[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 161 (Thursday, August 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50599-50607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20502]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD513
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 2014 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/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4026, [email protected];
Peter Corkeron, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 508-495-2191,
[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 three 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 2014, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment for
90 days (80 FR 4881, January 29, 2015). NMFS received comments on the
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice
announces the availability of the final 2014 reports for the 88 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 2014 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Makah Tribe, seven
non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United
States, Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, Turtle Island
Restoration Network, Hawaii Longline Association, Sustainable Fisheries
Association, and the Maine Lobstermen's Association), and five
individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below;
[[Page 50600]]
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. 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 2014 SARs.
Comments on National Issues
Comment 1: The Humane Society of the United States and Center for
Biological Diversity commented that NMFS failed to submit the draft
2014 SARs for public review in timely manner, thus rendering any
comments on the draft 2014 SARs moot as the draft 2015 SARs had already
been reviewed by the SRGs.
Response: We acknowledge that the draft 2014 SARs were made
available for public comment later than usual. While the SRG review of
the draft 2015 SARs occurred prior to the 2014 reports being finalized,
should any substantive comments on the draft 2014 reports have been
received that would have led to changes to the draft 2015 reports and
required SRG review, we would have sent the revisions to the SRGs for
review prior to submitting the draft 2015 reports for public review.
Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS expand its efforts
to understand and estimate the recovery rates of carcasses for marine
mammal stocks (where the requisite data are available) and report those
estimated rates and their associated uncertainties in future stock
assessment reports.
Response: We agree that there is a need to better understand and
estimate undetected marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries. We
are working on estimating carcass recovery rates for some species, and
by extension, estimating the ``cryptic mortality'' rate for these
species. When such rates are estimated and it is appropriate to do so,
NMFS will report those estimated rates and their associated
uncertainties in the SARs on a stock-by-stock basis.
Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS immediately publish
new stock-assessment guidelines from the Guidelines for Assessing
Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) III recommendations that are not
controversial or problematic.
Response: We appreciate this recommendation and will endeavor to do
so as promptly as feasible.
Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS develop guidelines
for the development of new stock assessment methods that include review
by appropriate experts not only on their scientific merit but also on
their application to the management decision-making process. The
Commission also recommended that NMFS develop a mechanism for the
timely (i.e., faster than the GAMMS process), joint review and adoption
of new methods by all six of the science centers.
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for this recommendation. We
are investigating the most efficient process to incorporate new
methodologies in a standardized way across regions where appropriate.
NMFS is working to ensure that all centers have access to comparable
analytical tools as new methods become available, and that these
methodologies are being applied consistently across regions.
Comment 5: The Commission recommended that when NMFS reviews and
revises the policy on serious injury that it considers changing
criterion L8 by deleting the provision for altering initial assessments
about risks of separating mothers and calves pending better information
on the length of calf dependence and in the interim refrain from making
alterations based on subsequent sightings.
Response: NMFS appreciates this recommendation and will consider it
when reviewing and revising the Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing
Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. Each injury event is
carefully evaluated and all available information used to make the best
judgment of prognosis under the serious injury definition of ``likely
to die'' being equal to or greater than a 50 percent. Our intention is
to provide the most accurate injury outcome results given the
information available. A whale that has sustained a serious injury and
is re-sighted many months later with the injury resolving and in
relatively good health compared to non-injured conspecifics is
considered not likely to die due to that injury and is no longer
counted against PBR as a removal from the population. In the rare case
of subsequent sightings indicating deterioration of health that can be
attributed to the injury, the whale would again be considered seriously
injured and counted against PBR.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Comment 6: To clarify the information presented in the Atlantic
stock assessment reports, the Commission recommended that NMFS replace
the term ``Fate'' as a column header in Table 2 with the term ``Injury
Determination'' and limit the categories used under that heading to the
following three: ``Mortality'' (when the individual is known to have
died), ``Serious injury,'' or ``Prorated serious injury'' as
appropriate based on the large whale injury determination categories.
