of the United States.
Comment 44: According to information at the start of the Harbor
Porpoise: Northern Oregon/Washington Coast SAR, it was prepared in
April 2011. The most recent abundance survey is stated to be September
2002. This arguably exceeds the 8-year guideline for considering
estimates to be outdated. Although most of the verbiage in the section
on ``other mortality'' is not changed from the prior SAR, we are
concerned that there is so little fishery-related mortality documented
in the tables and discussion that precede that section. Despite this,
the section states that in the 2006-2007 UME, where cause of death
could be attributed, much of it was due to trauma and ``[s]uspected or
confirmed fishery interactions were the primary cause of adult/subadult
traumatic injuries.'' This might suggest that unobserved fisheries are
having an impact that is not properly accounted.
Response: In both the Northern Oregon/Washington Coast and the
Washington Inland Waters harbor porpoise SARs, the last sentence in the
Population Size section states ``However, because the most recent
abundance estimate is >8 years old, there is no current estimate of
abundance available for this stock.''
The Alaska Fisheries Science Center and the Northwest Regional
Office requested funding for both harbor seal and harbor porpoise
surveys in 2011; however, these surveys were not funded in 2011. The
Southwest Fisheries Science Center will analyze aerial surveys that
have been conducted for leatherback sea turtles in 2010-2011 to
determine whether there are sufficient harbor porpoise sightings to
estimate
[[Page 29976]]
their abundance in waters off of Washington and Oregon. Recent vessel
surveys may also be used to estimate the abundance of harbor porpoise
in Washington inland waters.
Comment 45: In the harbor porpoise Washington Inland Waters SAR, we
continue to be concerned that tribal gillnet fisheries are unobserved.
Gillnet gear is implicated in harbor porpoise deaths wherever they co-
occur, and the SAR indicates that there are even some limited self-
reports of interactions with this stock. As the region acknowledged in
a prior (1999) SAR for this same stock of harbor porpoise ``* * *
because logbook records (fisher self-reports required during 1990-94)
are most likely negatively biased (Credle et al., 1994), these are
considered to be minimum estimates.'' Perhaps a similar caveat should
be re-inserted, and the region should make a concerted effort to work
with tribes to try to better quantify interactions.
Response: NMFS continues to encourage tribal co-managers to obtain
and provide information on interactions between tribal fishermen and
marine mammals. At this time, self-reporting is the only source of
information on bycatch of marine mammals in all Pacific Northwest
salmon gillnet fisheries (non-treaty and treaty), and based on the
analysis by Credle et al. (1994), self-reports represent minimum
estimates.
Comment 46: In response to comments on the draft 2010 SARs
regarding evidence of at least two populations of melon-headed whales
in Hawaiian waters, NMFS stated that new information would be included
in the 2011 SARs. However no updated report for melon-headed whales in
Hawaiian waters is presented in the draft 2011 SARs.
Response: Melon-headed whales, with all other stocks in Hawaiian
waters, will be updated in 2013. Non-strategic stocks are reviewed
every three years, such that the next review and update will occur in
2013.
Comment 47: For the Hawaii Pelagic stock of false killer whale, the
Status of Stock Section notes that ``no habitat issues are known to be
of concern for this stock.'' However, two habitat issues identified in
the draft SAR for the Hawaii Insular Stock, elevated levels of PCBs and
declines in the biomass of some false killer whale prey species in
Hawaiian waters also apply to this stock.
Response: There are no published reports that address
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in pelagic false killer whales,
and it is inappropriate to assume that a pelagic population would be
exposed to these pollutants at the same level as an island-associated
stock that feeds closer to land-based pollution sources. We have added
text to the SAR acknowledging the potential impacts of reductions in
biomass of some prey species.
Comment 48: The NMFS delineation of Pacific false killer whale
stocks is artificial and inaccurate.
