[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19446-19460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07553]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC062
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). All but ten of the 2012 reports are final
and available to the public.
[[Page 19447]]
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, [email protected]; Robyn Angliss,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032, [email protected];
Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 508-495-2311,
[email protected]; or Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, 858-546-7171, [email protected].
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 2012, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment for
90 days (77 FR 47043, August 7, 2012). NMFS received comments on the
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. Subsequent to
soliciting public comment on the draft 2012 SARs, NMFS revised the 2011
abundance estimates for ten Atlantic marine mammal stocks and the 2010
northeast sink gillnet serious injury and mortality estimates for
several others. This new information prompted the agency to revise the
SARs for the following marine mammal stocks: fin whale, western North
Atlantic stock; sei whale, Nova Scotia stock; minke whale Canadian east
coast stock; sperm whale, North Atlantic stock; Cuvier's beaked whale,
western North Atlantic stock; Gervais' beaked whale, western North
Atlantic stock; Sowerby's beaked whale, western North Atlantic stock;
Risso's dolphin, western North Atlantic stock; Atlantic white-sided
dolphin, western North Atlantic stock; and harbor porpoise, Gulf of
Maine/Bay of Fundy stock. NMFS solicited public comment on the revised
draft 2012 SARs for these ten stocks (78 FR 3399, January 16, 2013).
The public comment period on the revised reports closes on April 16,
2013 and the reports will subsequently be finalized. This notice
announces the availability of the final 2012 reports for the 114 stocks
that are currently finalized. These reports are available on NMFS' Web
site (see ADDRESSES).
Comments and Responses
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2012 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the U.S. Navy (Pacific
Fleet), nine non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the
United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Garden State Seafood
Association, Maine Lobstermen's Association, Inc., Cape Cod Commercial
Hook Fishermen's Association, Hawaii Longline Association, Alaska
Seafood Cooperative, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, and
Groundfish Forum), 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 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 2012 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., 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 SARs rather than
being incorporated into the final 2012 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 convene a workshop
or series of workshops to explore novel ideas for detecting
entanglements and ship strikes, improving information on their
frequency and trends, reducing the bias in estimates of large whale
mortality and serious injury caused by these interactions, and
considering possible options for addressing these risk factors.
Response: NMFS recognizes and is attempting to address the concerns
raised by the Commission through a variety of staff actions, discussed
below. NMFS recognizes the threats to recovery of large whales posed by
entanglements with fishing gear and collisions with ships and has
implemented several regulations aimed at reducing these threats. The
agency continues to conduct extensive research to quantify these
threats and develop mitigation measures to reduce them. In 2010, NMFS
convened a ship strike reduction workshop on reducing vessel strikes of
large whales in California. In 2012,
[[Page 19448]]
NMFS staff served on the steering committee of an international
workshop on maritime transport and biodiversity conservation, aimed at
developing a plan to reduce the risk of whale ship strikes. NMFS staff
are members of the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Ship Strike
Subcommittee and are involved in the planning of an upcoming IWC
workshop on ship strike reduction. NOAA continues to work closely with
the U.S. Coast Guard on developing routing measures to reduce the risk
of ship strikes in United States waters. With respect to reducing
fishing gear entanglements, NMFS continues to fund and conduct gear
research aimed at reducing the risk of large whale entanglements and is
developing new regulations to reduce the entanglement risk associated
with vertical lines.
In 2012, NMFS finalized its procedure for determining serious
injury for marine mammals, which includes quantitative methods for
accounting for injury cases where the outcome cannot be determined,
methods for accounting for successful post-interaction mitigation
efforts, and injury determination processes specific to large
cetaceans, small cetaceans and pinnipeds. This is expected to provide a
more accurate estimate of total human-caused serious injury and
mortality to marine mammals.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS, in conjunction with
the FWS, more completely assess human effects on marine mammals by (1)
developing a framework for describing the full effects, both direct and
indirect, of all human activities that may cause serious injury or
mortality of marine mammals and then (2) incorporating that framework
into stock assessment reports so that decision-makers are informed not
only about the known information on a stock but also about the degree
of uncertainty regarding the other risk factors that may be affecting
the stock's status and what would be required to reduce that
uncertainty.
Response: The SARs discuss the potential effects of human
activities on marine mammals to an extent (e.g., effects of sonar), but
NMFS acknowledges that this could be more thoroughly and consistently
discussed in the reports and will strive to do so. The Guidelines for
Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS III) workshop participants
recommended to NMFS that SARs describe uncertainties in key factors
such as human-caused mortality and serious injury and include a
statement on whether existing data would be sufficient to detect a
precipitous decline if one was occurring. The draft revised GAMMS
include a characterization of uncertainty in the reports.
Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS consider the
feasibility and advisability of providing explicit technical guidance
on trend analysis and, for each stock assessment with no trend
analysis, require an explicit explanation for why such an analysis
could not be completed.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the SARS for many stocks currently
do not have trend analyses and the reports often do not explicitly
provide the reason for this absence. In such cases where trend analyses
are not available, NMFS will include in the reports an explanation for
why the analysis could not be completed. Two recent papers (Moore and
Barlow 2011, and Moore and Barlow 2013) provide quantitative methods
for marine mammal trend analysis, which NMFS intends to apply to other
stocks where there is sufficient information to do so.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS establish an
internal review process to standardize the updating of the SARs within
and across regions and consider using a copy editor to check for
completeness, errors, and consistency.
Response: NMFS strives to produce reports that are complete and
error-free and will continue to work to standardize the reports within
and across regions.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS expand Table 2 in
the North Atlantic right whale report to include right whale
3903 as a serious injury and the unidentified dead right whale
seen on 18 May 2006 as an entanglement-related mortality, and
recalculate the five-year average of entanglement-related mortality and
serious injury.
Response: Cause of death for the 18 May 2006 event is unknown. The
last sentence from the Cassoff et al. (2011) paper on this event
(http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/d096p175.pdf) indicates that
there is still too much doubt about cause of death to make a
determination; therefore, 3903 was not included in the serious
injury list. ``Although there was insufficient information to determine
cause of death, entanglement was a probable factor, especially since
there were no external injuries from a ship strike or predation,
although blunt trauma with no external signs could not be ruled out.''
Because there is too much doubt to make a determination of cause of
death for 3903, this right whale will not be added to the list
of human-caused serious injury and mortality records.
Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS expand the section
of the North Atlantic right whale report on fishery-related mortality
and serious injury to include the total number of entanglements between
2006 and 2012.
Response: The GAMMS call for the presentation of serious injury and
mortality in 5-year data periods. We recognize the increased interest
in this particular stock, but feel it is outside the scope of the SAR
to present more than 5 years of serious injury and entanglement
records. Total numbers of entanglement cases reviewed for the
applicable 5-year period are presented in the Mortality and Serious
Injury Determination reports (see http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1211/ for the most recent reports). Only those
cases that have been found to be confirmed human-caused serious injury
and mortality are presented in Table 2 of the SAR.
Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS expand the report
for the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise either to include a trend
analysis and explanation or to describe the reasons that the analysis
and explanation cannot be provided. If the latter, then the Service
also should explain how it plans to rectify the problem(s).
Response: NMFS agrees that a trend analysis would be a useful
addition to the harbor porpoise SAR as well as many of the other
reports. We are working toward that goal with increased modeling
efforts, but it may still be several years before trend analysis is
available.
Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS contact Canadian
officials to (1) determine the feasibility of an analysis of port catch
levels to estimate the number of harbor porpoises caught in the
Canadian Bay of Fundy sink gillnet fishery since 2002, and (2) pursue
the development of a reliable means for estimating harbor porpoise
bycatch in the Canadian Bay of Fundy.
Response: NMFS agrees with these recommendations and has initiated
communication with Canadian officials and hopes in the near future to
improve upon the Canadian statistics provided in the SAR.
Comment 9: The MMC recommends that NMFS conduct the required
surveys of the western North Atlantic harbor and gray seal stocks,
incorporate the results into the stock assessment reports, and use that
information in its
[[Page 19449]]
management of those stocks and the risk factors affecting them.
Response: NMFS agrees there is a pressing need for updated
abundance estimates for harbor and gray seals in United States waters.
Counting of digital aerial images from our 2012 Gulf of Maine harbor
seal abundance survey, our seasonal southeastern Massachusetts and gray
and harbor seal monitoring surveys, and our 2010-2012 gray seal pupping
surveys is underway. The resulting data will be used to develop a new
abundance estimate for harbor seals. The seasonal surveys will provide
an index of harbor seal and gray seal numbers and information from the
pupping surveys will be used to develop a gray seal population growth
model. The modeling project, however, is dependent on funding.
Comment 10: The SAR fails to provide even the most basic stock
information on the western Atlantic gray seal population and, instead,
lists all its stock parameters as unknown. This complete lack of data
is particularly disturbing considering the indisputable explosion in
gray seal numbers that has occurred on Cape Cod in recent years.
Response: NMFS concurs that the gray seal population in New England
waters has been increasing, particularly in the Cape Cod region. The
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) has been monitoring the New
England gray seal pupping colonies and conducting seasonal surveys of
southeast Massachusetts haul-out sites since 2005. The NEFSC expects to
complete the counting of the archived digital survey images by spring
2013. These data will provide an index of harbor seal and gray seal
numbers, and can be used to develop a gray seal population growth
model. The completion of the modeling project, however, is dependent on
funding.
