[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49053-49064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XC853
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 the 2013 marine
mammal stock assessment reports (SARs).
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]; Dee Allen, Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4048, [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 M/SI from all sources, descriptions of the
fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock.
Initial reports were completed in 1995.
[[Page 49054]]
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 2013, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment for
90 days (78 FR 66681, November 6, 2013, 2012). NMFS received comments
on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice
announces the availability of the final 2013 reports for the 122 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 2013 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission, the U.S. Navy (Pacific Fleet), the
Makah Tribe, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council,
and six non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the
United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin
Conservation, Ocean Conservancy, Hawaii Longline Association, and
Cascadia Research Collective).
Some comments recommended initiation or repetition of large data
collection efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or
other efforts to estimate mortality. Some comments recommending
additional data collection (e.g., additional abundance surveys or
observer programs) have been addressed in previous years. Although NMFS
agrees that additional information may 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 2013 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 are not included below. Comments suggesting
editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports,
but they 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 2013 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 Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) recommends
that NMFS complete its review of the Guidelines for Assessing Marine
Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) III Workshop recommendations and public comments
received on those recommendations, and issue new stock assessment
guidelines before conducting the 2015 stock assessments.
Response: NMFS is working to complete its review of the GAMMS III
recommendations as well as the public comments received on those
recommendations, and intends to issue updated stock assessment
guidelines as expeditiously as possible.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS make every effort to
ensure that data collected on at-sea distribution and movements of
pinnipeds are made available in a timely manner and to a broad
audience.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and recognizes the value in
disseminating the results of studies of pinniped distribution and
movements. While most pinniped science on at-sea distribution and
movements is conducted by scientists external to the agency, NMFS will
encourage researchers to publish results of pinniped research peer-
reviewed journals or reports that are broadly available in a timely
manner.
Comment 3: The Humane Society of the United States, the Center for
Biological Diversity, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation
(Organizations) recommend that NMFS use the most recent data in the
SARs to overcome the two-year lag.
Response: The marine mammal SARs are based upon the best available
scientific information, and NMFS strives to update the SARs with as
timely data as possible. In order to develop annual mortality and
serious injury (M/SI) estimates, we do our best to ensure all records
are accurately accounted for in that year. In some cases, this is
contingent on such things as bycatch analysis, data entry, and
assessment of available data to make determinations of severity of
injury, confirmation of species based on morphological and/or molecular
samples collected, etc. Additionally, the new serious injury
determination policy now requires several phases of review, which can
extend the process and time required to estimate bycatch. Reporting on
incomplete annual M/SI estimates could result in underestimating actual
levels. The MMPA requires us to report mean annual M/SI estimates, and
we try to ensure that we are accounting for all available data before
we summarize those data. With respect to abundance, in some cases we
provide census rather than abundance estimates (such as North Atlantic
right whales) and 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 4: The Organizations recommend that NMFS discuss concerns
related to altered ocean conditions caused by global climate change and
concerns regarding the impacts of sonar and other training exercises in
the Habitat Impacts sections.
Response: The MMPA requires for strategic stocks a consideration of
other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the
stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey. The GAMMS
II recommend that such issues should therefore be summarized in the
Status section for all strategic stocks. If substantial issues (such as
global climate change or impacts of sonar, for example) regarding the
habitat of the stock are considered to impede recovery of a stock, a
separate section titled ``Habitat Issues'' is used; if data exist that
indicate a problem, they are summarized and included in the SAR.
Comment 5: The Organizations recommend that NMFS adhere to the
GAMMS in cases where abundance data are aging and reduce the minimum
abundance estimates annually until new abundance data are available.
For example, the outdated Nmins for pygmy sperm whale and
dwarf sperm whale should be reduced incrementally over time as per
GAMMS.
Response: The proposed revisions to the GAMMS (i.e. GAMMS III)--
which recommend incrementally increasing the uncertainty around the
abundance estimate, thereby reducing the minimum abundance estimate
(Nmin)
[[Page 49055]]
and associated PBR- have not yet been finalized or fully implemented by
NMFS. NMFS is adhering to the guidance provided in GAMMS II until new
guidance is finalized.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 6: The Makah Tribe recommends that NMFS update the gray
whale SAR to include the most current information on the now 27 gray
whale observations in the Western and Eastern North Pacific. The
comment cites Urban et al. (2013) as an updated information source.
Response: Reference to the Urban et al. 2013 paper and information
on movements between the Western and Eastern North Pacific will be
included in the draft 2014 SAR.
Comment 7: The Makah Tribe recommends that NMFS replace the word
``residency'' with ``fidelity'' in the sentence that describes gray
whales in the Pacific Northwest which reads: ``whales that frequently
return to the area, display a high degree of intra-seasonal `residency'
and account for a majority of sightings between 1 June and 30
November.'' Additionally, the Makah Tribe recommends changing the
phrase ``Pacific Coast Feeding Group gray whales'' to ``gray whales
observed in the Pacific Coast Feeding Group range and season'' in the
Fisheries Information and Other Mortality sections, as the referenced
whales include whales that were identified as Pacific Coast Feeding
Group (PCFG) whales solely because they were observed in one year in
the geographic range and season for PCFG, while the formal definition
for PCFG includes whales seen in at least two years in the range and
season for PCFG.
Response: The word ``fidelity'' replaces the word ``residency'' and
the phrase PCFG gray whales'' was changed to ``gray whales observed in
the PCFG range and season'' in the final 2013 SAR as suggested.
Comment 8: The Makah Tribe recommends that the gray whale SAR
should discuss whether the PCFG satisfies the statutory definition of a
stock, and in particular whether the animals within the group
interbreed when mature.
Response: The final 2013 SAR elaborates on `interbreed when
mature,' citing the gray whale stock identification workshop report of
Weller et al. (2013). New text states: ``Further, given the lack of
significant differences found in nuclear DNA markers between PCFG
whales and other Eastern North Pacific (ENP) whales, the task force
found no evidence to suggest that PCFG whales breed exclusively or
primarily with each other, but interbreed with ENP whales, including
potentially other PCFG whales.''
Comment 9: The Makah Tribe suggests that the recovery factor
default value of 0.5 for PCFG gray whales is too low and recommends
that NMFS instead use a recovery factor of 0.75 in the PCFG gray whale
potential biological removal (PBR) calculation.
Response: The Pacific Scientific Review Group (SRG) was asked to
review the use of the default recovery factor of 0.5 at their April
2014 meeting. They raised a concern about using a recovery factor of
0.75 as it had not been adequately reviewed. They recommended the SAR
could contain a range of recovery factors, from 0.5 to 1.0. We
concluded that using a range would not meet the statutory intent of
calculating a PBR. Given a lack of specific guidance from the SRG on
the recovery factor for PCFG, NMFS will continue to use the default of
0.5 for these animals. We will revisit the issue of the appropriate
recovery factor in the 2014 SAR.
Comment 10: The Makah Tribe recommends that NMFS prorate the
serious injury for the gray whale observed entangled on 21 July 2009,
because it was re-sighted on 3 August 2009 as well as in 2010 and 2011
still trailing gear.
Response: This whale was seen again in 2013 and had shed all gear
and was apparently in good health. This record has been updated with a
non-serious injury designation in the final 2013 serious injury
determination report.
Comment 11: The Makah Tribe recommends that NMFS remove the PCFG
range assigned to the gray whale that was necropsied on 6 June 2011;
because it was found south of the PCFG range, the whale may have been
struck and killed before the PCFG season, and there is no photo-
identification.
Response: NMFS has reclassified this whale as an ENP whale, based
on its being south of the time/area range currently used for PCFG gray
whales.
Comment 12: The Cascadia Research Collective (CRC) recommends that
for the three newly recognized insular stocks of pantropical spotted
dolphins in Hawaiian waters, NMFS should provide a range of likely
abundance estimates and PBR values using density values for this
species. The Organizations also recommend that NMFS consider using
density estimates (e.g. false killer whales (FKW) around American Samoa
and spotted dolphins around Palmyra) to produce a range of PBR and
abundance estimates for pantropical spotted dolphins insular stocks.