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; 75 FR 100316, March 16, 2010, Comment 53;
and 76 FR 34054, June 10, 2011, comment 52) and reiterates that the
stock division for false killer whales is consistent with the MMPA and
with NMFS 2005 Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks, which
were finalized after opportunity for public review and comment, and
provide guidance on abundance and PBR of transboundary stocks. Since
the response to previous comments, the evidence for multiple stocks of
false killer whales in the central North Pacific has only grown
stronger (see Chivers et al., 2010, referenced in the SAR). Further, as
noted in Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks, the lack of
genetic differences among false killer whale samples from the broader
eastern North Pacific region does not imply that these animals are from
a single Pacific stock.
Comment 49: NMFS's abundance estimate for the pelagic stock of
false killer whales is inaccurate, arbitrary, and not based on the best
available science.
Response: The abundance estimate for the pelagic stock of false
killer whales was derived from peer-reviewed and well-established
statistical methods for treating line-transect survey data. A new
survey was recently completed, as referenced in the 2011 SAR, and the
data from that survey are currently undergoing analysis. Using the new
data, false killer whale abundance estimates will be revised for the
2012 SARs.
Comment 50: The draft false killer whale SAR determinations
regarding the insular stock are inaccurate and arbitrary. Specifically,
it inaccurately represents that the Insular Stock is ``declining;'' it
wrongly assigns a deep-set fishery false killer whale interaction to
the Insular Stock; and it improperly uses a recovery factor of 0.1 to
calculate PBR for the Insular Stock.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this and similar
comments (see 75 FR 12505, March 16, 2010, comment 57; 76 FR 34054,
June 10, 2011, comment 54) and reiterates the scientific information
supporting the decline has been peer-reviewed and clearly outlines the
data and basis for their conclusions. There is no attributed cause of
this decline within the SAR, and fisheries have not been implicated at
this time. The assignment of take within the insular-pelagic overlap
zone is supported by the 2005 Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal
Stocks. The recovery factor of 0.1 is also appropriate given the
proposed listing and is supported by the Pacific SRG.
Comment 51: NMFS arbitrarily picks and chooses which information it
will use to support the draft SAR.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this comment (see 76 FR
34054, June 10, 2011, comment 56).
Comment 52: In the draft SAR, NMFS implements two new changes that
result in the allocation of additional false killer whale interactions
to the fisheries. NMFS assigns a proportion of false killer whale
interactions for which no injury determination has been made and
assigns a proportion of ``blackfish'' interactions as false killer
whale interactions that also count against the fisheries. Neither of
these changes in methodology is reasonable or lawful. In the first
instance, NMFS proposes to categorize certain interactions as ``serious
injuries'' when, in fact, no data exist from which NMFS is able to
ascertain whether the specific interactions in question were serious or
not. In the second instance, NMFS proposes to categorize certain
interactions as false killer whale interactions when, in fact, no data
exist from which NMFS can reliably determine that the interactions in
question involved false killer whales. In both cases, interactions are
unfairly counted against the fisheries in the absence of data.
Response: The NMFS 2005 Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal
Stocks state ``* * * in some cases, mortality occurs in areas where
more than one stock of marine mammals occurs. When biological
information (e.g., genetics, morphology) is sufficient to identify the
stock from which a dead animal came, then the mortality should be
associated only with that stock. When a dead animal cannot be assigned
directly to a stock, then mortality may be partitioned by the
abundances of the stocks vulnerable to the mortality (i.e., based on
the abundances of each stock within the appropriate geographic area),
provided there is sufficient information on stock abundance. When
mortality is partitioned among overlapping stocks proportional to the
abundances of the affected stocks, the reports will contain a
discussion of the potential for over or
[[Page 29977]]
under-estimating stock-specific mortality.'' Regarding allocation of
serious injury/mortality of ``blackfish,'' these animals were
identified as either false killer whales or pilot whales, and to
exclude them from the reports would underestimate mortality. The
prorating of unidentified animals was recommended and reviewed by the
Pacific SRG in 2009 and 2010.