Response: NMFS will rename the ``Fate'' column to ``Injury
Determination'' and change the ``unknown'' category to ``prorated
injury'' in the Atlantic reports. We would rather not use the phrase
``prorated serious injury'' because in such cases it not known whether
the injury is serious or not.
Comment 7: The Commission suggests that three serious injuries to
North Atlantic right whales (#1151, #4160, and #3308) should be added
to Table 2 in the SAR.
Response: The following is a summary statement about each case.
Cases were reviewed by NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)
staff and determinations made by NEFSC staff were later reviewed by
experienced staff at all other Fisheries Science Centers, per the
Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury
of Marine Mammals.
08/09/09-#1151 was badly entangled but freed with her
condition subsequently deteriorating. Re-sightings confirmed the whale
was gear free and indicate both mom and calf healthy. This whale was
categorized L2 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to
disentanglement and evident healing.
07/19/11-#4160, Calf of #2660--Entanglement Scarred Calf
with significant cuts and wounds seen off Provincetown. The whale was
re-sighted healthy in 2014. The last SAR listed this whale with a
serious injury value as 1.0, but that was changed to 0 in the 2014
report based on the healthy re-sight.
7/20/12-#3308--Entanglement scarred (but gear free) whale
found in Gulf of Maine with extensive wounds whose condition
subsequently declined in 2013 and 2014. Re-sights showed some health
decline but overall condition was fair and injuries healing. This whale
was categorized as L10 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to
evident healing.
Comment 8: The Maine Lobstermen Association (MLA) recommended that
the ``Population Size'' section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR
should have a more in-depth discussion of recent changes in right whale
distribution over the last five years, during which time fewer are
being seen in their known historic habitats. The comment stated that
since the minimum population estimate (NMIN) for right
[[Page 50601]]
whales is based only on those whales observed in surveys in combination
with photo-identification of whales, if they are not seen, they are not
counted. The MLA fears that as the population continues its positive
growth trend, the population estimate could actually decrease because
the whales are no longer frequenting the same habitats, which would
impact PBR.
Response: This comment may be valid in future SARs; however, the
data used in this assessment show no appreciable decline in capture
probability during the years succeeding the reference year. Because it
is the probability of seeing an individual at least once that
determines the robustness of NMIN when calculated as Minimum
Number Alive, there has been no discernible impact on that estimate due
to changes in right whale residence times in surveyed habitats. NMFS
closely monitors mean group-wise capture probabilities using a mark
recapture (MRR) statistical model. At the point in time that population
estimation via MRR offers a more robust estimate of NMIN
than does Minimum Number Alive, that new estimate can then be vetted
and used in the SAR.
Comment 9: The MLA recommended that the minimum population estimate
for the North Atlantic right whale should be revised to 510 whales,
based on the best available science from the North Atlantic Right Whale
Consortium 2014 Annual Report Card.
Response: The MMPA requires that NMFS report a minimum abundance
estimate that provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is
equal to or greater than the estimate. The estimates provided by the
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium do not meet that standard in that
they count whales that are likely to be dead (what the Consortium calls
``presumed alive''--those whales not seen for one to five consecutive
years). Including those whales in an NMIN for the SAR would
increase the likelihood that the estimate is biased high, which fails
to meet the mandate of MMPA. Note also that the North Atlantic Right
Whale Consortium's 2014 Annual Report Card includes the statement that
their number ``should not be considered a `population estimate.' ''
Comment 10: The MLA recommended that the ``Current Population
Trend'' section of the SAR for the North Atlantic right whale should be
revised to reflect that the population has been increasing over the
past decade.
Response: The SAR provides a graph that depicts the population
increase over a 12-year period and it includes in the text an estimate
of growth during that time frame. The current wording in the ``Current
Population Trend'' section is ``Examination of the minimum number alive
population index calculated from the individual sightings database, as
it existed on 25 October 2013, for the years 1990-2011 (Figure 1)
suggests a positive and slowly accelerating trend in population size.