Further, the Commission recommends that NMFS make full use of
information on abundance, density and/or stock ranges, and new analytic
methods such as spatially explicit mark-recapture and line-transect
models or Bayesian inference from similar cases, to provide bounds on
possible abundance estimates and PBR levels for newly split stocks,
whenever possible, as was done for pantropical spotted dolphins in
waters surrounding Palmyra and for FKW around American Samoa in 2010.
Response: The suggested inclusion of density information from other
regions to provide a range of likely abundance and PBR values needs to
be evaluated more carefully within the context of small, range-
restricted insular populations. NMFS will evaluate such an approach for
the future, as well as alternative approaches for assessing abundance
based on a range of available data for each of the new insular stocks.
Comment 13: The CRC recommends that NMFS incorporate alternative
sources of information on fisheries interactions with melon-headed
whales as there is no observer coverage in any nearshore fisheries and
Aschettino (2010) documents signs of fishery interactions (bullet
wounds and linear scars) in her photo-identification study. The CRC
also recommends revising the ``no known fishery mortality'' language in
the PBR section, again citing Aschettino (2010) as containing
information inconsistent with that statement. And, the CRC notes that
the melon-headed whale Kohala resident stock abundance estimate based
upon Aschettino (2010) likely overestimates abundance by including both
individuals that have died since 2002 and those that were born after
2002 but before 2009. The CRC further recommends that NMFS note that
melon-headed whales are sensitive to impacts from anthropogenic sound,
citing Southall et al. (2013), Southall et al. (2006) and Brownell et
al. (2009) as information sources.
Response: The reference to potential fisheries injuries as
evidenced by bullet holes and linear scars, discussed in Aschettino
(2010) was added to the final SAR. Lack of observer coverage in all
nearshore fisheries was already noted within the SAR. The section on
Other Mortality was expanded to include discussion of the Southall et
al. (2013) report, and the likely overestimation of abundance of Kohala
Resident whales was noted in the section on Kohala Resident stock
population size. The section on Other Mortality was expanded to include
discussion of the Southall et al. (2013) report.
Comment 14: The CRC recommends that NMFS revise its language in the
[[Page 49056]]
pantropical spotted dolphin SAR (Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex) about
photo identification catalogs available through the Collective for
developing mark-recapture estimates. The comment notes that the O'ahu
and 4-island stocks photos are limited and old and that the Hawai'i
Island stock photos are not incorporated into a photo-identification
catalog.
Response: The SAR contains language about the availability of
photos and states that a photo identification catalog has not been
developed. For the Oahu and 4-islands stocks, the text about the photo
identification catalog was removed, while for the Hawaii Island stock,
the text was clarified regarding the availability of a catalog.
Comment 15: The CRC recommends that NMFS update the pantropical
spotted dolphin Status of Stock section to reflect work by Burgess et
al. (2011) that documented vessel noise associated with directed
fishing effort as a habitat issue in Hawaiian waters.
Response: NMFS will further evaluate the impacts of vessel noise on
cetacean stocks in the region, but has not included the Burgess et al.
(2011) reference in the SAR. The suggested study of Burgess et al.
(coauthored by a SAR author) did not evaluate noise exposure levels or
evaluate any responses from cetaceans. The main findings indicate that
cetaceans are exposed to echosounder noise, but it is unknown if these
sounds represent habitat threats.
Comment 16: The CRC clarifies that the ika-shibi fishery is a tuna
fishery that catches squid for bait, not a squid fishery (see Hawai'i
rough-toothed dolphin and bottlenose dolphin Fishery Information
sections) and also clarifies that gillnet fishing in Hawaiian waters
occurs in nearshore areas, making it unlikely that Hawai'i rough-
toothed dolphin, striped dolphin, or Fraser's dolphin would interact
with gillnets. The CRC recommends that NMFS revise the statement that
total fishery-related M/SI can be considered to be insignificant and
approaching zero in the Status of Stock section of the Hawai'i rough-
toothed dolphin. Rough-toothed dolphins are known to take bait and
catch from fishermen off of the island of Hawai'i in unobserved
fisheries.
Response: Text in the Status of Stock section has been revised to
reflect that insufficient data exist to assess whether fishery-related
M/SI is insignificant and approaching zero.
Comment 17: The CRC recommends that NMFS rename the Hawai'i pelagic
stock of Blainville's beaked whale to Hawai'i stock until two stocks
are recognized. Further, Blainville's beaked whales in Hawaiian waters
should be separated into two stocks: Island-associated and pelagic.
Response: The stock's name has been changed in the SAR. SAR text
already includes discussion of possible insular and pelagic populations
of this species and that splitting the stock may be warranted in the
future. However, following recommendation of the SRG, NMFS is not
splitting the stock at this time based upon lack of sufficient data.
Comment 18: The CRC recommends that NMFS modify the Status of Stock
section for Risso's dolphin Hawai'i stock to reflect world-wide habitat
issues. The current status reads: ``no habitat issues are known to be
of concern for this species.''
Response: The SAR text reflects that no habitat issues are known
for this stock of Risso's dolphin in U.S. waters. Habitat issues in
other parts of the world for this species are not discussed in the SAR.
Comment 19: The CRC recommends that NMFS change the wording about
the imprecision of the common bottlenose dolphin Hawai'i stock complex,
O'ahu stock mark-recapture abundance estimate CV of 0.54, which is
similar to the CV (0.59) for the pelagic stock.
Response: Language pertaining to the lack of precision in the O'ahu
estimate has been deleted.
Comment 20: The CRC recommends that NMFS revise the fin whale,
Hawaiian stock to reflect the potential for anthropogenic sounds to
impact fin whale behavior as is done in the CA/OR/WA stock report.
Response: Such language has been added to the Status of Stock
section of this report.
Comment 21: The Navy recommends that NMFS make several edits to the
Pacific SARs for blue whale (ENP stock), humpback whale (CA/OR/WA
stock), fin whale (CA/OR/WA stock), blue whale (CNP stock), and sei
whale (Hawaiian stock) to reflect the speculative effects of
anthropogenic sound on marine mammal behavior as supported by Goldbogen
et al. (2013).
Response: NMFS has revised the language in the respective SARs to
reflect the full range of behavioral responses reported by Goldbogen et
al. (2013) for blue whales. For other species, NMFS has changed
language to reflect that behavioral responses of other baleen whale
species to such sounds may vary.
Comment 22: The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
(Council) recommends that NMFS use a higher recovery factor for the
pelagic stock of FKW as supported by Hilborn and Ishizaki (2013). The
Hawai'i Longline Association (HLA) recommends that NMFS use a recovery
factor greater than 0.5 for the PBR estimate for the pelagic stock of
FKW, because all available data contradict any hypothesis that the
abundance of FKW in the Hawai'i exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is
decreasing.
Response: NMFS is working to obtain additional data to examine
abundance trends in pelagic FKW; however, this does not change the
conclusions of the Draft 2013 SAR or the Final 2012 SAR (see 78 FR
19446, April 1, 2013, comment 45) that trend analyses are inappropriate
with only two data points, particularly given changes in group size
estimation and analysis methods in 2010 and that the proportion of the
population in the study area, and its variance over time, are not
known. The Hilborn and Ishizaki (2013) report lacks sufficiently robust
methods in a number of aspects and its conclusions and recommendations
are not incorporated into the SAR. Their conclusion that there is an
83% chance that the population is increasing is faulty, as the growth
estimate is dependent on many unverified assumptions, conditions, and
parameter inputs. More specifically:
(1) The estimates of growth are strongly dependent on the inputs
(priors) for the natural vital rate parameters, which are likely
optimistic, because they are intended to represent optimal values and
exponential growth (i.e., density dependence is ignored). If the
population is depleted (low abundance relative to carrying capacity),
then these vital rates may be appropriate, in which case, one might
conclude that the population is growing from a depleted state toward
some equilibrium with fishing mortality (i.e., population growth does
not mean the population is at Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) or
otherwise healthy). The ``tuned'' birth rates are known to be far lower
than that estimated for other populations of FKW, and the estimates of
adult survival are likely too high.