Comment 53: The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Council notes an inconsistent application of the underlying assumptions
in calculating PBR between the Hawaiian monk seal and Hawaii insular
stock of false killer whale. The draft 2011 SAR reports that the
population of Hawaii insular stock of false killer whales has exhibited
a statistically significant decline in recent decades, and that model
results indicate current declines at an average rate of 9% since 1989.
It is not clear from the draft 2011 SAR why the Hawaiian insular stock
of false killer whales fails to meet the underlying assumptions of the
PBR calculation.
Response: The PBR framework was designed to maintain stocks as
functioning elements of their ecosystem in the face of anthropogenic
removals. If a stock is below its Optimum Sustainable Population and
all anthropogenic factors have been removed, the population should
presumably grow. If there are no fishery takes driving the population
down (like monk seals in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands) and the
population is still declining, then the stock dynamics are not
conforming to the assumptions of PBR. Long-term and detailed
demographic data are available for monk seals in the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands, where most of the stock resides. These data provide
unequivocal evidence that the population is declining in the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands overall. Further, the current lack of any fisheries in
the Northwest Hawaiian Islands means that direct fishery takes cannot
be responsible for the decline. Other factors (prey limitation,
entanglement in marine debris, shark predation and male seal
aggression) are known contributors to the decline. The fact that
Hawaiian monk seals are declining despite the lack of direct fishery
takes in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands is the basis for the conclusion
that the stock does not conform to PBR assumptions. The decline in
Hawaiian insular false killer whales is not as well understood, and a
cause cannot be absolutely attributed. As described in Oleson et al.
(2010), it is highly likely that fishery interactions have impacted
insular false killer whales, even if other environmental factors also
impact that population. For this reason, application of PBR for this
stock is appropriate.
Comment 54: The reported declining trend of the Hawaiian insular
stock of false killer whales is inconsistent with NMFS' own best
population estimate of the stock over the last decade. The abundance
estimate of the insular population has, at minimum, remained stable
since the 2000 SAR. At the time, an abundance estimate of 121 false
killer whales was used based on calculations made in 2000 using aerial
surveys conducted in 1993, 1995, and 1998 within approximately 25 nm of
the Main Hawaiian Islands. The draft 2011 SAR estimates the current
abundance at 170 false killer whales. The population, therefore, has
not declined for at least 10 years and likely since the 1993 aerial
survey, thus contradicting the population trend results derived in the
Status Review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales.
Response: The draft 2011 SAR discusses the decline of insular false
killer whales following the Biological Review conducted for this
population under the ESA. The Biological Review Team agreed that the
Mobley et al. (2000) abundance estimate of 121 individuals was
negatively biased because observers were not able to detect groups
below the plane and no adjustment was made for this or for animals that
were submerged when the aircraft passed overhead in the calculation of
abundance from those surveys, as is suggested in Buckland et al. (2001)
``Introduction to Distance Sampling.'' The 1993 to 1997 estimates also
carry high uncertainty due to the unsurveyed 400 m wide strip
underneath the plane. For these reasons, the Biological Review Team
felt that the 1993 to 1997 estimate of 121 animals was unreliable and
chose, instead, to use the encounter rate from each individual aerial
survey in its assessment of population trend and extinction risk. The
1993 to 1997 aerial surveys may also be negatively biased due to the
small average group size reported, suggesting that the aerial observers
did not see the entire group. More recent analyses by Baird et al.
(2008) have indicated that group size is positively related to
encounter duration and that boat-based encounters less than two hours
generally yield an underestimate of total group size. When circling
small groups in an airplane, sub-groups on the periphery of the circled
group can easily be missed, especially when observers are focused on
obtaining group size estimates for the group being circled. For these
reasons, it is inappropriate to directly compare the 2000 versus 2010
estimates of population size for false killer whales. The Population
Viability Analysis conducted by the Biological Review Team assessed all
data sources, including those available from the 1990s aerial surveys,
and derived the 9% average decline in a statistically robust analysis.