Comment 11: We are encouraged to see a continued increase in the
minimum population estimate, now at 444 animals, for North Atlantic
right whales. It would be informative if the SAR could include an
estimate of the number of those whales not included in this estimate
because they were not re-sighted since 2008.
Response: It would be outside the bounds and focus of the SAR to
report the number of whales not used in the estimate. That is a random
number subject to varying recapture rates and as such we disagree that
it is an informative number.
Comment 12: The Draft 2012 humpback whale SAR attributes all
serious injury and mortality observed in the southeast and mid-Atlantic
region to the Gulf of Maine stock unless a whale is definitively
identified to another stock. Photo-identification research conducted in
2002 determined that less than 50% of the (humpback whales photographed
in the) southeastern and mid-Atlantic states were identified as Gulf of
Maine stock and that it is likely that Canadian whales were under-
represented. While this is somewhat outdated, it should be used to
inform assumptions on the population identity of these whales rather
than attributing 100% of serious injury and mortality to the Gulf of
Maine stock as was done in the draft 2012 SAR. We urge use of a more
representative pro-rated method for assigning mid-Atlantic serious
injury and mortality to the Gulf of Maine stock.
Response: The current approach of assigning serious injuries and
mortalities to the stock of humpback whales, when known, and assigning
all unknown stock injuries and mortalities to the Gulf of Maine stock
provides some measure of precaution with respect to the impact of
serious injuries and mortalities on the Gulf of Maine stock. However,
the tally of observed serious injuries and mortalities almost certainly
underestimates the actual number, given that some fraction of serious
injuries and mortalities are not observed. Therefore, the possible
inclusion of non-Gulf of Maine whales is unlikely to exceed the true
mortality of the Gulf of Maine stock.
Comment 13: The SARs attribute the annual North Atlantic right
whale human-caused serious injury and mortality data for entanglements
and ship strikes to either the United States or Canada. We do not
believe that United States fisheries should be held responsible for
serious injury or mortality that occurs in Canadian fisheries since
those fisheries are not part of our management plan. Therefore,
understanding where the human-caused serious injury or mortality takes
place is extremely important in more accurately assessing progress
against PBR.
Response: NMFS agrees that understanding the geographic source of
fishery interactions is important for management needs. However, in
many cases gear is recovered after having been on the animal for some
time, and it is difficult to determine where the actual interaction/
entanglement occurred geographically because the animal has likely
moved since the original interaction. In cases where gear is recovered,
the lack of a universal marking system hampers determination of gear
source.
Comment 14: The North Atlantic right whale SAR acknowledges that
the location where the animal was first sighted and the date of the
sighting do not necessarily indicate where or when the serious injury
or mortality occurred. Yet this exact information is used to assign the
serious injury or mortality to either the United States or Canada.
Additional information sources must be consulted in making these
determinations such as the NMFS analysis of gear removed from whales,
data from Center for Coastal Studies, and necropsy data.
Response: NMFS uses all reliable available information to try to
determine if the location of the entanglement differs from the location
of the initial observation.
Comment 15: The summary information presented in Table 1 shows the
same figure for both Nmin and Nbest for both North Atlantic right and
humpback whales. Since the minimum population estimate for right whales
is based on a census of individual whales, a separate estimate of Nbest
should be included for this species. Similarly, Nbest should be
included for humpback whales.
Response: Stock assessment guidelines require only an Nmin for
calculation of PBR. Nbest is not required but is often available when
an abundance estimate is derived from a sampling process. For the
census count, as is used for the North Atlantic right whale and
humpback whale estimate, there is only a minimum number generated with
no associated range. We have considered using line-transect or mark-
recapture estimators to produce an Nmin, but these approaches are
likely to lead to a less accurate estimate of Nmin than the current
approach.
Comment 16: Appendix III includes a description of the Northeast/
Mid-Atlantic American Lobster trap/pot fishery. The section on temporal
and spatial distribution of the fishery states that ``fishing effort is
intense and increasing throughout the range of the resource.'' This
statement should be corrected to reflect that effort in the lobster
fishery is not increasing throughout the range of the resource.
Response: NMFS concurs. This statement has been removed from the
report.
Comment 17: Table 2 of the North Atlantic right whale SAR lists
mortalities and serious injuries. We believe that an animal was omitted
from the list of animals entangled in 2009 that appears to have been
seriously injured as a result of entanglement: Right whale
1019 (Radiator) was seen and photographed entangled in July
2009 well south of Nantucket.
Response: The extent and configuration of the gear entanglement
[[Page 19450]]
of North Atlantic right whale 1019 is unknown. The fate of the
animal is also unknown, so this interaction was not included in the
list of serious injuries.
Comment 18: In the section on Annual Human-Caused Serious Injury
and Mortality for North Atlantic right whales, NMFS makes an inaccurate
(or at best misleading) statement regarding the number of entangled
whales between 2006-2010. First, unless there are clear gear markings
to indicate where the entangling gear was set, there is no way to be
sure where an animal became entangled so attributing entanglements to
United States (versus Canadian) gear is seldom possible. Second, there
were more than ``8 entanglements'' during this 5-year time period.
Third, even if NMFS erroneously wrote ``entanglement'' rather than
``fishery-related serious injury and mortality,'' this too would be
incorrect, as Table 2 of the SAR lists 9 fishery-related serious
injuries and entanglements, not eight. Fourth, each year there are a
number of ``floaters'' for which cause of death is never established.
As a result of these numerous problems with the new verbiage trying to
estimate the number of animals either entangled or presumed dead pre-
and post-take reduction plan, we suggest simply removing this new
language regarding the number of entanglements.
Response: In response to attributing serious injuries and
mortalities to nationality, we state in footnote `a' of the serious
injury and mortality table: ``The date sighted and location provided in
the table are not necessarily when or where the serious injury or
mortality occurred; rather, this information indicates when and where
the whale was first reported beached, entangled, or injured.'' NMFS
agrees that accurately attributing entanglements to United States
(versus Canadian) gear is seldom possible.
The new verbiage added dividing the entanglement and ship strike
cases into pre- and post-reduction plan/ship strike rule periods was
suggested by the SRG at the February 2012 review meeting. NMFS has
revised the sentence to read: ``Of the 8 reported fisheries
entanglements from United States waters during this 5-year time period
that were classified as serious injury or mortality, 5 were reported
before the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan's sinking-
groundline rule went into effect in April 2009, and 3 were reported
after enactment of the rule.'' The 8 from United States waters is
correct. However, we did find an erroneous 8, which we have corrected
to 9, in the fishery-related serious injury and mortality section, as
that number refers to both United States and Canadian records.
Comment 19: We reiterate a perennial request for information with
less than a 2-year time lag for North Atlantic right whales. Since the
estimates of mortality are minimums and based solely on sightings and
strandings of dead whales, there is no need for extra time in reporting
to allow for extrapolation of effort as is the case with small cetacean
bycatch. It would be useful to have up-do-date information.
Response: The abundance estimate for North Atlantic right whales is
at most one year behind that for other stocks in the Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico SAR. The accounting process to obtain the minimum number
alive requires two years of sightings to get a stable count, after
which the data are analyzed and entered into the SAR in the third year.
All animals are not seen every year; waiting two years assures that
greater than 90% of the animals still alive will be included in the
count.
Comment 20: We believe that there are humpback whales on the large
whale disentanglement Web site last seen trailing significant amounts
of gear that could qualify them as seriously injured based on criteria
S6 of the NMFS guidelines (NMFS Instruction, 2012).
Response: The new NMFS Serious Injury Determination Policy will not
be applied until the 2013 SAR. The 2012 SAR uses the previous
guidelines for determination of serious injury.
Comment 21: For multiple stocks of Atlantic coastal bottlenose
dolphin, the SARs were not updated, even though most are strategic
stocks. There has been additional annual fishery-related mortality
since the prior update in 2010 both in commercial fisheries and
recreational fishing gear and additional strandings, some with signs of
human interaction. New information on strandings and entanglements
should have triggered an update in the SAR for any of these strategic
stocks of bottlenose dolphins. We note that the Southeast region
provided updates on at least the stranding and fishery-related
mortality data for bottlenose stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, and the
same should be done as well for all strategic stocks of bottlenose
dolphins in the Atlantic.
Response: NMFS focused efforts for the 2012 SARS on stocks in the
Gulf of Mexico due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (that began on 20
April 2010) and the unprecedented Northern Gulf of Mexico Unusual
Mortality Event that began February 1, 2010 and was ongoing as of
November 18, 2012. All Atlantic bottlenose dolphin SARs will be updated
for 2013.
Comment 22: Although long-finned pilot whales are listed as a
strategic stock in the NMFS SARs table and fishery-related mortality
has been documented in pelagic fisheries, the SAR was not updated.
Annual updates are required for strategic stocks, particularly in the
face of new information on mortality. Further, though NMFS has
separated SARs for long- and short-finned pilot whales in the Atlantic
and provided PBRs for each, mortality estimates are still ``lumped,''
which makes it impossible to determine whether fishery-related
mortality is disproportionately affecting one species more than the
other. The agency should update fishery-related mortality for all
strategic stocks on an annual basis and should prioritize efforts to
assign mortality to either one of these species or the other.