(2) The pelagic stock is treated as a closed population within the
Hawai'i EEZ boundary, an assumption known to be false and which would
have a significant impact on estimation of population abundance and
trend. Given an open population, it is unreasonable to try to estimate
a population trend from two estimates, even if the estimates were
derived using identical procedures (which they were not); the higher
estimate for the more recent survey could simply mean that a greater
proportion of the population was within the survey area. Multiple
survey
[[Page 49057]]
estimates are needed to appropriately infer trends within the survey
area, and even then, the trend for entire population would not be
known.
(3) Precision of the realized rate for population growth rate (r)
is overestimated because uncertainty is ignored for several important
parameters, including the number of takes by the fishery (which may
also be biased), the multiplier for juvenile survival (0.95 of adult
survival), and oldest age of reproduction. A more valid distribution
for current r (that more fully accounts for uncertainty in the
population model structure, vital rates, and fishing mortality
estimates) would likely suggest a more equivocal result for population
growth.
In summary, the current status of pelagic FKW is unknown. This
population may be depleted given fishing pressures within and outside
of the EEZ over several decades. We could expect a depleted population
to be growing, though this would not represent a healthy state.
Comment 23: The Council recommends that NMFS clarify that when
citing Kobayashi and Kawamoto (1995), interaction rate refers to
depredation events, not hookings and entanglements that result in
mortality or injury. Additionally, the Council recommends that NMFS
remove the Kobayashi and Kawamoto (1995) reference from the rough-
toothed dolphin, Hawai'i stock SAR, as the paper only identifies
bottlenose dolphins as the primary species causing depredation in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI).
Response: The definition of ``interaction'' in this context has
been clarified in the bottlenose dolphin SAR, and the reference removed
from the rough-toothed dolphin SAR.
Comment 24: The Council recommends that NMFS revise the Hawaiian
Islands stock complex of pantropical spotted dolphins SAR to be
consistent with the Proposed 2013 List of Fisheries (LOF), which
acknowledges the lack of direct evidence of M/SI in the troll and
charter vessel fisheries.
Response: The LOF is based on information from the SARs. The
Proposed 2013 LOF (78 FR April 22, 2013) states that ``available
information indicates that pantropical dolphins are incidentally
injured in theses fisheries at low levels.'' The draft 2013 SAR cites
the sources of that available information: Courbis et al. (2009),
Rizzuto (2007), and Shallenberger (1981), which document observations
of troll fishermen ``fishing'' off dolphins to catch tuna and Rizzuto
(1997) describes anecdotal reports of hookings. The draft 2013 SAR does
not overstate the available evidence of interactions with the Hawaiian
Islands stock complex of spotted dolphins.
Comment 25: The Council recommends that NMFS update the number of
American Samoa longline permit holders in the SAR Appendix. The draft
SAR Appendix says the number is ``unknown;'' however, the comment cites
that monthly updated values are available at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_permits_index.html. The Council also recommends that NMFS
address the federal management (e.g. Hawai'i Archipelago Fishery
Ecosystem Plan (FEP) and Pacific Pelagic FEP) that is in place for
Hawai'i's nearshore fisheries that operate in federal waters. Further,
the Council recommends that NMFS include information on the Hawai'i FEP
annual catch limits in the Pacific SARs.
Response: NMFS appreciates Council's careful attention to the
accurate and complete portrayal within the SAR Appendix of the
management of Hawaii's nearshore fisheries. The requested changes have
been addressed and all State fisheries descriptions have been checked,
and if necessary, updated with assistance from NMFS Pacific Islands
Regional Office (PIRO) Sustainable Fisheries and Protected Resources
Division staff.
Comment 26: The HLA recommends that NMFS revise the pelagic stock
of FKW SAR to reflect the discrepancy that takes cannot be at an
unsustainable level since there is no evidence of a declining trend in
abundance.
Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR
19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51). The comment and included
footnote continue to suggest that the pelagic stock of FKW is
increasing or stable since 2002, and as such, deep-set fishery takes
are not of concern, although serious injury and mortality have been
above PBR for more than a decade. The commenter attributes this
persistence of FKW despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS'
improper assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from
fisheries interactions, improper assessment of population abundance and
trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under the NMFS' Policy
for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries of Marine Mammals
has been discussed in previous comment responses, and is based on the
best available science on whether a cetacean is likely to survive a
particular type of injury. Further study of FKW would certainly better
inform the assigned outcomes, but until better data become available,
the standard established in the NMFS 2012 policy will stand.
The referenced 2002 and 2010 survey abundance estimates are not
comparable in their published form, as the methodology for accurately
enumerating FKW groups changed between surveys, significantly
increasing the average group size of FKW, and therefore, the resulting
abundance estimate. Further, because the entire stock range of pelagic
FKW is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, the
available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size. A
robust assessment of population trend would require assessment of
environmental variables that influence FKW distribution and the
proportion of the population represented within the survey area during
each survey period. Finally, many years of unsustainable take does not
necessarily lead to a population decline. PBR was designed to provide a
benchmark, in the face of great uncertainty about marine mammal
populations, below which human-caused mortalities would not reduce the
population beyond its OSP. (OSP is defined as the abundance where there
is ``the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass
resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or
growth less losses due to natural mortality''). The benchmark does not
consider whether a population is declining, as this is very hard to
prove, particularly for population abundance estimates with low
precision.
Comment 27: The HLA recommends that NMFS revise the population
trend information in the insular FKW stock SAR and repeats its comment
that the high abundance in 1989 claim lacks good scientific backing and
that the population has been stable since 2000.
Response: NMFS responded to a similar comment from the Council on
the 2012 SARs (comment 52 in 78 FR 19446, April 1, 2013). NMFS has
added language to the Final 2013 SAR clarifying the outcome of the
Population Viability Analysis modelling effort--that some two-stage
models did allow for a different growth rate around the year 2000--and
that some of those models suggested a lower rate of decline in recent
years.
Comment 28: The HLA maintains that the deep-set fishery does not
interact with the insular FKW stock and objects to NMFS's allocation of
a prorated portion of the ``blackfish'' deep-set fishery interaction to
the insular stock. The best available science and information dictate
that NMFS conclude in its final SAR that there are no
[[Page 49058]]
interactions between the deep-set fishery and the insular stock of FKW.
Response: NMFS has responded to these comments previously (see 78
FR 19446, April 1, 2013, Comment 52). The referenced 2011 take near the
offshore boundary of the Main Hawaiian Island insular stock is still
within the Main Hawaiian Island insular stock boundary and is
appropriately treated within the established proration framework. The
framework allocates a larger percentage of that take to the pelagic
stock given its location. The majority of FKW interactions are not
genetically sampled; and therefore, assignment to a specific stock is
rarely possible. The GAMMS allows for proration of take based on
density information (the current approach) or allocating take in an
overlap zone to both stocks, which in this case would result in
allocation to pelagic and Main Hawaiian Island insular FKW, as well as
to Hawaii short-finned pilot whales given the ``blackfish''
identification.
Comment 29: The HLA disagrees with the conclusion in the insular
FKW SAR that the annual M/SI from longline fisheries is ``not
approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate because it exceeds
10% of PBR.''
Response: The MMPA mandates that commercial fisheries reduce
incidental M/SI of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a
zero M/SI rate (16 U.S.C. 1387(b)). NMFS has defined this
``insignificance threshold'' in regulation as 10% of PBR (50 CFR
229.2). Annual M/SI in longline fisheries exceed this level; and thus,
the statement is warranted.