Comment 55: The Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Council comments that NMFS continues to use an outdated minimum
population estimate to calculate PBR for the Hawaii pelagic stock of
false killer whales, despite compelling evidence from the recent
Hawaiian Island Cetacean and Ecosystem. Assessment Survey (HICEAS) II
survey in 2010 that the population is much greater than estimated using
the old surveys. NMFS acknowledges that the 2010 survey had a six-fold
increase in encounter rate than the 2002 survey, but makes no attempt
to reflect the new survey results and simply ``retains'' the old
minimum population estimate of 249 false killer whales. Preliminary
analysis results of the 2010 survey, presented at the Pacific SRG
meeting held November 7-9, 2011, estimated a higher minimum population
estimate.
Response: The draft 2011 SAR is based on data and analyses that
were available at the time it was drafted. The results presented at the
November, 2011, SRG meeting were intended to provide a preliminary look
at the analysis framework employed to derive estimates for the 2012
SARs. Final analyses of the HICEAS II survey data are not complete at
this time. As a result, it is inappropriate to use interim results that
NMFS and the SRG feel inadequately represent the uncertainty inherent
in the data sets that underestimate uncertainty and overestimate the
minimum abundance. The new estimates will be included in the 2012 draft
SARs.
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 56: The draft SAR incorrectly allocates a single
interaction to different central North Pacific humpback whale sub-
stocks.
Response: Where there is considerable uncertainty to which stock a
serious injury or mortality should be assigned, NMFS exercises a
conservative approach of assessing the potential impact of the serious
injury or mortality to both stocks. 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 to assign the take to a specific stock.
[[Page 29978]]
Comment 57: The Commission recommends that NMFS consider the
impending changes in the Arctic and develop a long-term assessment
strategy that will provide a reliable basis for characterizing
population abundance, stock status, and trends, as well as implementing
protective measures that will minimize the effects of Arctic climate
disruption on the viability of marine mammal stocks.
Response: NMFS understands that the viability of Arctic marine
mammals in the context of a rapidly changing environment is a concern.
NMFS will assess Arctic marine mammal abundance, trends, stock
identification, foraging ecology, and vital rates, and how these
features change in response to environmental and anthropogenic
perturbations, as resources become available.
Comment 58: The Commission recommends that NMFS substantially
increase its efforts to (1) collaborate with the Alaska Native
community to monitor the abundance and distribution of ice seals and
(2) use seals taken in the subsistence harvest to obtain data on
demography, ecology, life history, behavior, health status, and other
pertinent topics.
Response: NMFS works closely with co-management partners and Alaska
Native communities to collect stock assessment data on ice seals. NMFS
would like to improve its collection of data on subsistence harvest,
which has been hindered by resource limitations. NMFS is aware that
there are no current abundance estimates for any of the four species of
ice-associated seals: ribbon, bearded, spotted, and ringed seals. These
species range across the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and conducting
surveys of these areas requires substantial resources. Joint US-Russia
surveys are planned for spring 2012 and 2013 and are expected to result
in abundance estimates for ribbon and spotted seals. Surveys directed
at collecting abundance of ringed and bearded seals will be conducted
as resources become available.
Comment 59: As the loss of ice in the Arctic progresses and
industrial activities increase, increased ship traffic is expected
through Unimak Pass and the Bering Strait. Shipping traffic transiting
Unimak Pass on its way to and from the Bering Strait is likely to pass
through the western portion of the critical habitat area designated in
the southeast Bering Sea, putting right whales there at risk. The
Commission recommends that NMFS do everything it can to ensure that all
vessels operating in the area are aware of the need to protect the
North Pacific right whale, and that every practicable step be taken to
minimize the probability of entanglements and ship strikes.