Response: NMFS has been working towards splitting mortality
estimates for pilot whale species in the Atlantic. Because abundance
estimates are made during the summer but historically most fishery-
related mortality takes place in the fall and early winter, the
distribution of the two species during the times of greatest mortality
has been poorly understood. NMFS conducted a ship-based survey in fall
2011 to help address this issue. Both pilot whale SARs will be updated
in 2013 using the information from the fall 2011 survey, and mortality
estimates will be split between the two pilot whale species.
Comment 23: In the SAR for the Northern Gulf of Mexico bay, sound
and estuarine bottlenose dolphin stocks in Table 1, most have not been
assessed for abundance for 20 years. Since they were last assessed,
there have been several declarations of Unusual Mortality Events in
their ranges, and the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill reached
into quite a number of these bays. We also note that the table listing
the multiple stocks in this complex of bay, sound and estuarine
dolphins contains stocks for which there are also separate stock
assessments (e.g., the Barataria Bay and Choctawhatchee Bay stocks are
among several in the list in Table 1 that also have their own SAR). Any
stock that has its own SAR should be removed from the table in the SAR
for bay, sound and estuarine bottlenose dolphins to avoid confusing
readers.
Response: NMFS is working towards a method to prioritize the many
Gulf of Mexico bay, sound and estuary stocks of bottlenose dolphins for
assessment purposes. As most of these stocks are not amenable to
standard aerial or ship-based abundance survey using line-
[[Page 19451]]
transect methods, NMFS first convened a workshop, partially funded by
the Marine Mammal Commission, in 2010 to discuss and compile best
practices for mark-recapture abundance estimation methods specifically
aimed at bottlenose dolphins in estuarine habitats. With stocks
prioritized and a robust method for abundance estimation in place, it
will be possible to begin targeting specific stocks. In 2012 NMFS
conducted necessary field work to start stock structure analyses for
several estuarine stocks in Texas.
NMFS would like to retain the information for all the bottlenose
dolphins in the multiple bay, sound and estuary stocks SAR but will
note in Table 1 those stocks that have an individual SAR (e.g.,
Barataria Bay).
Comment 24: The Humane Society of the United States and Center for
Biological Diversity commend the agency for providing more in depth
information on effects from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and
subsequent declarations of Unusual Mortality Events.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
Comment 25: Given records of ongoing takes of bottlenose dolphins
from several stocks in the menhaden fishery (including fisher self-
reports, research-related takes and NMFS records from the 1990s), NMFS
must prioritize added observer coverage of this fishery given the co-
occurrence of the menhaden fishery with dolphins and the sporadic self-
reports of lethal takes (which the agency acknowledges to be under-
reports).
Response: NMFS agrees and, as such, implemented a pilot observer
program for the Gulf of Mexico menhaden fishery during the 2011 fishing
season. The goal of the pilot program was to characterize protected
species bycatch, specifically sea turtles and bottlenose dolphins.
During the pilot program we learned there are challenges associated
with observing this fishery. For example, observing from the main ship
(for safety reasons) provided limited visibility for protected species
bycatch. In addition, the small number of participants triggers
confidentiality requirements. We are evaluating the potential for
additional observer coverage and/or methods for observing this fishery,
provided resources become available. Meanwhile, we will continue
monitoring fishermen self-reports and stranding data.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 26: The MMC recommends that NMFS first verify that
compliance with the measures of the 1997 take reduction plan for sperm
whales remains at a high level and monitor any changes in fishery
effort that might systematically affect entanglement risk and then
reconvene the take reduction team only if either of those efforts
reveals deficiencies.
Response: NMFS analyzed data from this fishery recently, including
compliance with acoustic pinger use and extender lengths (Carretta and
Barlow 2011). Pinger use compliance was >99% in all observed sets
dating back to 1998. A small fraction of sets (3.7%) experienced some
pinger failure during this study, but the recent entanglement of two
sperm whales occurred in a set where all pingers were functioning. The
entanglement of sperm whales in this fishery is an extremely rare event
(10 entanglements observed in 8,000 sets), and NMFS continues to
investigate potential factors responsible for such events.
Comment 27: The MMC recommends that NMFS continue to plan and
request funding for the necessary surveys to estimate abundance of
Pacific Coast harbor seals but also consider alternative assessment
approaches to update stock assessment reports for harbor seals along
the Pacific coast.
Response: A survey of Washington Inland waters harbor seals is
planned for 2014. There are currently no funds available for conducting
surveys of harbor seals on the outer coasts and Washington and Oregon.
Comment 28: The MMC recommends that NMFS review all available
information on stock structure for Pacific Island stocks of melon-
headed whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, and rough-toothed dolphins
and update the stock assessment reports accordingly.
Response: All Hawaii SARs will be updated with new stock structure,
abundance, and mortality information in 2013. New science relating to
the stock structure of melon-headed whales, spotted dolphins, and
rough-toothed dolphins will be reviewed and new stock boundaries may be
implemented as appropriate.
Comment 29: The Hawaiian monk seal is critically endangered, and
the PBR should be zero--not undetermined. With a declining population
trend and an already critically low abundance, the PBR should be zero.
Hawaiian monk seals are critically endangered and are on a trajectory
toward extinction. An ``undetermined'' PBR is misleading and can be
misinterpreted.
Response: The GAMMS are clear on this issue: ``In unusual
situations, the formula Congress added to the MMPA to calculate PBR
(Nmin*0.5Rmax*Fr) results in a number that is not consistent with the
narrative definition of PBR (the maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortality, that may be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP). An
underlying assumption in the application of the PBR equation is that
marine mammal stocks exhibit certain dynamics. Specifically, it is
assumed that a depleted stock will naturally grow toward OSP and that
some surplus growth may be removed while still allowing recovery. Such
a situation arises when a stock is below its OSP and is declining or
stable, yet human-caused mortality is not a major factor in the
population's trend. Thus, for unknown reasons, the stock's dynamics do
not conform to the underlying model for calculating PBR. For example,
Hawaiian monk seals are endangered, declining, and below OSP (based
upon the abundance prior to the 1970s), yet human-caused mortality is
insufficient to account for the decline or a failure to increase. A
limited removal would not reduce the population's ability to reach or
maintain its OSP after the major factors affecting the stock have been
identified and addressed. Therefore, in these unusual situations, NMFS
may report PBR as undetermined.
Comment 30: The Hawaiian monk seal SAR should be updated to include
the four seals slain within the past year in the Main Hawaiian Islands
under suspicious circumstances, including some that may have been shot
or bludgeoned. Additionally, the SAR should be updated to include the
increased incidents of hooking.
Response: The 2012 SAR updates information through 2010 and
contains the slain and hooked Hawaiian monk seal information through
2010 only. The draft 2013 SAR will report on more recent data.
Comment 31: Some of the areas of the Hawaiian monk seal SAR lag in
reporting current information on threats. For example, ciguatoxins,
potent algal neurotoxins that concentrate in fish preyed upon by monk
seals, have been reported in Hawaiian monk seals, which could pose a
significant threat to the seals (Bottein et al. 2011). There should
also be updated information on Hawaiian monk seal diet, as well as more
recent data on plastic entanglements and shark predation based upon
information gathered by NMFS. There was also a problem in the past year
with an aggressive monk seal killing other seals.
Response: The 2012 Hawaiian monk seal SAR updates information
through 2010. This SAR was drafted in 2011 and thus only contains
complete
[[Page 19452]]
information through the previous year, 2010. Regarding ciguatoxin, the
Bottein et al. (2011) paper represents an advance in detection of these
compounds. However, whether and to what degree they may influence monk
seal mortality is not known, and the focus of stock assessments is on
human-caused mortality. More recent information will be included in the
2013 draft SAR.
Comment 32: The draft long-beaked dolphin report notes that
dolphins of this species have died as a result of past Navy training
exercises. The new stock assessment report should provide more
information on the impacts of sonar and other training exercises given
the proposed continuation and/or expansion of those activities for the
Southern California and Hawaii Training Ranges. Additionally, along
California's coast, mortality of long-beaked dolphins has been
documented due to domoic acid toxicity, a neurotoxin associated with
algal blooms. Although domoic acid toxicity is mentioned in the SAR, it
may be important to note that this risk is likely to increase. Studies
suggest that the toxicity of these algal blooms will increase up to 5-
fold due to ocean acidification (Tatters et al. 2012).
Response: While observed impacts to long-beaked common dolphin from
Navy training exercises (such as those noted in the SAR) are relatively
straightforward to quantify, undetected impacts of these activities are
difficult to quantify. Currently only qualitative statements about the
impacts of such activities are included in the SAR, as discussed by
Danil and St. Leger (2011). Language related to potential increases in
the toxicity of algal blooms responsible for domoic acid mortality
events has been added to the SAR.
Comment 33: The southern resident killer whale population
evaluation should be restricted to evaluating the more relevant
population growth trends since 1987, to discount impacts from the
aquarium trade removals in the 1960s. Looking at a more limited time
period, the population is actually declining, not growing.