Comment 30: The HLA recommends that NMFS re-evaluate how it assigns
fisheries interactions to FKW in the absence of data. The HLA cites two
examples and suggests that prorated interactions were unfairly counted
against the fisheries: An interaction was categorized as a serious
injury based on little to no data and a ``blackfish'' interaction was
assigned to FKW.
Response: Both proration approaches used--(1) for injury status
when observer records are inadequate to determine whether an injury is
serious or not, and (2) for allocation of blackfish, a category used to
encompass interactions known to be short-finned pilot whales or FKW--
are data based. The proportion of injuries categorized as serious
versus non-serious is used to inform injury classification for those
cases where injury severity is unclear. There is a clear record of the
types of injuries that FKW typically suffer. Applicability of that
information to inform those cases that are unclear due to the inability
of the observer to completely view the animal, or accurately describe
the degree of entanglement or location of hooking, is appropriate and
supported within GAMMS. Similarly, when a species group such as
``blackfish'' is used to assign interactions in cases where species
identification can only be resolved to within two species (short-finned
pilot whales and FKW), it is appropriate to evaluate the interaction
rates of each of those species to inform an appropriate proration
scheme. Ignoring those interactions would create a bias in M/SI
estimates, thereby under-representing total M/SI of each species. Both
proration schemes are updated annually to reflect the most recent data
on serious versus non-serious injury rates and the occurrence of pilot
whale and FKW interactions.
Comment 31: The HLA recommends that NMFS re-evaluate its stock
delineations of FKW and asserts that NMFS rushed judgment when
declaring the NWHI stock, which has overlapping range with the insular
and pelagic stocks.
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 identification
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 FKW 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 32: The HLA recommends that NMFS explain its rationale in
prorating a serious injury of Hawai'i stock of sperm whales and the
circumstance surrounding an interaction with the deep-set fishery. The
comment states that in the absence of conclusive information, the
interaction must be designated as ``non-serious.''
Response: The details of this and all other interactions are
provided in the cited Bradford and Forney (2013), and the justification
and rationale for use of 75% proration is discussed within NMFS' Policy
for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries of Marine Mammals
(NMFS 2012), which employed a data-based approach of assigning serious
injury proration based on the known outcomes of individual whales
suffering those injuries. This results in a more informed determination
than the ``more likely than not'' standard used for other serious
injury determinations when information on the survival of individuals
suffering those types of injuries is unknown. The cited references
provide the necessary detail. While NMFS does not believe it is
necessary or practical to detail the circumstances of every injury
within the text of the SAR, some additional information on this
particular injury was added to the 2013 SAR.
Comment 33: The HLA recommends that NMFS remove the sentence:
``Large whales have been observed entangled in longline gear in the
Hawai'i EEZ in the past (Forney 2010)'' from the blue whale (CNP
stock), fin whale (Hawai'i stock), sei whale (Hawai'i stock), and minke
whale (Hawai'i stock) SARs. The cited report does not document a single
interaction between the longline fisheries (dating back to 1994) and
any of the listed stocks.
Response: The statement was removed from each of the referenced
SARs.
Comment 34: The HLA recommends that NMFS remove the statement in
the Hawaiian monk seal SAR that reads: ``[l]ongline hooks have also
been recovered from Hawaiian monk seals, but these were not observed
during longline fishing operations.'' The HLA states that no
interactions have been documented since 1991 when waters within 50
miles of the NWHI were closed to longline fishing. The statement in the
SAR refers to pre-1991 amendment information and inaccurately implies
that longline fisheries may interact with monk seals.
Response: This outdated text appears in the Description of U.S.
Fisheries Appendix, not in the monk seal SAR. It has been removed. The
existing SAR text reflects the current management plan implemented to
protect monk seals.
Comment 35: The Organizations recommend that NMFS remove the
sentence from the harbor seals, OR/WA coast stock that reads: ``[t]he
stock is within its Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) level,''
noting that more recent data are needed before that claim can be made.
The Organizations also recommend that NMFS update abundance estimates
for this stock and expressed frustration that despite numerous recent
abundance surveys no published data are yet available.
Response: NMFS has updated the OSP language in this SAR (and in the
WA state inner waters SARs) to reflect
[[Page 49059]]
that in the absence of recent abundance estimates, the status of this
stock relative to OSP is unknown. NMFS will not reduce an outdated
estimate of Nmin at this time, as the proposed guidelines
for applying such reductions in the absence of new abundance estimates
have not been finalized. In addition, because abundance estimates are
outdated, there is no valid estimate of Nmin to reduce. The
lack of recent abundance estimates is due to incomplete surveys within
the range of these stocks, owing to both weather and funding
challenges.
Comment 36: The Organizations noted that, as with the OR/WA coast
stock of harbor seals, there is no recent published research available
to update abundance and distribution information on the Washington
inland waters stocks of harbor seals, despite ongoing research
activities. Additionally, the fishermen self-reported deaths of harbor
seals suggest that harbor seals are being killed in fishery
interactions and NMFS should undertake an observer program.
Response: See response to Comment 35 regarding research activities.
Observer programs exist for tribal gillnet fisheries in the region that
self-report takes. Additional observer programs for fisheries that
interact with harbor seals are detailed in the fishery tables of the
respective SARs.
Comment 37: The Organizations recommend that NMFS include the
threats posed by ciguatoxins and potent algal neurotoxins in the
Hawaiian monk seal SAR.
Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the 2012 draft SAR
public comment process. 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.
Comment 38: The Organizations recommend that NMFS consider a
limited observer program in the gillnet fishery to monitor for harbor
porpoise (various stocks) interactions.
Response: Commercial gillnet fisheries in the range of these harbor
porpoise stocks are largely limited to tribal fisheries that provide
self-reporting of takes. NMFS agrees that additional observer programs
are needed to better document gillnet bycatch, but funding for such
observer programs is limited.
Comment 39: The Organizations recommend that NMFS obtain an
incidental take statement (ITS) for scientific research trawls for
sardines and rockfish because from 2007 to 2011, there were 26
mortalities and 4 serious injuries of Pacific white-sided dolphins in
scientific research trawls. The ITS should address mitigation measures
or gear modifications.
Response: The NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC)
applied for a Letter of Authorization (LOA) under the MMPA in 2013 for
takes that may occur incidental to its fisheries research surveys. In
its application, SWFSC describes a suite of mitigation measures it has
implemented with the aim of minimizing future takes. For threatened or
endangered marine mammals, NMFS will conduct separate but parallel ESA
section 7 consultations, which could result in authorized incidental
take of threatened or endangered marine mammals, if warranted.
Comment 40: The Organizations recommend that NMFS re-evaluate the
population trend for the Southern Resident killer whale using the 1987-
2011 timeframe as in Velez-Espino (2012). Limiting the time frame
results in a 0.91 per year declining trend. The Organizations also
recommend that NMFS incorporate new evidence of winter habitat for
Southern Resident killer whales from Hanson (2013).
Response: NMFS responded to the population trend and prey
availability comments in the draft 2012 SAR public comment process.
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 commenters state that only the time period 1987-2011
should be evaluated for trends in abundance. In 1987, the population
count was 84 animals, which increased to 99 animals by 1995. In 2012,
the count had declined to 85 animals, one animal more than was counted
in 1987. Regarding prey availability, the SAR currently contains
language and references regarding potential effects of limited prey
availability on this population of killer whales. New information on
the winter habitat of this population will be included in the draft
2014 report.
Comment 41: The Organizations recommend that NMFS add a vessel
strike involving a sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock from a 2007 observer
report.
Response: NMFS did not revise the CA/OR/WA sperm whale SAR in 2013.
However, the SAR will be revised in 2014 and will include updated
information on vessel strikes.
Comment 42: The Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) recommended
that the PBR for monk seal be zero.