Response: Several protective measures and outreach activities are
already in place to protect the North Pacific right whale, including
providing information cards to vessels operating in Alaska waters. NMFS
will continue to work with partners such as Sea Grant, commercial
fishers, Native communities, academia, and other recreational and
commercial vessel operators on outreach activities.
Comment 60: The Commission recommends that NMFS continue its
efforts to better describe the distribution and movement patterns of
North Pacific right whales, especially with respect to their
distribution during those periods when they are outside designated
critical habitat.
Response: NMFS recognizes the importance of monitoring the
population status and movement patterns of the eastern stock of North
Pacific right whales and will continue to seek resources to study this
critically endangered population.
Comment 61: The updating of ice seal SARs is welcome although we
still have concerns regarding a lack of abundance data and recent or
reliable estimates of Alaska Native harvest. Several SARs state that
``[a]s of 2009, data on community subsistence harvests are no longer
being collected * * *.'' This warrants an explanation.
Response: NMFS recognizes the need for obtaining reliable estimates
of subsistence harvests for all pinniped species in Alaska, including
ice-dependent seal species. Due to funding limitations, the subsistence
monitoring program conducted by Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
which documents Steller sea lion and harbor seal subsistence hunts by
village, is no longer supported by NMFS funds. Multi-year ice seal
subsistence harvest studies have been started in specific communities
by the Ice Seal Committee (six villages to date). This subsistence
monitoring program will expand to other communities, with assistance
from the Ice Seal Committee. Although some ice seal harvest data have
been collected from specific villages, while other harvest data has
been collected through tissue sampling programs and individual hunters,
NMFS agrees that a full statewide subsistence monitoring program is
necessary for ice seals, especially for any ESA-listed stocks.
Comment 62: 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, ice seals). The region should seek resources
and advice on building a better system of deploying observers.
Response: NMFS is working with fishing industry and Alaska state
partners on implementing adaptive sampling in the federal observer
program that covers fisheries managed by the State of Alaska. The
adaptive sampling methods are designed to increase data collection
efficiency. NMFS has recently directed funds to observer effort in
nearshore drift gillnet fisheries in southeast Alaska.
Comment 63: Habitat sections of many stock assessments discuss the
potential for increased human activities as Arctic ice diminishes. The
pressure for offshore exploration and extraction for oil and gas
reserves continues as well. These activities that involve high
intensity geophysical exploration and high levels of noise related to
extraction (as well as increased vessel traffic) are not well addressed
in the SARs.
Response: NMFS does address habitat concerns pertaining to oil and
gas activities, particularly for those stocks where there is a
potential concern. SARs for specific stocks have extensive information
on potential habitat concerns depending on what information is
available for a particular stock. NMFS will continue to update the
habitat section for those stocks as new information becomes available.
Comment 64: Although Table 1 and text in the Steller sea lion
Western stock SAR indicate a slow increase in numbers in the Gulf of
Alaska, this is not evident for the Aleutians. The revised SAR
discusses calculation of a PBR by adding language stating that ``some
stocks of marine mammals in the U.S. with an obvious declining trend
have been called `undetermined,' '' but the region does not propose
this approach for this stock. We understand that the stock is not
declining throughout its range, but the justification for not
calculating a PBR because a downward trend is not anthropogenic in
origin is erroneous. Hawaiian monk seals are declining for reasons that
are not primarily anthropogenic, but the Pacific region has taken a
more precautionary approach. We suggest the same here.
Response: NMFS states that an ``undetermined'' PBR is not being
proposed for the western Steller sea lion stock. A PBR of 253 animals
has been calculated for this stock. Because direct human-related
mortalities are at a low
[[Page 29979]]
level and are unlikely to either be responsible for the decline or to
contribute substantially towards extinction risk, calling the PBR level
``undetermined'' is unnecessarily conservative for this population of
over 40,000 animals.