Response: Since the first complete census of this stock in 1974
when 71 animals were identified, the number of southern resident killer
whales has fluctuated annually. There have been periods of increases
and declines over this time, and there is no justification in choosing
any particular starting year in determining if this stock is declining
or growing. The population size as of the 2010/2011 census season was
87 animals. Text in this section of the SAR has been modified to
reflect the variability in population size since the first census was
conducted until present.
Comment 34: The southern resident killer whale SAR should also
describe the threat to the killer whales from limited prey
availability. The 2011 SAR notes that ``this population appears to be
Chinook salmon specialists (Ford and Ellis 2006, Hanson et al. 2010),
and there is some evidence that changes in coast-wide Chinook abundance
has affected this population (Ford et al. 2009).'' NMFS' recent
biological opinions confirm that evidence.
Response: The SAR currently contains language and references
regarding potential effects of limited prey availability on this
population of killer whales.
Comment 35: The new records of movements of the western stock of
gray whales to the United States waters (Weller et al. 2012) suggests
that the SAR should obtain more information and consider calculating
PBR for this stock of whales as they are at risk of being caught by
United States fisheries and would be at risk from a proposed Makah
tribal hunt of gray whales.
Response: NMFS plans on preparing a separate stock assessment
report for the western stock of gray whales in 2013.
Comment 36: At least two cases of apparent human-related injury do
not appear to have been accounted in the gray whale SAR. Two gray
whales with apparent trauma were examined by Cascadia Research in April
2009 and a gray whale that stranded in California in April 2009 had
apparent propeller cuts along one side. This section should be checked
to update mortalities.
Response: One of the two gray whales examined by Cascadia Research
in April 2009 is already listed in the draft SAR. The April 27 record
has the geographic attribution of Whidbey Island, although the animal
was first seen floating off Camano Island. The carcass was towed to
nearby Whidbey Island for necropsy. The second record was reviewed in
the preparation of the draft SAR, and the source of the trauma was not
definitively human-related. The California stranding from Sunset Beach
is listed in the draft SAR (April 5, 2009 whale with apparent propeller
cuts).
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. This assurance should
be provided to reassure reviewers that the region was diligent in
monitoring these stocks. New information on abundance or mortality
triggers the requirement to revise the SAR for a strategic stock. The
SARs for ESA-listed stocks should be updated annually in the face of
annual mortality.
Response: Strategic stocks are reviewed annually, but revisions to
the stock assessment may not necessarily be made unless new information
on mortality would change the status of that stock. NMFS will add
language to the preface of future Pacific region SARs that will inform
reviewers and public commenters of this action each year.
Comment 38: NMFS should work to obtain more data on Hawaii spinner
dolphin stocks. The military exercises planned in the range of spinner
dolphins pose a threat to them and should be discussed here. The takes
predicted in the Southern California and Hawaii Training Range for
2014-2019 are extremely large numbers.
Response: NMFS has added a statement of the potential impact of
naval activities on spinner dolphins in Hawaii due to the proximity of
naval training exercises for main Hawaiian Islands stocks. NMFS is
working with its research partners to collect additional information on
spinner dolphin stocks in Hawaii. Significant progress has been made in
recent years with recognition of five distinct island-associated stocks
within the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a sixth pelagic
stock. As additional information becomes available on stock abundance
and movements, it will be reflected in the SAR and considered as part
of incidental harassment and other take authorizations. Such
authorizations are analyzed through the NMFS permitting process.
Comment 39: While we commend the region for including literature as
recent as 2012 to inform the false killer whale SAR, there is updated
literature used in consideration of the proposed listing of the insular
stock that is not considered in the SAR that may provide further
insight into stock movements and boundaries (e.g., Chivers et al 2011).
It also may be worth noting that there is currently no mechanism to
address the excessive levels of fishery-related mortality. NMFS still
has not published the take reduction plan for false killer whales and
has indicated that portions of the plan recommended by the take
reduction team will likely not be part of any final plan. As such, we
are concerned that there will be continued depredation of stocks by
fisheries.
Response: Chivers et al. 2011 and Baird et al. In press were added
to the text and list of citations to better reflect the breadth of
support for the separation of the Hawaii insular stock, now known as
the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock, from other false killer whale
populations. The final take reduction
[[Page 19453]]
plan outlining regulatory and non-regulatory measures intended to
reduce false killer whale bycatch in Hawaii's longline fisheries was
published on November 29, 2012. Requirements such as longline area
closures and measures to improve captain and crew response to hooked
and entangled marine mammals went into effect on December 31, 2012, and
gear requirements for the deep-set longline fishery take effect on
February 27, 2013. Nearly all take reduction measures recommended by
the take reduction team were implemented as part of the final plan (77
FR 71260, 29 November, 2012). The reference in the SAR has been updated
to reflect the recent publication of the new fishery rules and
summarize the implemented measures.
Comment 40: There appear to be at least two populations of melon-
headed whales in the Hawaiian archipelago. There is a small population
resident off the northwest region of the island of Hawaii and a larger
population that ranges throughout the main Hawaiian Islands (Aschettino
2010). As melon-headed whales may be susceptible to impacts from navy
training exercises, the presence of a small population with a
restricted range in an area adjacent to where naval exercises may be
undertaken should be noted. Aschettino (Id.) also notes evidence of
fisheries interactions for both the Big Island resident population and
the Main Hawaiian Islands population. This should be updated in the
next SARs.
Response: All Hawaii SARs will be updated with new stock structure,
abundance, and mortality information in 2013. New science relating to
the stock structure of melon-headed whales, spotted dolphins, and
rough-toothed dolphins will be reviewed, and new stock boundaries may
be implemented as appropriate.
Comment 41: Hawaii spotted dolphins should be split into management
stocks and managed to protect local populations that may be adversely
impacted by commercial and recreational fisheries. Recent genetic
analyses support the separation of pantropical spotted dolphins found
in the Hawai`i, O`ahu, and 4-islands area regions into different
populations (Courbis 2011). This should be updated in the next SARs.
Response: See response to comment 40.
Comment 42: There are new genetic studies indicating that there
should be separate SARs for rough-toothed dolphins. There is high site
fidelity and small populations of these dolphins that appear to warrant
separate management approaches (Baird et al. 2008, Albertson 2011,
poster). This should be updated in the next SARs.
Response: See response to comment 40.
Comment 43: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
finds inconsistencies in NMFS' interpretation of population trend data
for different stocks of false killer whales. The Council agrees that
changes in survey methodology and oceanographic conditions preclude
using the 2002 and 2010 abundance estimates as a direct measure of
population trend for the pelagic stock of false killer whales. However,
we find that NMFS has not consistently applied the above reasoning in
evaluating the insular stock population trend. The Council therefore
requests that NMFS apply consistent scientific reasoning in inferring
population trends for the insular and pelagic stocks of false killer
whales.
Response: Considerably more data are available to evaluate trends
of main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales than are available
for the pelagic stock. Only two abundance estimates are available for
the pelagic stock, each with overlapping coefficients of variation
(CV), and it is not possible to assess whether this stock may be
increasing, decreasing, or stable. In contrast, data on insular stock
trends include aerial survey data from the 1980s, 1990s and early
2000s, and recent estimates of abundance from small vessel surveys
resulting in identification of a large portion of the population. These
data together allow for a robust assessment of population trend for the
insular stock. Uncertainties in the trend assessment were tested in
sensitivity trials in Oleson et al. (2010), with the outcome of all
plausible models indicating a declining population.
Comment 44: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
finds the declining population trend attributed to the insular stock to
be inconsistent with observed data since 2000. The draft 2012 SAR cites
the Status Review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales to show that
the current decline of the insular stock is occurring at an average
rate of 9% since 1989. The SAR also reports that the population
estimate for the insular stock based on a photographic mark-recapture
study during 2000-2004 was 123 animals. Applying the 9% annual decline
to the 123 insular false killer whales in 2000, the population in 2012
would be estimated at approximately 40 animals. Alternatively, starting
with 123 animals in 2004 would result in approximately 58 animals in
2012. However, the current best estimate of the insular false killer
whales according to the draft 2012 SAR is 151 animals, significantly
higher than would be expected based on the quantified population trend.
This simple exercise highlights possible inaccuracies in NMFS'
assumptions regarding the insular stock population trend. The Council
therefore requests that NMFS reanalyze the insular stock population
trend based on the best available information.
Response: NMFS thanks the Council for pointing out an omission in
the draft 2012 SAR. The 2000-2004 estimate used in the Population
Viability Analysis (PVA) presented in the Hawaiian insular false killer
whale Status Review was 162 (CV=0.23) animals, rather than the older
estimate of 123 (CV=0.72) animals listed in the SAR. The updated
abundance estimate for the 2000-2004 period has now been included
within the SAR. All estimates are described in detail in Oleson et al.