Response: Appropriate treatment of PBR for Hawaiian monk seals has
long been a controversial issue within the NMFS stock assessment
community. Below is background and explanation of how NMFS arrived at
``undetermined'' PBR for monk seals. As the Commission noted, this
issue was thoroughly discussed at the GAMMS III workshop. Some
participants maintained that for consistency and compliance with the
MMPA, the PBR equation should be calculated for all stocks, including
the monk seal. They further made the point that PBR does not itself
authorize take. Others maintained, consistent with the Commission's
position, that PBR should be set to zero. This was not recommended in
the GAMMS III workshop report. A PBR of zero using the PBR formula
would require that either the Recovery Factor or Rmax would
be zero. Some thought that ``setting Fr to zero would require a change
to the MMPA, and that it would be difficult to defend setting
Rmax to zero for any stock.''
Following the GAMMS III workshop, NMFS decided to continue
reporting monk seal PBR as undetermined, consistent with what had been
done since the issue was previously considered at GAMMS II. Reporting a
PBR calculated using the PBR formula would not be consistent with the
intent of PBR in that there is clearly no surplus production of monk
seals that could be removed while allowing the population to return to
OSP. While GAMMS III allows for PBR in such cases to be qualified by
additional text, it seems ineffective to present a value then explain
that it is not valid. Setting PBR to zero would contradict the current
GAMMS III guidance and could be construed that either Rmax
or the Recovery Factor were zero, raising the complications noted
above.
NMFS appreciates the Commission's concern that ``with PBR
undetermined there is no reference point against which the magnitude of
human-caused mortality and serious injury can be evaluated, which makes
it difficult to focus management and public attention on eliminating
human-caused mortality and serious injury.'' NMFS believes that in
practice, the public and managers are more influenced by the monk
seal's ESA status (and associated Recovery Plan and Critical Habitat
designation), National Environmental Policy Act compliance and public
outreach efforts of NOAA, partner agencies and NGOs, than by the PBR.
As such, NMFS believes that an ``undetermined'' PBR poses no real risk
to monk seal recovery.
[[Page 49060]]
Comment 43: The Commission noted that ``This section (of the monk
seal SAR) describes the decline in population size in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands as if it was monotonic at 3.4% per year. However,
examination of the data points in Figure 1 suggests that the rate of
decline was much faster from 2004 to 2008, and much slower, perhaps
even near zero, from 2008 to 2011. We suggest that the report contain
some discussion and evaluation of the possibility that the rate of
decline has changed over time.''
Response: The monk seal trend is based on a regression fitted to
the 10 most recent years' estimates. This is a compromise between
precision (having enough years to obtain an estimate with low error)
and accuracy. As the Commission noted, the monk seal decline appeared
to cease during 2008-2011; however, it may have proven premature to
include this in the text. Preliminary data from 2012-2013 indicate
lower abundance estimates consistent with a continuing decline
(demonstrating the potential pitfall of making strong inferences on
just a few years' data).
On this same subject, NMFS has two main concerns about estimating
monk seals trends. First, and this is noted in the SAR, the trend is
based only on 6 NWHI sites, which excludes Necker, Nihoa and the MHI.
NMFS is working to obtain reliable abundance estimates for these
excluded sites, so that the analysis better reflects total stock
trends. Second, in 2012-2013, budget shortfalls resulted in very short
NWHI field seasons, so that the apparent drop in abundance in those
years could be real or may simply reflect inadequate surveillance.
Indications are that funding will allow for adequate surveillance in
2014. NMFS believes it is likely that the rate of decline has been
reduced in the NWHI, but wishes to be more certain this is a sustained
trend before reporting it in the SAR.
Comment 44: The Commission noted that in the Human-caused Mortality
and Serious Injury section of the monk seal SAR the statement ``[t]his
second decline . . . appear[s] to have been driven by . . . and by
human disturbance from military or U.S. Coast Guard activities (Baker
et al. 2012 . . .)'' was revised by deleting ``military or U.S. Coast
Guard activities.'' While Baker et al. (2012) do dismiss the potential
impact of military activities, they cite Gilmartin et al. (2011) as
supporting the potential impact of Coast Guard activities.
Response: The monk seal SAR states that the decline apparently was
driven both by variable oceanic productivity and human disturbance. The
reference to human disturbance is meant to identify this generic cause
regardless of whether the people involved were civilians, federal
employees or members of any uniformed service.
Comment 45: The Commission suggested that some discussion of the
risk to monk seals posed by Fukushima debris might be included in the
SAR.
Response: Despite public concerns after the Fukushima disaster, no
tsunami debris has been documented to have harmed or contacted a monk
seal.
Comment 46: The Commission wanted to know why the trend figure in
the Morro Bay harbor porpoise SAR was removed and noted it should be
updated to include the 2012 survey estimate. The Commission asked why
the finding that the population was increasing was deleted. An
explanation, beyond simply noting the wide confidence limits on
individual estimates, should be provided for why further analyses are
required to establish if the population is increasing.
Response: The trend figure was removed because the most recent
abundance estimates used different methods and results cannot directly
be compared to past estimates. Thus, the figure would be misleading. A
more sophisticated Bayesian trend analysis is planned in the future,
and results will be included in the next revision of this SAR. This
response applies to other harbor porpoise reports where current trend
analyses are lacking.
Comment 47: The Commission noted that in the Current and Maximum
Net Productivity Rates section of the harbor porpoise SARs, the
statement that ``[t]his maximum theoretical rate [9.4% per year from
Barlow and Boveng (1991)] may not be achievable for any real
population.'' As it is not apparent how this conclusion was reached,
the report should contain an explanation and justification for the
statement. The Commission noted that this comment applies also to the
other harbor porpoise stocks.
Response: This statement has been included in the harbor porpoise
SARs since 1995 and is based on conclusions from the Barlow and Boveng
(1991) paper. The 9.4% theoretical rate uses a human survivorship
curve, which represents a maximum survival in a protected environment
and is expected to be the absolute limit to the likely survivorship of
any wild population. NMFS has modified the text to clarify this
statement.
Comment 48: The Commission noted that the Ward (2012) reference
used to justify the value of Rmax used in the Southern
Resident killer whale SAR was unpublished and not available to assess
the suitability of the Rmax value used in the SAR.
Response: An updated Ward (2013) reference is cited in the final
2013 SAR. Ward (2013) summarizes a distribution of growth rate
estimates for Southern Resident killer whales (Figure 7), ranging from
approximately 0.98 (a negative growth rate) to the value of 1.032 cited
in the SAR. The value of Rmax used in the SAR represents the
best estimate of maximum population growth rate over the period 1979-
2010, which is less than the default value used for most cetaceans.
Comment 49: The Commission recommended reducing the recovery
factors for stocks of CA/OR/WA Cuvier's beaked whales and Mesoplodont
beaked whales, given the observed declines for these stocks.
Response: NMFS used a default recovery factor of 0.5 for these two
stocks, which have shown evidence of decline. The GAMMS allow for
lowering default recovery factors when the precision of human-caused
mortality levels (coefficient of variation or CV) is known. For
example, recovery factors may be lowered from the 0.5 default to 0.4
for a stock of unknown status or a depleted stock when the human-caused
mortality CV exceeds 0.8 (Wade and Angliss 1997). In the case of U.S.
west coast stocks of Cuvier's beaked whale and Mesoplodont beaked
whales, there are no estimates of human-caused mortality. Changes to
default recovery factors for reasons other than adjustments related to
mortality CV should be reviewed by regional SRGs. NMFS agrees that the
recovery factors could be adjusted downward, but there is no
justification for choosing any particular recovery factor value less
than the default for these beaked whale stocks at present. NMFS will
consult with the Pacific SRG regarding the recovery factors for these
stocks prior to the next revision of these reports.
Comment 50: The Commission noted that ship strikes of unidentified
large whales (such as Eastern North Pacific blue whales) were not
prorated to species in the SARs, similar to what is done when
unidentified blackfish are prorated in the FKW and short-finned pilot
whale Pacific Islands reports.