These data reveal a significant increase in the number of catalogued
whales with a geometric mean growth rate for the period of 2.8
percent.'' This text reflects that the population has been increasing
over the past decade.
Comment 11: The MLA recommended that the ``Current and Maximum Net
Productivity Rates'' section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR be
revised to include a more recent analysis of the pool of reproductive
females, mean calving intervals, and age structure of the population.
Response: NMFS agrees that providing a demographically-based
productivity value in the SAR would be slightly more informative than
the present SAR's accounting of the number of detected calves. NMFS
will revise the section in future years by providing a per capita
production value. Because many whales are of unknown age, the
development of detailed information on age structure will require
vetting estimates through a peer review process that cannot be
organized in the short term, but will be included in the next SAR
feasible. The same is true for calving interval.
Comment 12: The MLA recommended that the PBR for the North Atlantic
Right Whale should be revised to 1.02, using 510 as the minimum
population size for the population as referenced above.
Response: See response to comment 9.
Comment 13: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale
SAR include a short explanation of the methodology used to make the
assignment for serious injury and mortality rates in U.S. versus
Canadian waters. The comment states that the SAR should not include
13.75 reported fisheries entanglements as being ``from U.S. waters,''
as the origin of the gear in these cases is unknown. The location of
where the entanglement was first observed does not indicate the origin
of the gear, so this extrapolation cannot be made.
Response: The SAR text will be revised to read ``Of the 13.75
reported fisheries entanglements first reported in U.S. waters during
this five-year time period . . .'' Further details on assigning
entanglements to countries can be found in Cole T.V.N., and Henry A.G.
(2013) Serious injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the
Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast and Atlantic Canadian
Provinces, 2007-2011. Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13-24; 14p.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1324/crd1324.pdf.
Comment 14: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale
SAR be revised to include data from the last ten years to characterize
the overall impacts of serious injury and mortality on the North
Atlantic right whale population size.
Response: NMFS is presently working on a more robust depiction of
the impact of entanglement-related serious injury and mortality on the
right whale population, which should be available in subsequent SARs
(assuming the procedures receive a favorable peer review, possibly
beginning with the next SAR).
Comment 15: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale
SAR note that it is unknown whether any of U.S. fisheries entanglements
relate to the efficacy of the sinking line rule.
Response: At this point, too little time as passed to make any
statements relative to entanglement rates and the sinking ground rule.
Comment 16: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale
SAR include the value of Optimal Sustainable Population (OSP) for right
whales, as well as the value of the size of the stock to substantiate
the statement that the ``size of the stock is extremely low relative to
OSP in the US Atlantic EEZ.''
Response: NMFS has provided a graph that depicts North Atlantic
right whale population growth during 1990-2011. That graph indicates
that population growth is accelerating and has not passed an inflection
point. An inflection point would suggest that the population could be
reaching Maximum Net Productivity Level (MNPL). Because the population
appears to be at levels clearly lower than MNPL it is, by mathematical
definition, less than OSP. Until population growth begins to
decelerate--due to density dependence, not deaths caused by human
activities--then it would be unwise to attempt to fit a growth curve
and estimate OSP from the population data.
Comment 17: The MLA recommended that in the North Atlantic right
whale SAR NMFS revise the sentence ``the North Atlantic right whale is
considered one of the most critically endangered populations of large
whales in the world.'' The comment states that this conclusion is based
on a 1999 report that estimates the population of right whales to be
295 animals, which is substantially lower than the current estimate of
510 whales. The comment
[[Page 50602]]
states that therefore, more recent data should be used to substantiate
such a statement.