(2010). However, the exercise conducted by the Council does not
correctly consider the time period of the two estimates (from 2000-2004
to 2006-2009) and does not incorporate uncertainty in the estimates of
population abundance and trend. Also, it does not provide an accurate
evaluation of the trend analyses conducted as part of the Status
Review. NMFS is required to use many factors in calculating the
abundance trend, as carefully described in Oleson et al. (2010)--we
attempt to summarize those factors here. The PVA used all available
data, including minimum counts, encounter rates, and abundance
estimates, as well as estimates of environmental stochasticity, the
impact of Allee effects, and catastrophic events. The Status Review
explicitly acknowledged the relatively small change in population size
from the 2000-2004 estimate of 162 individuals and the 2006-2009
estimate of either 151 or 170 individuals, suggesting that a two-stage
model may also be appropriate. Most iterations of the PVA were
parameterized with the higher 2006-2009 abundance of 170 individuals
that is now considered an overestimate, as animals seen near Kauai now
known to associate with the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stock
were included in that estimate. Thus, the second rate of change could
be seen as overly optimistic, as it attempted to incorporate the higher
2006-2009 abundance. The impact of using the lower 2006-2009 estimate
on the risk of extinction can be seen in Appendix 2 (model 9) of Oleson
et al. (2010).
Comment 45: Based on the new abundance estimate and all other
[[Page 19454]]
available evidence, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council believes that the Hawaii longline fishery has had significantly
less impact on the false killer whale population than has been implied
over the last decade. According to NMFS, incidental take of false
killer whales in the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery has exceeded PBR
since 2000 when a SAR for Hawaii false killer whales was first
produced. Given that take exceeding PBR in the long-term is considered
unsustainable, the false killer whale population interacting with the
longline fishery would be expected to show a decline. However,
available data do not suggest that the pelagic stock has experienced a
decline, and a stable or increasing trend is much more likely for the
pelagic stock than a declining trend. This calls into question the
assumptions used in marine mammal stock assessments, the calculation of
PBR, and evaluation of fishery impacts on marine mammal populations.
Given the lack of evidence indicating a population decline of the
pelagic stock of false killer whales, NMFS should consider setting the
recovery factor higher than 0.5.
Response: NMFs concurs with the Council's comment on the 2012 draft
SARs that acknowledges that environmental variability and lack of
information on the entire range of the pelagic false killer whale stock
precludes any trend analysis for this stock. In this comment, the
Council is implying that such trend analyses may be appropriate. At
this time, inadequate data exist to assess trends in abundance for this
stock, and it is inappropriate to assume the fishery has had no effect
when surveys covered only a fraction of the range of the population,
without any information on the dependence of the distribution of this
stock on environmental conditions. The population remains at unknown
status such that use of a recovery factor equal to 0.5 is appropriate
and warranted.
Comment 46: The draft 2012 SAR for the Hawaiian Islands stock
complex of spinner dolphins description under the human-caused
mortality and serious injury section in nearly all Hawaii dolphin SARs
is irrelevant and represents an inaccurate interpretation of the cited
study. Furthermore, NMFS observer data from the Main Hawaiian Islands
bottomfish fishery between 2003 and 2005 indicate that there has been
no observed incidental take of cetaceans in this fishery. The Council
believes the observer program data represent the best available
information on human-caused mortality and serious injury for the
bottomfish fishery and requests that NMFS include these as a measure of
interactions in the fishery rather than using the target catch damage
rates currently used in the SARs.
Response: The information on interaction rates from the 1995 study
will continue to be included as it represents the best available
historical data for the bottomfish fishery. NMFS appreciates the
Council's reference to more recent data from the Observer Program from
2003 to 2005, a short period when the NWHI fishery was observed at 18-
25% coverage. This information is now included in the SAR. The Main
Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fishery has never been observed.
Comment 47: The draft 2012 SAR for Hawaiian monk seals includes
descriptions of recent intentional killings in the Main Hawaiian
Islands, followed by the claim that ``more seals are likely
intentionally killed than are reported or discovered.'' However, no
scientific justification or reference is provided to support this
claim, and it appears to be speculative. NMFS should avoid such
speculation and use the best available scientific information in the
SARs as required under Section 117(a) of the MMPA.
Response: The intentional killing of monk seals in the Main
Hawaiian Islands is well-documented, although it is extremely unlikely
that all carcasses of seals killed intentionally are discovered and
reported. Studies of the recovery rates of carcasses of marine mammal
species have shown that the probability of detecting and documenting
all deaths (whether from human or natural causes) is quite low (Peltier
et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2011; Perrin et al. 2010; Punt and Wade
2010). Text to address this uncertainty has been incorporated in the
SAR.
Comment 48: The SARs annually contain descriptions of United States
commercial fisheries in Appendix I. No revisions were proposed in the
draft 2012 SAR for the Pacific Ocean. However, upon review of the
fishery descriptions in the Final 2011 SARs, the Council notes that
descriptions for Hawaii Category III fisheries (Hawaii gillnet, lobster
trap, inshore handline, deep sea bottomfish handline & jig, and tuna
handline and jig fisheries) are outdated and require revisions.
Necessary revisions include, but are not limited to, the following: (1)
Number of active permit holders and total effort for the Hawaii
Category III fisheries have not been updated since 2000; (2) there are
currently no lobster and bottomfish fisheries in the NWHI due to the
establishment of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that
prohibited unpermitted removal of monument resources; (3) the Main
Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fishery in federal waters is managed under
the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago and operates
under an annual catch limit. The fishery is co-managed with the State
of Hawaii, which has adopted complementary measures in state waters.
Response: NMFS will update all fishery descriptions in the 2013
SARs and will consult with local Council staff regarding whether other
updates may be warranted.
Comment 49: The Hawaii Longline Association appreciates that NMFS
has updated the abundance estimate for the Hawaii pelagic false killer
whale stock (``Pelagic Stock'') based on the best available scientific
information. However, certain aspects of the Draft SAR's
characterization of the 2010 Hawaii EEZ survey data are inaccurate and,
accordingly, we propose language that accurately reflects the available
information. The Draft SAR is not consistent with the best available
scientific information in two additional respects: (i) the Draft SAR's
statement that no population trend data are available for the Pelagic
Stock and (ii) the use of a 0.5 recovery factor value in the
calculation of the Pelagic Stock's potential biological removal.
Response: The Hawaii Longline Association proposed revisions to the
text in the Hawaii pelagic false killer whale stock SAR regarding the
possibility of positive bias in sightings as a result of vessel
attraction; this language has been incorporated with a few changes.
Including additional bootstrap variance on the various parameters in
the 2010 estimate would not inform this issue (other than showing that
most of the variance comes from the encounter rate) and would seem to
be superfluous information for a SAR. It remains that the bootstrap CV
on the density (and abundance) estimates resulted in an estimate with
confidence intervals that overlap with those of the 2002 estimate. That
alone negates our ability to make a trend estimate as infinite
scenarios (including a decline) are possible (lognormal 95% CIs for the
two estimates are 484 (103-2274) and 1,503 (462-4884)). The population
remains at unknown status, such that use of a recovery factor equal to
0.5, given the CV on the mortality and serious injury estimate, is
appropriate and warranted.
Comment 50: The certainty with which NMFS has confirmed a new,
separate false killer whale stock in the NWHI stock is not
scientifically justified. This decision was made on a very limited data
set and the agency's
[[Page 19455]]
rush to judgment about the separateness of this new ``stock'' appears
to reflect an aversion to attributing new sightings of hundreds of
whales to already established stocks, not the best available
information.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the designation of new stocks is not
scientifically justified. The separation of the NWHI stock and the
Hawaii insular and pelagic stocks is sound and based on multiple lines
of evidence including genetic analyses indicating significant
differentiation in both mtDNA and nucDNA, photo-ID indicating
separation from the tight social network of the Main Hawaiian Islands
animals, and satellite telemetry data suggesting island and atoll
association within the NWHI. The data on false killer whale stock
structure, including the new NWHI stock, have been evaluated both for
demographic independence, the benchmark for separation under the MMPA,
and for evolutionary separation, the more stringent standard for
separation under the ESA.
Comment 51: NMFS's serious injury determinations regarding the
deep-set fishery's interactions with the Pelagic Stock are not
accurate. NMFS's contention that the deep-set fishery has caused
serious injuries in excess of PBR for a period of years cannot be
reconciled with the best available evidence, which shows that false
killer whale populations in the Hawaii EEZ have increased, or at a
minimum remained stable, during the same time that the deep-set fishery
has supposedly caused serious injuries at an unsustainable rate. NMFS
should implement changes in the process through which serious injuries
are determined.
Response: At this time, the available data do not provide
sufficient information to statistically determine trends in abundance,
particularly since only a portion of the range of this stock has been
surveyed. It is therefore incorrect to conclude the population is
stable or increasing. The MMPA clearly states that a stock for which
mortality and serious injury exceeds the PBR is strategic, and false
killer whales have consistently met this definition since the first SAR
for Hawaiian false killer whales in 2000.
The process by which injuries are determined to be serious or not
serious has been developed and peer-reviewed over many years by experts
in marine mammal biology and health, and is based on the best available
science (see Andersen et al. 2008; NOAA 2012a; NOAA 2012b). Prorating
is done in accordance with NMFS guidelines using appropriate
statistical techniques, and has been peer-reviewed by the Pacific SRG
and other qualified scientists.