Comment 65: The Steller sea lion Western stock SAR states that ``as
of 2009, data on community subsistence harvests are no longer being
collected.'' The PBR is calculated for the stock as 253 animals. The
most recent data through 2008 indicate that the average harvest is 198.
The addition of fishery-related mortality of 29 brings that estimate to
227. As such, the total anthropogenic mortalities to this stock are
approaching--and may even exceed--the PBR.
Response: Previous responses (75 FR 12498, March 16, 2010, Comment
19; 76 FR 34054, June 10, 2011, Comment 11) have addressed comments
pertaining to the need for current and accurate estimates of
subsistence takes for pinnipeds in Alaska, including the western stock
of Steller sea lions. The State of Alaska discontinued its collection
of subsistence harvest information, and 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.
Comment 66: The section on ``other mortality'' in the Steller sea
lion Eastern stock SAR does not mention the deaths of Steller sea lions
in traps set in the Columbia River on the Oregon/Washington border. In
2008, two Steller sea lions from this Distinct Population Segment died
in traps set in the Columbia River as part of a state lethal taking
program aimed at California sea lions (NMFS 2011). These deaths should
be included in the count provided in the SAR.
Response: NMFS appreciates the commenter bringing this oversight to
our attention. NMFS has updated the final 2011 SARs and incorporated
these events into mortality estimates for this stock.
Comment 67: The SAR for Beluga whales: Beaufort sea stock
acknowledges that abundance data are too old to calculate a PBR, which
remains ``undetermined.'' Yet the ``status of the stock'' section of
the SAR says that ``the estimated annual level of human-caused
mortality (126) is not known to exceed the PBR (324).'' This should be
removed. PBR is undetermined.
Response: NMFS and the Alaska SRG agree, and the PBR level has been
changed to ``undetermined'' for this stock.
Comment 68: The SAR for Beluga whales: Eastern Bering sea stock
acknowledges that a PBR cannot be calculated yet states under status of
the stock that ``the level of incidental mortality in commercial
fisheries is considered to be insignificant.'' Without a PBR this
statement cannot be made.
Response: NMFS appreciates the commenter bringing this error to
their attention. This final 2011 SAR states that the estimated minimum
annual mortality rate incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries is 0.0.
The estimated overall human-caused mortality and serious injury is 193
based on subsistence harvest. The SAR has been modified as the
commenter suggested.
Comment 69: The Beluga whale: Cook Inlet stock still faces risk
with a calculated rate of decline that is approximately one percent per
year. The section on Habitat acknowledges many development projects
within their range. The section on ``Habitat Concerns'' should be
expanded to include a general listing of the types of projects approved
with more information on the impacts to the stock and its habitat and
with appropriate concern regarding potential challenges to recovery.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this and similar
comments (75 FR 12498, March 16, 2010, Comment 1), and specifically to
the ``habitat concerns'' section of the Cook Inlet beluga SAR (76 FR
34054, June 10, 2011, Comment 22).
Comment 70: There is a note in the 2009 SAR for the Southeast
Alaska harbor porpoise stock that an abundance estimate was expected in
2010. The delay is lamentable and needs remedy. We continue to be
concerned that observer coverage is lacking for so many gillnet
fisheries in the range of the various harbor porpoise stocks in Alaska.
The region needs to provide better observer coverage either aboard
fishing vessels or from alternative platforms. Further, takes of
porpoise in native subsistence nets in the Bering Sea in particular
appear poorly documented. The region should update all stock abundance
estimates on a priority basis and adopt a more robust observer program
for state and federally managed gillnet fisheries.
Response: NMFS is working on developing a new survey design in
order to obtain an abundance estimate for waters within Southeast
Alaska. Previous survey data are being analyzed to examine trends for
the areas that have been consistently surveyed over consecutive years.