Response: Proration of unidentified blackfish in the Pacific
Islands SARs is based on a distance-from-shore model developed from
observer program data and in consultation with the Pacific SRG. In
contrast, no systematic proration scheme has been developed for U.S.
west coast serious injury records of unidentified whales. NMFS has
added text to the appropriate large
[[Page 49061]]
whale SARs indicating that some of the unidentified large whale serious
injury records may represent the species at hand. NMFS will also
consult with the Pacific SRG on developing proration schemes for
unidentified whale records in future stock assessments.
Comment 51: The Commission suggested adding language to the OR/WA
coast harbor seal SAR that acknowledges negative biases in bycatch and
mortality estimates resulting from the failure of observers to detect
all events.
Response: NMFS has added language to the SAR, acknowledging that
bycatch mortality estimates likely represent minimum values, especially
for fisheries where observer coverage is low and bycatch events are
infrequent. For fisheries with adequate observer coverage (the
definition of ``adequate'' will vary depending on the rate of bycatch
and associated observer coverage), bycatch estimates should be unbiased
if methods are sound and sample sizes are sufficient.
Comment 52: The Commission noted that mortality levels in the
harbor seal OR/WA coast stock Status of Stock section attributed to
unknown hook and line fisheries was 0.4 seal per year, but the value
reported in the Fisheries Information section was 0.6.
Response: The two values represent different sources of mortality
and injury. The 0.6 per year listed in Table 1 is from stranding data,
excluding hook and line fishery interactions that may be from
recreational fisheries, and is not included in commercial fishery cases
listed in the Fisheries Information section and Table 1. The 0.4 mean
annual mortality (from stranding data) caused by unknown hook and line
fisheries is not listed in Table 1 or included in the calculation of
mean annual commercial fishery mortality because it is not known if
these deaths were caused by commercial or recreational fisheries.
However, this mortality is included in the calculation of total mean
annual human-caused mortality.
Comment 53: In the OR/WA coast harbor seal SAR (and for other west
coast harbor seal SARs), the Commission noted that text states ``[t]he
stock is within its Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) level'' and
provides two supporting references. Given that recovering and
maintaining populations at OSP is a primary goal of the MMPA, a summary
of the findings of those references should be provided.
Response: OSP for the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor seals
is discussed in the Population Size section of the SAR, under the
Current Population Trend heading, and illustrated in Figure 2. The SAR
text states: ``The population remained relatively low during the 1960s,
but since the termination of the harbor seal bounty program and with
the protection provided by the passage of the MMPA in 1972, harbor seal
counts for this stock have increased from 6,389 in 1977 to 16,165 in
1999 (Jeffries et al. 2003; ODFW, unpublished data). Based on the
analyses of Jeffries et al. (2003) and Brown et al. (2005), both the
Washington and Oregon portions of this stock have reached carrying
capacity and are no longer increasing (Fig. 2).'' However, the
abundance surveys from which the OSP statements were based in the draft
SAR are from abundance surveys that are outdated. Also, no formal OSP
designation was ever made for these stocks by NMFS. NMFS has added text
to the Status of Stock section as follows: ``The stock was previously
reported to be within its OSP range (Jeffries et al. 2003, Brown et al.
2005), but in the absence of recent abundance estimates, this stock's
status relative to OSP is unknown.''
Comment 54: The Commission suggested adding/clarifying text in the
California northern fur seal SAR related to correction factors, trends,
recovery, maximum net productivity rates, carrying capacity and OSP.
Response: NMFS appreciates this suggestion and has added clarifying
text to the California northern fur seal SAR.
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 55: The Organizations recommend that NMFS update the
estimates of Alaska Native harvest. Many SARs (e.g. bearded seals and
ringed seals) note that subsistence harvest data have not been
collected since 2009, and the Organizations would like to see this
remedied.
Response: NMFS responded to this comment previously in 78 FR 19446,
April 1, 2013, Comments 56, 63, and 74. NMFS continues to work with its
Alaska Native Organization (ANO) co-management partners on prioritizing
harvest monitoring programs within the annual ANO co-management funding
program.
Comment 56: The Organizations recommend that NMFS consider
management of sub-stocks within the Western stock of Steller sea lions
to better manage portions of the range that are still in decline.
Response: Stocks serve as the unit for management of species of
marine mammals managed by NMFS. NMFS will continue to monitor the
trends in portions of this stock throughout the range in order to make
appropriate management decisions for the conservation of the stock of
western Steller sea lions.
Comment 57: The Organizations recommend that NMFS start an observer
program to monitor gillnet interactions with the Western stock of
Steller sea lions. Additionally, the Cook Inlet drift gillnet fishery
has data from 1999 that are stated in a footnote to be ``preliminary,''
however they are 15 years old.
Response: NMFS is not operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer
Program in 2014 due to a lack of available resources, and its future is
uncertain. The footnote regarding ``preliminary'' Cook Inlet data from
1999 is erroneous and appears to be an inadvertent carryover from 2001
when the data were first inserted into the table. The data are not
preliminary and are the best available. NMFS has modified the SAR
accordingly.
Comment 58: The Organizations recommend that NMFS revise the
Eastern stock of Steller sea lion SAR to account for immigration from
the Western stock.
Response: NMFS is updating the draft 2014 SAR to better address
movements and colonization of western Steller sea lions into the
northern portion of the range of the eastern distinct population
segment (DPS). The observations of marked sea lion movements
corroborate extensive genetics research findings suggesting a strong
separation between the two currently recognized stocks. Permanent
movements between the western and eastern Steller sea lion stocks
represent a very small percentage of the total count of sea lions in
either stock and would have a negligible impact on non-pup trend
estimates for either stock.
Comment 59: The Organizations recommend that NMFS better account
for the decline in the California portion of the eastern stock of
Steller sea lions' range.
Response: NMFS has noted a decline in the numbers of Steller sea
lions in California, the southern portion of the Steller sea lion's
range. However, the eastern stock is increasing throughout the northern
portion of its range (Southeast Alaska and British Columbia) and is
stable or increasing slowly in the central portion (Oregon through
central California). These trends are summarized in the Habitat
Concerns section of the SAR, and it is suggested that environmental
changes, particularly warmer temperatures, may not be favorable for
Steller sea lions in the southern portion of the Steller sea lion's
range. There has been no known increase in human-caused or natural
[[Page 49062]]
mortality of Steller sea lions in the southern portion of their range.
Comment 60: The Organizations recommend that NMFS revise the SAR
for the Eastern stock of Steller sea lions to include up-to-date
management information (e.g. status review and de-listing notice).
Response: The final rule to delist the eastern Distinct Population
Segment of Steller sea lion under the Endangered Species Act was
released 04 November 2013, subsequent to SRG review and release of the
SARs for public comment. This rule became effective 04 December 2013.
NMFS will revise the draft 2014 eastern Steller sea lion SAR to reflect
this decision and update the information provided in the SARs.
Comment 61: The Organizations recommend that NMFS lower the
recovery factor in the PBR estimate for most of the harbor seal stocks.
Response: Some of the estimates that are cited in the SAR do not
include information from the most recent survey as those data have not
yet been fully analyzed. NMFS is in the process of analyzing an
extensive data set from recent surveys of harbor seals throughout their
range in Alaska, including the significant extensions of statistical
theory and methods. As soon this analysis can be completed, the
abundance, trends, and appropriate recovery factors will be updated in
the SAR.
Comment 62: The Organizations recommend that NMFS remove the
citation Bengtson et al. (2010) from the ringed seal SAR because the
data used in the abundance estimate in that paper are 15 years old. It
is not appropriate to generate ``new'' estimates of abundance based on
this paper.
Response: There is no citation of ``Bengtson et al. (2010)'' in the
ringed seal SAR. The section on population size acknowledges that
current, comprehensive, and reliable abundance estimates or trends for
the Alaska stock are not available. All appropriate sections have been
modified to indicate that the estimates are unavailable given the age
of the survey data.
Comment 63: The Organizations recommend that NMFS highlight
acoustic threats to Cook Inlet beluga whales in the Habitat Impacts
section. The Organizations applaud NMFS for being cautionary and for
not making a PBR estimate for this stock.