Comment 52: Several of the draft SAR's conclusions regarding the
Hawaii insular false killer whale stock (the ``Insular Stock'') are not
correct. Specifically, the best available scientific information does
not (i) suggest that the Insular Stock has declined in abundance or
(ii) support the allocation of a deep-set fishery interaction to the
Insular Stock. In addition, the use of a 0.1 recovery factor is
inappropriate until, if, and when the Insular Stock is listed as an
endangered species.
Response: This stock was listed as endangered under the ESA as of
December 28, 2012 (77 FR 70915). The name of this stock has been
changed to the ``Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock'' throughout the
SAR to reflect the name given during the ESA listing. Prior to listing,
NMFS conducted an ESA status review of Hawaii insular false killer
whales (Oleson et al. 2010) that represents the best available
scientific information on the status of this stock. The PVA conducted
by the Biological Review Team (BRT) indicates with high certainty that
the population has declined. No new information is available since the
2010 Status Review that negates the findings of the BRT. The BRT
concluded that Hawaiian insular false killer whales are at high risk of
extinction as a result of either small scale incremental impacts over
time or a single catastrophic event. The combination of a decline in
abundance, a high risk of extinction, and a small population size
warranted a recovery factor of 0.1 for this stock prior to their
listing, which was supported by the Pacific SRG.
The partial allocation of a single 2006 take within the Main
Hawaiian Islands insular-pelagic overlap zone is supported by the best
available data on the range of the insular and pelagic stocks. The
reference to the NMFS statement that there are ``no documented serious
injuries or mortalities of [Insular Stock] animals incidental to
Hawaii's longline fisheries'' (75 FR 2853, 19 January, 2010) does not
include the entire sentence from the Federal Register notice, which
clearly states that the provided information comes from the 2008 and
2009 SARs, prior to reevaluation of the insular stock boundary and the
implementation of the insular-pelagic overlap zone.
Comment 53: The US Navy would request for the final long-beaked
common dolphin SAR deletion of the sentence as unwarranted: ``Exposure
to blast trauma resulting from underwater detonations is a habitat
concern for this stock and the cumulative impacts of these detonations
at the population level is unknown (Danil and St. Leger 2011)'', and
deletion of the blast trauma statement ``* * * and mortality resulting
from blast trauma (0.8 animals per year for the 5-yr period 2007 to
2011).''
Response: Danil and St. Leger (2011) state that the population-
level impacts of such blast-trauma events require careful
consideration. This acknowledges that while this was the first such
event documented by the Navy in this region, not all blast trauma
events are necessarily detected. NMFS supports the mitigation measures
that the Navy implemented following this event and acknowledges that
such measures will reduce the probability of future events. NMFS
acknowledges that this type of activity represents a local threat to
dolphins in the testing area, unlike habitat threats that could have
much larger spatial and quantitative impacts. Language in the SAR has
been changed from ``habitat concern'' to ``local concern.''
Calculation of an average annual mortality based on various human-
caused sources is required under Section 117 of the MMPA, which states
that NMFS must ``estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious
injury of the stock by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors
that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock,
including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.'' The use of a 5-
year average annual mortality for past human-caused mortality and
serious injury is standard in stock assessment reports and is used for
all sources of human-caused mortality. The language in the SAR is not
intended to imply that future blast trauma events will occur every year
at a level of 0.8 animals per year but rather is an annual average of
the most recent past 5-year period over which human-caused mortality is
evaluated from each source. Conversely, an absence of detected blast
trauma events in a given year does not constitute ``evidence of
absence'' of these events.
Comment 54: I would like to suggest that the CA-OR-WA minke whale
stock extends north into British Columbia, Southeast Alaska, Prince
William Sound and along the Gulf of Alaska coast to about Unimak Pass
in the Aleutian Islands. I base this assertion on the similar spatial
distribution patterns in these northern regions to that in the CA-OR-WA
stock. My suggestions would be a CA-OR-WA-BC-AK stock, although I know
that BC waters are not under the purview of NMFS.
[[Page 19456]]
Response: While the distribution of minke whales may be
concentrated in shelf waters within the large area described, there are
no data that support the lumping of CA-OR-WA stock minke whales with
animals from Canada and Alaska. In the absence of such evidence, the
GAMMS recommend defining management units at a smaller spatial scale to
avoid local depletion, particularly as the source and magnitude of
anthropogenic impacts may vary regionally.
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 55: The Commission recommends that NMFS meet with the
Commission to discuss the impending changes in the Arctic and consider
the development of (a) a long-term assessment strategy to characterize
population abundance, stock status, and ecological and human
interactions as climate disruption continues and (b) a long-term
management strategy that anticipates the risks to ice seals and
develops pro-active measures to avoid or minimize those risks.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Marine Mammal Commission's interest
and would welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other issues of
mutual concern.
Comment 56: The Commission recommends that NMFS continue 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; among
other things, subsistence harvests provide opportunities to collect
valuable data on ice seal populations in many parts of their ranges
while minimizing the logistical requirements and costs.
Response: NMFS continues to work with Alaska Native partners to
obtain data on ice seal stocks, including information on abundance and
distribution, demography, ecology, life history, subsistence harvest,
and other data pertinent to assessing the status of these stocks.
Comment 57: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise its stock
assessments for the north Kodiak, south Kodiak, and Cook Inlet harbor
seal stocks by (1) Reducing the recovery factor to be consistent with
the Service's 2005 guidelines, (2) recalculating their PBR values, (3)
updating the stock assessment reports accordingly, including changing
the status of the north Kodiak stock, and (4) working with Native
communities to ensure that harvest numbers, when combined with other
human-related serious injuries and deaths, do not exceed the PBR for
the north Kodiak stock.
Response: The GAMMS state that, ``stocks that are not known to be
decreasing, taken primarily by aboriginal subsistence hunters, could
have higher Fr values, up to and including 1.0, provided that there
have not been recent increases in the levels of takes.'' In the case of
these 3 stocks, the trend is unknown, there are no additional
indications the stocks are decreasing, they are taken primarily by
aboriginal subsistence hunters, and there is no apparent increase in
the level of takes. NMFS is currently developing new methods for
analysis of abundance and trend for each of the stocks. Results from
this new analysis will inform future decisions regarding the
determination of recovery factor. Additionally, the assignment of
subsistence harvest and fisheries mortalities to a particular stock is
imprecise, because the stocks are mixed during most of the year, when
harbor seals are not tied to their breeding locations. As noted in
response to other comments, NMFS continues to work with Alaska Native
partners to obtain subsistence harvest data.
Comment 58: The Commission recommends that NMFS conduct the
research needed to (1) analyze and describe the risks to North Pacific
right whales associated with increasing shipping traffic in the Bering
Sea and North Pacific, paying particular attention to Unimak Pass, and
of entanglement in fishing gear and (2) use that information to design
management measures that will minimize the risk of ship strikes and
entanglement, and that it ensure its activities do not significantly
increase the risk faced by the whales.
Response: NMFS is also concerned about the North Pacific right
whale population. With a current estimate of 31 animals in the eastern
population, the population is critically endangered. At the present
time, there is no evidence that entanglement in fishing gear is a major
problem for this population; photographs of right whales in the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory catalogue show no entanglement scars.
In addition, the Alaska Fisheries Science Center is working with the
Marine Conservation Alliance, a fishing industry group, to examine the
overlap of fixed gear with right whales in the Bering Sea, and will
produce a report on this analysis in the coming year. With regard to
shipping, it will be difficult to reliably quantify the risk of ship
strikes to right whales in Unimak Pass or elsewhere because we have
very little information on seasonal right whale distribution. NMFS is
considering the emerging issue of increased shipping in the Arctic with
various management bodies and stakeholders, and is working toward a
coordinated, proactive approach to this topic. In addition, the
research needs identified by the Commission are part of the recently
published draft Recovery Plan for North Pacific right whales (78 FR
4835, January 23, 2013).
Comment 59: The Commission recommends that NMFS make every effort
to expedite the analysis of all passive acoustic, satellite telemetry,
and other data available for North Pacific right whales, update the
stock assessment report accordingly, and use those data to develop
protective measures for this population.
Response: NMFS has already conducted and published results of some
of this work, including papers on a low-latitude match and an aerial
acoustics technique together with new data on the past illegal Soviet
catches (the primary reason for the eastern population's critically
endangered status). Other papers summarizing the distribution, acoustic
research, and satellite tagging data are in preparation. NMFS is
currently seeking funding for a study clarifying whether the northern
limit of the right whale's range in the Bering Sea extends to and above
the Bering Strait.
Comment 60: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise the stock
assessment report for the North Pacific right whale stock to indicate
that based on knowledge of migratory patterns of similar species,
Hawaii and Mexico could be low latitude habitats used more regularly by
North Pacific right whales than currently recognized.
Response: As noted by Brownell et al. (2001) and Clapham et al.
(2004), there is very little evidence from historical whaling and
sighting data, or from archaeology, that either Hawai'i or Baja
California were ever a significant habitat for right whales. There has
been no new information since those publications that would
significantly alter that conclusion.
Comment 61: There is an acknowledgement in the Steller seal lion
(Western stock) SAR that there is a marked difference in trends of
abundance for this stock depending on the specific trend site. Yet the
gains in some portions of the range have been assumed to compensate for
the losses in other portions of the range with a PBR calculated for the
entire stock from the western Aleutians to the eastern Gulf of Alaska.