In order to fully understand trend results from this study, the survey
area needs to be expanded to include a more comprehensive survey of
harbor porpoise habitat. NMFS is focusing resources for harbor porpoise
surveys in Southeast Alaska, where populations overlap with commercial
fisheries and may incur incidental mortalities and serious injuries. An
observer program will be implemented beginning in summer 2012 in the
Southeast Alaska commercial salmon drift gillnet fishery that overlaps
with the distribution of harbor porpoise.
In addition to the observer program being implemented beginning in
2012, the Alaska Region is seeking additional funding to broaden the
observer program for gillnet and purse seine fisheries, as well as
exploring alternative mitigation measures to reduce bycatch in
fisheries known to take harbor porpoises. There are no requirements
that harbor porpoise mortalities in subsistence nets be reported to
NMFS, so these mortalities will continue to be documented to the extent
possible.
Comment 71: The sperm whale SAR, and previous SARs for this
endangered species, list the abundance, trend and PBR as ``unknown''
constantly. The NMFS should consider how best to remedy this situation.
Response: NMFS agrees that an abundance estimate, trend, and PBR
are needed for sperm whales in Alaska and will continue to seek
resources for necessary surveys.
Comment 72: Baird's beaked whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, and
Stejneger's beaked whale stocks have unknown abundance estimates. While
the potential impact from anthropogenic noise is acknowledged as a
concern for this stock, we are concerned that the lack of understanding
of its status will hamper the agency's ability to reliably assess or
mitigate impacts from the increasing proposals for ocean energy
development, much of which utilizes intense sound for geophysical
exploration and construction for extraction.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is necessary to increase the
understanding of the abundance, distribution and movements, demographic
parameters, natural history, and ecology of beaked whale species in
Alaska. With limited resources available, NMFS and external
collaborators are considering alternative methods to best monitor and
mitigate the potential effects of noise on these species.
Comment 73: No revisions have been made to the eastern North
Pacific gray
[[Page 29980]]
whale stock definition and geographic range section, despite the
availability of recent information that would seem to require updating.
It is not clear that all anthropogenic mortalities to this stock have
been accounted through 2009. While the section on habitat concerns
recognizes the potential increase for oil and gas exploration and
extraction, these proposal have been increasing rapidly.
Response: NMFS, with concurrence from the Alaska SRG, determined
that not enough information was available to warrant any changes to the
status of the stock section for the 2011 eastern North Pacific SAR.
Updated mortality and serious injury data is included in the SAR from
several sources, including the NMFS stranding network. Only records
that are confirmed human interactions and injuries determined to be
serious are reported in the SARs. NMFS has included information on the
potential risk factors, including oil and gas exploration and
extraction, and will continue to update the habitat concerns section as
necessary.
Comment 74: We were disappointed to see the limited changes to the
humpback whale SARs. Other than updated fishery-related mortality,
there were virtually no changes. One change that should be made is
mentioning the status review that the NMFS is undertaking for humpback
whales worldwide, relative to their listing. Clearly fishery-related
mortality and serious injury is underestimated. 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 that do not appear to be
simply an artifact of increased reporting or increasing humpback
populations (Lammers et al., 2007).
Response: Both Alaska humpback whale stocks are strategic stocks
and reviewed annually. Both SARs underwent extensive changes in 2010,
and very little new information has become available since that
revision. NMFS conducts an extensive review of all humpback whale
mortality and serious injury records from multiple sources for the two
Alaska stocks each year. Serious injury determinations for these events
are reported in the SARs, including reports of serious injury records
from Hawaii. NMFS will report on any additional serious injuries for
the two Alaska humpback whale stocks in the 2012 SARs.
Comment 75: Ice seals: The recent stock assessment reports
appropriately discuss the impact of sea ice loss and carbon dioxide
pollution on ringed, bearded, and spotted seals. They could benefit
from additional information concerning these threats. NMFS should also
prioritize studies to determine actual population size, trends, and PBR
for these stocks. All of these stocks should be considered strategic.