Response: NMFS updated the Habitat Concerns section of the Cook
Inlet beluga SAR with a statement regarding the consideration of
acoustics threats in the NMFS Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet Beluga
Whales. This section will be updated, as appropriate, once the Recovery
Plan is available. Furthermore, NMFS, in collaboration with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, is
currently completing a study to characterize the background noise,
including anthropogenic sources, in Cook Inlet and its potential
displacement effect on Cook Inlet belugas. A final report of this study
will be available in summer of 2014, and the SAR will be updated as
appropriate.
Comment 64: The Organizations recommend that NMFS observe gillnet
interactions with harbor porpoises in other portions of their range
outside Southeast Alaska.
Response: NMFS is not operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer
Program in 2014 due to a lack of available resources, and its future is
uncertain. NMFS acknowledges that the observations of the 1990-1991
Prince William Sound, 1991 Aleutian Islands, 2002 and 2005 Kodiak and
1999-2000 Cook Inlet salmon set and drift gillnet fisheries are dated
and reflect between 0.16 and 6 percent observer coverage. The mean
annual mortality rate incidental to all U.S. commercial fisheries is
71.4. Incidental take of the Bering Sea stock of harbor porpoise could
occur in the Aleutian Islands set and drift gillnet fisheries. The set
gillnet fishery has not been observed. The drift gillnet fishery was
observed in 1991. In 1992, two interactions were reported in logbooks
in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island salmon set gillnet fishery,
resulting in an estimated annual mortality of 0.5. Allen et al. (2014)
report one harbor porpoise from the Gulf of Alaska stock taken in
either the Cook Inlet set or drift gillnet fishery in 2008 and one
mother and one calf from the Bering Sea stock taken in the Norton Sound
Salmon set gillnet subsistence fishery in 2007.
Comment 65: The Organizations recommend that NMFS add clarity to
the statements in the harbor porpoise, Southeast Alaska stock SAR. The
statement: ``[t]he estimated minimum mean annual mortality of harbor
porpoises in Southeast Alaska based on incidental catch reported to the
stranding network is 0.6 for the 5-year period from 2007-2012.'' And
the statement: ``[t]he average minimum annual human-caused mortality
and serious injury of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoises based on
unconfirmed incidental catch and other human-caused activity reported
to the stranding network is 0.2 for the 5-year period from 2007-2011.''
The discrepancy between these two statements requires further
explanation as to why there are 2 separate estimates.
Response: NMFS has clarified the language to reflect that one
estimate is the summary of confirmed incidental take reports from
stranding records and thus summarized in the Fisheries Information
section of the SAR, whereas the other estimate is a summary of
unconfirmed (but likely) incidental take reports that are certainly
human-caused M/SI, and therefore reported in the Other Mortality
section of the SAR.
Comment 66: The Organizations recommend that NMFS consider how to
apportion the mortality to the Southeast Alaska/Northern British
Columbia, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska management units of the
CNP stock of humpback whales.
Response: NMFS estimates the annual human-caused M/SI of marine
mammal stocks by source as required under the MMPA. The Southeast
Alaska/Northern British Columbia, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska
humpback whales are feeding aggregations and not considered management
units at this time. The central North Pacific stock is the management
unit for this stock of humpback whales. The status and population
structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific and elsewhere is
currently under review by NMFS as part of a global status review of the
species. If this result in any changes to existing management units, M/
SI data for stocks will be apportioned to align with any new units.
Comment 67: The Organizations recommend that NMFS make a
precautionary abundance estimate for fin whales based on known minimums
within the range and/or prioritize additional effort to ascertaining
abundance.
Response: The stock assessment report for fin whales reports the
best information available on fin whales. Given that this estimate
derives from data gathered from only part of the likely range of this
stock, it is likely to represent a very conservative minimum.
Comment 68: The Organizations recommend that NMFS classify the
Iliamna Lake seal as a separate stock of harbor seals.
Response: The analysis of genetic and other information that
supports the discreteness of harbor seals in Iliamna Lake was completed
in late autumn, 2013, which was too late for incorporation into the
current SAR. NMFS will determine whether those seals should be
designated as a stock under the MMPA through the appropriate process,
including consultation under its co-management agreement with the
Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission.
[[Page 49063]]
Comment 69: To improve stock assessment efforts in Alaska, the
Commission recommends that NMFS provide an explanation as to why the
2014 priority activities recommended in the recovery plan for the
critically endangered eastern population of the North Pacific right
whale were not considered an agency priority for funding, and indicate
when the agency expects to allocate the roughly $2.5M in funding
required to implement the first two years of the recovery plan
activities.
Response: NMFS is currently seeking modest funding for small
projects from outside sources (including the Commission) to analyze
acoustic data to examine the occurrence of right whales in the Bering
Sea. However, because of the remote nature of right whale habitats in
the North Pacific, conducting surveys or any other field work requires
considerably more resources than are available.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Comment 70: The Ocean Conservancy recommends that NMFS fund a
restoration project to use high-definition video to assess marine
mammal, sea turtle, and pelagic bird abundance in the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: NMFS is one of the Federal and state partners that are
involved in recommending restoration projects as part of the follow-up
to the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Currently NMFS does not
use high-definition video as one of its standard tools for assessing
marine mammals and sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. The role of high-
definition video in future NMFS assessments in the Gulf of Mexico is
being evaluated, and it could be considered as part of restoration if
it is appropriate.
Comment 71: Organizations recommend updating some of the citations
regarding sightings of large whales. They also recommend that NMFS add
Gulf of Mexico sightings of North Atlantic right whales from the New
England Aquarium's report card to the SAR, and add Jordan Basin as a
major habitat for North Atlantic right whales.
Response: Following advice from the reviewer, NMFS has added a
reference to Cole et al. (2013), as well as inserting mention of
sightings in the Gulf of Mexico and the 2013 calving in Cape Cod Bay.
Comment 72: The Organizations recommend that NMFS re-calculate the
PBR estimate for North Atlantic right whales using a 2.8% growth rate
instead of the 4% default Rmax.
Response: Rmax is not the same as the observed
population growth. In theoretical demographic models, Rmax
is the maximum that a population could grow (birth and survival are
largely unconstrained by carrying capacity pressures). Although we have
no definitive data to suggest that North Atlantic right whales have in
their evolutionary history ever achieved the 4% default value, we do
know that the extant population suffers considerable mortality (largely
from anthropogenic sources) that has nothing to do with forage
limitations or social conflicts. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that
the observed growth rate of 2.8% is Rmax.
Comment 73: The Organizations recommend that NMFS revise Table 2 in
the North Atlantic right whale SAR. The old format was clearer and
information has been omitted. The 01 February 2011 mortality was left
off the new table. A gear type was not assigned to the 31 March 2007
entanglement mortality despite it being documented at U.S. origin.
Response: It was our intention that the SAR table would be a
summary of the detailed information presented in the Serious Injury and
Mortality reports. However, at the request of the reviewer, NMFS has
reinstated the comments column. The 01 February 2011 event was not
omitted. It is the animal originally sighted alive and entangled on 25
December 2010 (Eg #3911). In the 2007-2011 reports, we
classified this animal as a Serious Injury due to entanglement because
the cause of death was technically exsanguination due to shark
predation. So, it was included in the Cole and Henry Serious Injury
report (and counts as 1 against PBR; Cole, T. V. N., and A. G. Henry
2013). We acknowledge that this is confusing and it will be corrected
to and reported as a morality with proximate cause of death =
entanglement and ultimate cause of death = shark predation in the 2008-
2012 mortality report.
The Serious Injury and Mortality reports detail how an event is
attributed to a country even without recovered gear. The 31 March 2007
event was determined to be a U.S. event based on the fact that it was a
2-3 month old calf and most likely encountered the entanglement between
Florida and North Carolina.