This seems inappropriately risk prone. The region should consider
[[Page 19457]]
managing Steller sea lions on a finer scale to more appropriately
illustrate the need for conservative management in portions of the
species' range where declines are ongoing.
Response: The Alaska Regional Office has been considering options
for more fine-scale management of Steller sea lions for some time (with
areas such as those in the Recovery Plan). For example, we considered
fine-scale population trends in the 2010 Biological Opinion on the
effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on the Western distinct
population segment (DPS), and we are examining trends in portions of
the Eastern DPS as we consider possible delisting. NMFS Alaska Regional
Office will continue to investigate this approach.
Comment 62: Steller sea lions (Western stock) is one of several
stocks for which there is an acknowledgement that fisheries known to
interact with the stock are not being monitored by observers and may
not have been monitored in over a decade. In this case, the SAR states
that ``observer data on state fisheries dates as far back as 1990;
however, these are the best data available to estimate takes in these
fisheries. No observers have been assigned to several fisheries that
are known to interact with this stock.'' This must be remedied to
provide a better understanding of fishery-related impacts, particularly
in areas where there are ongoing declines.
Response: NMFS has previously responded to this comment (see 77 FR
29969, May 21, 2012, comment 62) as follows: ``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: This Steller sea lions (Western stock) SAR is one of
many SARs for pinnipeds in Alaska stating that ``[a]s of 2009, data on
community subsistence harvests are no longer being collected. Therefore
the most recent 5-years of data (2004-2008) will be retained and used
for estimating annual mortality * * *'' This is a deplorable approach
to management of a stock that is declining in inhabited portions of its
range and/or where hunting of this endangered species may be ongoing.
NMFS must correct this data deficit as soon as possible.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to understand the
magnitude of Steller sea lion subsistence harvest. A successful marine
mammal harvest monitoring program cannot be developed exclusively in
the federal domain and must be supported by Alaska Native hunters and
communities. In December 2010 and March 2011 NMFS partnered with the
Indigenous People's Council on Marine Mammals to convene two workshops
of marine mammal hunters and Alaska Native Organization (ANO)
representatives to begin to develop a statewide program for monitoring
subsistence hunting and harvests. NMFS continues to work with our ANO
partners on harvest monitoring programs within the annual ANO co-
management funding program.
Comment 64: The need for better accounting of mortality is
particularly poignant for Steller sea lions (Western stock) because
there is every reason to believe that human-related mortality exceeds
the PBR. The section on ``status of the stock'' states that the current
levels of anthropogenic mortality and serious injury are below the PBR
simply because anthropogenic mortality is at a level a few dozen
animals less than the PBR. This does not account for the fact that (as
acknowledged in the SAR) fishery-related mortality data are absent;
and, thus, the estimate of fishery impacts is likely an under-estimate.
Nor does it take into consideration the complete lack of effort to
collect data on native subsistence take. Thus the statement that the
average annual mortality of 231.8 is below the PBR of 275 is overly
optimistic and likely inaccurate.
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. Observer coverage in the Federal groundfish
fisheries remains relatively high, and serious injury and mortality
(SI/M) estimates from these fisheries are estimated based on observed
SI/M. The best available data are used to estimate SI/M for Alaska
state fisheries and included in the total SI/M estimate.
Comment 65: We believe NMFS should consider whether the ongoing
declines of Northern fur seals warrant listing this stock as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. Fur seals were listed as depleted in
1988, as a consequence of a decline to less than 50 percent of its
population of the 1950's. See: 53 FR 17888 (May18, 1988). Since that
time, just in the past 20 years, the stock has once again lost
approximately 50 percent of its abundance (i.e., estimated at 182,437
in 1992 and 93,627 in 2010).
Response: The Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals is
composed of breeding aggregations on St. Paul Island, St. George
Island, and Bogoslof Island. NMFS concurs with the commenter in the
estimated percent reduction in abundance; however, the actual abundance
is about 4.5 times higher than presented for St. Paul Island alone. The
commenter is incorrect in the description of the estimated abundance of
the stock of northern fur seals as 93,627; in fact that is the estimate
of pups born on St. Paul Island in 2010. The estimated population
abundance is 611,617 for the eastern Pacific Stock. While NMFS is
concerned about the statistically significant decline in pup production
on the Pribilof Islands, we do not believe the entire stock is
threatened with extinction. The protections afforded northern fur seals
under the MMPA are adequate to implement management measures to promote
increases in overall stock abundance. NMFS has invested significantly
in a vital rates study by tagging annual cohorts and adult female
northern fur seals over the past three years. The continuation of this
study to mark and re-sight individuals will allow NMFS to estimate
survival and reproductive rates on St. Paul and St. George and
determine where management measures will be most effective towards
stock recovery. The results of this work will not be realized until a
series of annual cohorts have been re-sighted and individual cohort
survival and reproductive rates can be estimated.
Comment 66: Lake Iliamna seals should be separated and recognized
as a separate stock (reasons detailed in comment letter). Whether the
Iliamna Lake seal is a stock of harbor seal or if the Iliamna Lake seal
is a stock of spotted seal, or a separate species of Phoca, extirpation
of the Iliamna Lake seal would result in a gap in the range of harbor
seal or spotted seal.
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 their genetic relatedness to other harbor
seals and seasonal variation in numbers of seals in the lake. NMFS
recently received a petition to list Iliamna harbor seals as threatened
or endangered under the ESA. If NMFS determines that the petition
presents substantial
[[Page 19458]]
information indicating that listing may be warranted, NMFS will
undertake a status review, which would include a thorough evaluation of
whether these seals constitute a population that is eligible for
listing.
Comment 67: The table showing abundance and trends in harbor seals
shows some management stocks with declining trends and others
stabilized. Neither the text nor Table 9a, that provides minimum
abundance estimates for each of the management stocks, provide CVs for
the estimates of abundance. If available, these should be provided to
elucidate the appropriateness of the recovery factor that was provided.
Using the same recovery factor (0.5) in calculating PBR for all of the
management stocks, whether stable or declining and with no CV provided
for the estimates, seems risk prone.
Response: Table 9a in the SAR provides Nmin estimates for each of
the 12 harbor seal stocks. CVs for the estimates of abundance have been
added to the final SAR.
Comment 68: NMFS should determine a PBR for beluga whales based on
a conservative estimate as proposed in the revisions of the stock
assessment guidelines.
Response: The revised GAMMS III have not been finalized; therefore,
the PBR calculation is based upon the current guidelines (GAMMS II).
Comment 69: The Cook Inlet beluga population is not increasing, and
we agree that setting a PBR allowing take of the species is
inappropriate. The PBR should be set at zero to avoid a misconception
that an undetermined PBR places no limit on take. Further, there are
continuing proposals for oil and gas exploration and port expansion in
their habitat. While NMFS continues to assert that there is no
significant impact from each of these proposed projects, many of them
subject these belugas to harmful sound levels and ensonification of
their habitat (e.g., NMFS, 2012). NMFS must prioritize necropsy of any
dead belugas found in Cook Inlet. We believe that the continued insult
to their habitat has been given short shrift in the discussion of
habitat impact and recent litigation has asserted that NMFS has not
properly considered and mitigated impacts.
Response: Similar to Hawaiian monk seals (see response to comment
29) and as stated in the SAR, the Cook Inlet beluga stock does
not meet the assumptions inherent to the use of PBR. NMFS has decided
it would not be appropriate to calculate a maximum number that may be
removed while allowing the population to achieve OSP; therefore, PBR
for Cook Inlet beluga whales is undetermined. NMFS has previously
responded to similar comments pertaining to Cook Inlet beluga habitat
(75 FR 12498, March 16, 2010, Comment 1 and 6), and specifically to the
``habitat concerns'' section of the Cook Inlet beluga SAR (76 FR 34054,
June 10, 2011, Comment 22).
Comment 70: NMFS must update abundance estimates for harbor
porpoises that are over 8 years old, many of which are even 15 years
old. To the extent that these data are currently unavailable, NMFS
should apply the new GAMMS strategy for determining PBR when data is
old. These abundance data need to be collected for better management.
Response: The revised guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks
(GAMMS III) have not been finalized; therefore, the PBR calculation is
based upon the current guidelines (GAMMS II).
Comment 71: The Dall's porpoise SAR should be updated with more
current population estimates. Rather than undetermined PBR for stocks
with data more than 8 years old, the worst-case scenario should be
assumed for establishing PBR as proposed in the draft GAMMS III.
Response: NMFS is in the process of analyzing abundance and trends
of Dall's porpoise in Southeast Alaska; however, these data are
currently not available and include only a portion of the range for
this stock. Once this analysis is complete, NMFS will update the Dall's
porpoise SAR with new information.
Comment 72: NMFS should obtain a reliable estimate of the sperm
whale population size and set a PBR.
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 (77 FR 29969, June 10, 2011, Comment
71).
Comment 73: The humpback whale SAR Appendix 8 only provides
information on mortality through 2007 despite the fact that more
updated information is available in individual SARs. This appendix
should be updated through 2010.