The ribbon seal assessment should also include the sea ice and carbon
dioxide language and should be listed as strategic.
Response: MMPA section 117(3) contains directions for including
risk factors in SARs, which includes summarizing effects on marine
mammal habitat that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery for
strategic stocks. NMFS does not consider it necessary to expand on
these topics in the SAR at this time. 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 (see 75 FR 12498, March
16, 2010, Comment 5). At this time, none of these stocks qualify to be
designated as strategic under the MMPA definition of a strategic stock.
Arctic ringed seals and the Beringia DPS of bearded seals have been
proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA primarily due to the
risk posed by significant habitat loss projected within the foreseeable
future (see 75 FR 77476, December 10, 2010; and 75 FR 7775 FR 77512,
December 10, 2010). We have no current and reliable data to determine
whether these stocks are declining. However, should these population
units be listed as threatened, they will then qualify as strategic
stocks.
Comment 76: The draft Harbor Seals Lake Iliamna SAR should consider
designating the population of harbor seals in Lake Iliamna as a
separate stock. Because there is no evidence of genetic interchange or
breeding between Lake Iliamna harbor seals and the harbor seals of
Bristol Bay, and because this is a unique freshwater population of
harbor seals, with no other similar populations known to exist within
the U.S., the population of seals in Lake Iliamna should be designated
as a separate stock.
Response: NMFS and co-management partners in the Alaska Native
community designated 12 stocks of harbor seals based on local
knowledge, as well as historical and recent data. NMFS is in the
process of evaluating the evidence for discreteness of the harbor seals
in Lake Iliamna, including seasonal variation in numbers of seals in
the lake, and their genetic makeup.
Comment 77: The sentence ``Laidre et al. (2008) concluded that on a
worldwide basis belugas were likely to be less sensitive to climate
change than other Arctic cetaceans because of their wide distribution
and flexible behavior'' should be deleted. Indeed, the Convention on
Migratory Species considers beluga whales to be threatened by climate
change. A 2009 research paper found some beluga populations to be at
high risk from climate change and others to be vulnerable (MacLeod
2009).
Response: A growing body of literature suggests that there will be
species-specific responses to changes in Arctic climate, and that not
all species will be negatively affected to the same degree. NMFS
appreciates the commenter referencing this publication; however, the
conclusions in MacLeod (2009) are speculative. NMFS has retained the
statement referencing Laidre et al. (2008) and included a citation for
Heide-J[oslash]rgensen et al. (2010), which gives further evidence that
belugas seem to be able to respond well to large-scale habitat changes
and may be less sensitive to climate change than other Arctic marine
mammal species.
Comment 78: Cook Inlet beluga SAR still considers the small Yakutat
population of belugas part of the Cook Inlet stock. As the proposed
ESA-listing rule for the Cook Inlet stock notes, Yakutat belugas are
genetically and geographically isolated from Cook Inlet belugas. Given
their small population size, Yakutat belugas should be designated a
separate stock and declared ``depleted.''
Response: As noted in previous responses (74 FR 19530, April 29,
2009, Comment 14; 75 FR 12498, March 16, 2010, Comment 8), NMFS
regulations under the MMPA (50 CFR 216.15) include the beluga whales
occupying Yakutat Bay as part of the Cook Inlet stock. Notice-and
comment rulemaking procedures would be required to change this
regulatory definition. Until such procedures are completed, these
animals remain designated as depleted as part of the Cook Inlet stock.
Comment 79: All stock assessment reports for marine mammals that
range in the outer continental shelf leasing areas should be updated to
include threats from oil spills and associated oil and gas drilling
activities, including seismic exploration activities.
Response: NMFS appreciates the commenter noting the specific
habitat concerns that may be associated with the outer continental
shelf leasing areas. NMFS updated the SARs as needed for those stocks
in the outer continental shelf leasing area.
[[Page 29981]]
Dated: May 15, 2012.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12270 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P