Comment 74: The Organizations recommend that NMFS add that there
are a notable number of entanglements of minke whales in gillnets to
the Fisheries Interaction section of the SAR.
Response: Text has been added in the Other Fisheries section to
mention the prevalence of gillnet entanglements.
Comment 75: The Organizations recommend that NMFS revise the 2008
sperm whale, Gulf of Mexico oceanic stock longline interaction to
include an extrapolated serious injury to the calf that was with the
mother that was entangled.
Response: Section 117 of the MMPA directed that strategic stocks be
reviewed every year, and updated if there is any significant new
information. There is no significant new information in this case.
Based on the limited information on the 2008 sperm whale entanglement
case, even if the serious injury determination changed for this animal
and its calf, the conclusion about the status of this stock does not
change. For this reason, NMFS will defer the update and will likely be
revising this SAR for 2015 drafts to include any published conclusions
about the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on sperm whales.
Comment 76: The Organizations recommend that NMFS develop distinct
text for the dwarf sperm whales and pygmy sperm whales as they are
separate SARs.
Response: Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales can be difficult to
differentiate at sea and in much of the limited literature on at-sea
distributions, they are treated as a group. Based on stranding
locations of the two species, the distributions of the two species are
very similar. The text in the SARs reflects this lack of distinct
knowledge of each species. For future SARs, NMFS will review the recent
literature on dwarf and pygmy sperm whales to determine whether text
specific to each species is now appropriate. Recent work by Staudinger
et al. (2013) reported that feeding ecologies are similar for both
species, and both species occupy equivalent trophic niches in the U.S.
mid-Atlantic.
Comment 77: The Organizations recommend that NMFS not lump the
undifferentiated complex of beaked whales (Ziphius and Mosoplodon spp.)
in the Atlantic Ocean. The stocks have been separated with individual
SARs, yet most assessments remain lumped. They also strongly urge NMFS
to insert text similar to that in the Pacific SARs acknowledging
challenges to stocks of beaked whales and other acoustically sensitive
species from the expected increase in impacts from intense sound
sources.
Response: Beaked whale species are hard to differentiate at sea so
separate abundance estimates and bycatch estimates for each species are
not feasible. As a result, for bycatch of undifferentiated beaked
whales we have been applying the risk-averse strategy recommended by
Atlantic SRG assuming that any beaked whale stock which occurred in the
U.S. Atlantic EEZ might have been subject to the observed
[[Page 49064]]
fishery-related mortality and serious injury. We have added the
following text from the Pacific SAR to the Status of Stock section: ``.
. . questions have been raised regarding potential effects of human-
made sounds on deep-diving cetacean species, such as [species] beaked
whales (Richardson et al. 1995).''
Comment 78: The Organizations recommend that NMFS not combine
mortality reports for long-finned and short-finned pilot whales.
Response: Mortality reports for cetaceans including long-finned and
short-finned pilot whales from the pelagic longline fishery were not
combined. The draft 2014 SARs will address breakdowns for additional
fisheries.
Comment 79: The Organizations recommend that NMFS expand the
bycatch estimates for 2011 for pilot whales.
Response: Trawl estimates were delayed due to issues with stock
separation. In the 2014 draft SARs the estimates will be provided and
the species differentiated.
Comment 80: The Organizations recommend that NMFS clarify when data
from beyond the most recent five-year period (e.g. 2011 for the 2013
SARs) will be used, as the harbor porpoise SAR includes information
about a 2013 Take Reduction Team meeting, which seems superfluous. They
also recommend NMFS work with Canadian authorities to better define
gillnet impacts in Canada.
Response: NMFS has contacted Canadian officials and received
information on sink gillnet effort in the Bay of Fundy. While this
fishery is less active in the area than in the past, and there is no
observed reporting of harbor porpoise bycatch, NMFS believes it is
still more conservative to use the outdated estimates of interactions
than to assume no interactions are happening. Text describing the TRT
meeting has been removed.
Comment 81: The Organizations recommend that NMFS include
information about the harbor seal Unusual Mortality Event from 2011
that some of the animals tested positive for a virus (Influenza A
H3N8). The Organizations applaud NMFS for using 2012 survey information
in the harbor seal SAR.
Response: Text has been added to indicate that some of the seals
tested positive for influenza.
Comment 82: The Organizations recommend that NMFS consider adding
that a Unusual Mortality Event was declared in 2013 for common
bottlenose dolphins on the Atlantic coast.
Response: The 2013 draft SARs cover the time period 2007-2011, and
they were drafted during 2012. NMFS believes it is appropriate to use
consistent time periods for reporting in each of the SARs. The cut-off
point for including information under Annual Human-Caused Mortality and
Serious Injury for the 2013 SAR was the end of 2011. Other information
that is available and pertinent at the time of drafting will be
included.
Comment 83: The Organizations recommend that NMFS remove the ``pre-
and post-Take Reduction Plan (TRP)'' table of mortality from the
Atlantic common bottlenose dolphin SARs since it only goes through
2006.
Response: The table includes information through 2008, so it is
appropriate to include the ``pre- and post-TRP'' table in the 2013 SAR.
The most recent five-year period included in the 2013 SAR is 2007-2011.
Comment 84: The Organizations recommend that NMFS update the Gulf
of Mexico bottlenose dolphin stocks with the significant new
information from Deepwater Horizon research and Unusual Mortality Event
strandings.
Response: Information that is available and pertinent at the time
of drafting will be included. The 2013 draft SARs cover the time period
2007-2011.
Comment 85: The Commission recommends that NMFS include in the
North Atlantic right whale stock assessment report: (1) An evaluation
of the current population size relative to the carrying capacity of the
environment, (2) a discussion of the possible reasons for the low
population growth rate relative to that estimated for southern right
whale populations, and (3) the reasons why the recent estimate of net
population growth rate was rejected in favor of the default rate.
Response: With existing data, and given our limited understanding
of the structure and dynamics of the current ecosystem, it is not
possible to reliably estimate carrying capacity for right whales. Given
the early and largely undocumented history of whaling on this species
in the North Atlantic (including off the coast of North America), it is
impossible to derive a reliable (i.e. precise), baseline for pre-
exploitation population size, and anyway use of such a number as a
proxy for carrying capacity relies upon various assumptions, the
validity of which is debatable. Likewise, genetic-based estimates of
pristine population size are not currently available, and even if they
were these usually represent a harmonic mean over evolutionary time
which has little or no relevance to the situation and to management
today; this is particularly true in light of the extensive
perturbations introduced into the marine environment by human
overfishing, which may well have rendered the current ecosystem (and
thus carrying capacity) radically different from one in a pristine
state.
Use of the default rate for the maximum productivity rate
(Rmax) in calculation of PBR for the North Atlantic right
whale stock is in accordance with GAMMS guidelines. We attempted to use
the maximum observed growth rate in a previous stock assessment,
arguing that the population is low and therefore not likely under
``abundance pressure.'' We argued that this was the highest rate ever
documented for this species, and it represents the capacity to rebound
from additional human caused mortality (very risk averse). However, the
Atlantic SRG noted that this variance was without precedence, and that
we should revert back to the default value. In total, it matters little
because the calculated PBR is <1 for both the maximum observed
(depressed) and default values of Rmax.
Comment 86: The Commission recommends that NMFS make every effort
to identify pilot whale serious injury and mortality data that can be
apportioned to one or the other species, and, in the stock-assessment
reports, attribute serious injury and mortality data to one of the two
species, but only to an ``unidentified pilot whale'' category if the
former cannot be achieved.
Response: In the 2013 SARs pilot whale mortality for the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery, the fishery with the highest observed
interaction rate with pilot whales was apportioned to species. All of
the pilot whales involved with longline interactions were determined to
be short-finned pilot whales, and therefore, the estimate for longline
bycatch was only attributed to short-finned pilot whales. The draft
2014 SARs will apportion to species pilot whale interactions with the
other fisheries with observed pilot whale takes.
Dated: August 13, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19623 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P