Response: NMFS is currently working on a technical memorandum
summarizing all Alaska marine mammal injury assessments for 2007-2011,
including humpback whales, using guidance provided in the Marine Mammal
Serious Injury Policy and Procedural Directives that became effective
27 January 2012. These data will be available in the Tech Memo in 2013
and will no longer be included as an Appendix in the SAR.
Comment 74: NMFS should update the SARs for the ice seals--spotted,
bearded, ringed and ribbon seals. The ice seals should be classified as
strategic, and accordingly their SARs should be updated every year.
Additionally, given the limited understanding of stock abundance and
trends and the lack of CVs surrounding abundance estimates, the formula
provided for calculating PBRs for all of these seals errs in utilizing
an inappropriate recovery factor of 0.5. A more precautionary recovery
factor should be used for these stocks following the most recent final
GAMMS that suggest lower recovery factors for stocks with greater
uncertainty in estimates of abundance (NMFS, 2005). We are particularly
alarmed that several SARs for ice seals contain language acknowledging
that ``[a]s of 2009, data on community subsistence harvests are no
longer being collected[hellip]'' This warrants an explanation. Why are
anthropogenic impacts not being tracked on a timely basis for these
intentional harvests? This is particularly important for these stocks
for which no abundance or trend information is available and that
depend on habitat that the SARs acknowledge to be degraded.
Response: NMFS agrees that information on subsistence harvest is
necessary for ice-associated seals. A successful marine mammal harvest
monitoring program cannot be developed exclusively in the federal
domain and must be supported by Alaska Native hunters and communities.
In December 2010 and March 2011, NMFS partnered with the Indigenous
People's Council on Marine Mammals to convene two workshops of marine
mammal hunters and ANO representatives to begin to develop a statewide
program for monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests. NMFS continues
to work with our ANO partners by prioritizing harvest monitoring
programs within the annual ANO co-management funding program. Even so,
the subsistence harvest of ice-associated seals in Alaska appears to be
sustainable, and the significant concerns about the future status of
ice seals stem from climate change and associated habitat loss, not
subsistence harvest.
Comment 75: The draft 2012 reports on Steller sea lions do not
reflect the most current or accurate information regarding total
population and trend for the United States Western DPS or the entire
Western DPS. For example, the draft SAR does not provide any population
trend for the total
[[Page 19459]]
population of the U.S. Western DPS Steller sea lion stock in its
entirety. The total population of the U.S. Western DPS has increased to
52,209 in 2011, an increase of 41% from 2000. The best estimate for
Steller sea lions in Russia is 25,000 to 28,000 animals. Therefore the
best estimate of the entire Western DPS population in 2011 would be
77,000-80,000 (with 52,000 in the U.S. Western DPS and 25,000-28,000 in
Russia). From 2000 to 2011, the total population estimate for the
entire Western DPS has increased 54% to 60%. The SAR should provide the
best total estimate of the total population for the entire U.S Western
DPS stock and the entire Western DPS. The disclaimer concerning the pup
multiplier and the reference to Holmes 2007 should be deleted as Holmes
2007 (and the hypothesized reduced natality in Central gulf of Alaska
and extension to the entire Western DPS) does not represent the best
available or current science.
Response: NMFS agrees with the estimate of 52,000 for the U.S.
Western DPS Steller sea lion population in 2011, and agrees that the
best current estimate (i.e., 2011) for Steller sea lion abundance in
Russia is between 25,000 and 28,000, and that the total western DPS
population is between 77,000 and 80,000. However, NMFS does not agree
with how the commenter calculated the percent change in the western DPS
population between estimates derived in 2000 and 2011. NMFS' estimate
of percent change based on pup counts at western DPS rookeries that
were surveyed in both years in the United States (N=31) indicates a 17%
increase between 2001-02 (8,639 pups) and 2011 (10,139 pups). These two
pup counts are not estimates of the total pup production in these years
but sums of counts at the 31 largest rookeries; in 2011, the 31 largest
rookeries had the vast majority (87%=10,139/11,600) of all pups born in
the western DPS in the United States. NMFS does not have a similar
estimate of total pup production for 2001-02 since aerial surveys were
not used to count pups then; and, consequently, several major haul-outs
and some smaller rookeries that have been consistently surveyed during
aerial surveys since 2005 were not counted during the 2001-02 surveys.
Estimates of change in abundance of non-pups in the western DPS in the
United States between 2000 and 2011 are based on counts at two groups
of trend sites. The 1990s trend sites (N=161) had a total of 23,836
non-pups in 2000 and 27,168 in 2008, an increase of 14%; the 2000s
trend sites (N=232) had 25,251 non-pups in 2000 and 30,147 in 2008, an
increase of 19%. Consequently, estimates for the change in western
Steller sea lion abundance in the United States between 2000 and 2011
range between 14% and 19%, less than half the 41% cited by the
commenter.
While the western Steller sea lion SAR provides information about
abundance in Russia, only information about the portion of the stock
residing in United States waters is used to estimate Nmin and to
calculate PBR. The GAMMS instructs that for stocks that span
international boundaries, the PBR for United States fisheries is
calculated based on the abundance estimate of the stock residing in
United States waters.
Comment 76: The minimum population for the Western DPS of Steller
sea lions should be revised upward as it excludes known counts.
Exclusion of these additional counts ignores the best available
scientific information.
Response: In order for Steller sea lion non-pup counts (from aerial
photographs) to represent a consistent index of the total non-pup
population from year to year, only animals on land are counted. During
the breeding season, only a small fraction of non-pups are at sea; non-
pups spend most of their time on land. Animals in the water are counted
only when it is known they were disturbed from the land to the water
during the survey. In those circumstances, every effort is made to only
count those animals that entered the water and are still relatively
close to shore. Surveys are designed to occur during the season and
time of day when non-pups are most likely to be hauled out on land,
which maximizes the opportunity of obtaining a consistent index count
of non-pups each year.
Comment 77: The Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR should be
revised to include the population trend for the total U.S. Western DPS
and the entire Western DPS. The current draft only contains estimates
for fragmented sections of the population in sub-areas (and sections of
sub-areas as in the Central Aleutian Islands), but the SAR inexplicably
provides no overall trend for the total population for the U.S. Western
DPS and Western DPS. If sub-area trends for non-pups are to be
included, the SAR should be more explicit as to how non-pup trends to
2011 are being derived--when the 2011 non-pup survey only covered 75%
of the non-pup survey sites.
Response: NMFS is currently working on estimating trends for the
entire U.S. Western DPS of Steller sea lions through 2012, as well as
for each of the sub-areas. These results will be included in the 2013
SAR.
Comment 78: The draft Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR should be
revised to include the most recent total population estimate for the
Russian population (25,000-28,000).
Response: The most recent estimate for the Russian population of
Steller sea lion (25,000 to 28,000) referenced by the commenter is
based on a presentation at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in
January 2012. These data became available after the draft 2012 SAR was
prepared, and the SRG has not reviewed them in the context of the SAR.
NMFS intends to update the draft 2013 SAR with this information once it
has undergone expert review.
Comment 79: The draft Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR should
consider revising the recovery factor from 0.1 to 0.3 as the U.S.
Western DPS stock is steadily increasing with known human take
(subsistence and fishery interactions). The U.S. Western DPS has
increased +41% from 2000 to 2011 and is 98% of the downlisting
population threshold. Revision of the recovery factor for an increasing
population is consistent with the GAMMS.
Response: The GAMMS instruct that the default recovery factor for
stocks of endangered species should be 0.1. Changes to recovery factors
for listed stocks can be made after careful consideration and SRG
review. However, given that the current annual level of incidental U.
S. Commercial fishery-related mortality exceeds 10% of the PBR and
cannot be considered insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and
serious injury rate, combined with the relatively high CVs for
commercial fishery mortality estimates, it is prudent that NMFS be
conservative in managing this endangered stock. Therefore, NMFS will
not increase the recovery factor at this time.
Comment 80: The Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR should be
revised to accurately describe the extent (range and magnitude) of
movement of Western DPS and Eastern DPS SSLs, both males and females.
The reference to ``a few migrants'' (p. 2) should be deleted. The
reference to Phillips 2011 does not support this assertion. A more
thorough evaluation of the effects of observed movement by males and
females on stock structure should be conducted.
Response: Phillips et al. (2011) is a phylogeographic study of
Steller sea lions and is not cited in reference to movements between
the western and eastern stocks of Steller sea lions in the SARs. There
are documented
[[Page 19460]]
movements of a few individuals between the geographic division of the
eastern and western stocks; however, these cases are minimal and are
not significant enough to affect stock structure. Demographics of these
migrant individuals is being examined further, and the SAR will be
reviewed and updated as appropriate in the draft 2013 SARs.
Comment 81: Given the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review
and Independent Scientific Review Panel findings and conclusions, the
2012 Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR should not include the
scientifically flawed information or constructs that were found to have
little scientific basis in the 2010 Biological Opinion. Our detailed
comments are provided in Attachment 1 to this letter.
Response: The CIE review was conducted in August 2012, after the
draft 2012 Western DPS of Steller sea lion SAR was released for public
comment. NMFS will consider incorporating any significant findings and
new information resulting from the CIE review in the draft 2013 SARs.
Dated: March 25, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-07553 Filed 3-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P