Response: NMFS' comment regarding the critically endangered status
of North Atlantic right whale is still true. There are likely only four
large whale stocks in more dire straits than the North Atlantic right
whale: Western gray whales, Gulf of Mexico Brydes whales, Arabian
humpback whales, and North Pacific right whales.
Comment 18: Two individuals noted data deficiencies in the stock
assessment reports for North Atlantic gray seals and recommended that
NMFS provide current abundance and trend estimates.
Response: NMFS gray seal research has been constrained by lack of
resources allocated specifically to seal work. Aerial surveys of index
sites have occurred sporadically over the past decade, when resources
allowed. Images from those surveys are being processed to inform trend
estimates for seals in U.S. waters, and should provide a minimum
estimate of abundance. NMFS is working with collaborators (at Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution and Duke University, particularly) to
develop cost-effective tools to better survey seals along the New
England coast. In addition, NMFS is actively pursuing additional
resources and expanding partnerships with other seal research groups to
improve and enhance data collection and analytical methods.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 19: The Commission recommended that NMFS conduct further
research on the ecological relationship between Hawaiian monk seals and
two deep-water fish species also targeted by the Main Hawaiian Islands
(MHI) bottomfish handline fishery and explicitly incorporate the
requirements of the MHI monk seal population into future stock
assessments of the two fish species in question.
Response: The NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC)
is conducting ongoing research on the habitat use and diet of MHI monk
seals using a variety of tools, including fatty acid analysis, seal-
mounted video cameras and a variety of telemetry devices. Information
about the presence, prevalence, and importance of any commercially
fished bottomfish species in the monk seal diet is currently too
uncertain to determine the requirements of the MHI monk seal
population. This issue is a high priority of MHI monk seal research and
the Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program is working with the State of
Hawaii and PIFSC Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division to better
understand and quantify direct and ecological (or indirect)
interactions between monk seals and the bottomfish fishery.
Comment 20: The Commission recommended that NMFS use the default
RMAX for cetaceans (four percent) for the Eastern North
Pacific Southern Resident stock of killer whales, until such time that
the research from which the specific RMAX estimate for this
stock was derived has been peer reviewed and published.
Response: There are published estimates of RMAX for
other resident killer whales in the region that can be used as a
reasonable substitute for the default RMAX of four percent.
Matkin et al. (2014) provides an RMAX estimate of 3.5
percent for southern Alaska resident killer whales, which is applied to
southern resident killer whales. This represents a better estimate than
the default maximum, while also providing a lower, and hence, more
conservative estimate of PBR than that calculated using the default
RMAX of four percent. In context, the difference between PBR
calculated using the default RMAX of four percent (PBR =
0.16 animals) and the published estimate of 3.5 percent for southern
Alaska resident killer whales (PBR = 0.14 animals) is negligible.
Comment 21: The Turtle Island Restoration Network recommended that
NMFS calculate the PBR for the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whale using the
full range of abundance estimates available--rather than only one study
by Moore and Barlow (2014)--and the species-specific growth rate
estimates from the scientific literature. They stated that this will
result in a PBR calculation of 0.4, rather than the current estimate of
2.7 calculated in the SAR. The comment cites Whitehead (2002), IWC
(1982), and Moore and Barlow (2014), which estimate annual population
growth rates ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 percent.
Response: Abundance estimates from the Moore and Barlow (2014)
study were used, rather than prior published estimates, because these
newer estimates are considered to represent the best available science,
based on the use improved statistical methodology that has been vetted
through multiple peer-reviewed journal publications (Moore and Barlow
2011, 2013, and 2014), and based on revised estimates of g(0) (from
Barlow 2015). The analytical method employed makes use of all available
survey data dating back to 1991 to estimate abundance in each year,
rather than basing each estimate solely on information contained within
an individual survey. As such, the annual estimates are substantially
more stable through time (not less, counter to Turtle Island
Restoration Network's suggestion). In contrast, sperm whale estimates
based only on data from a particular survey are highly imprecise
estimates due to small within-year sample sizes. The strong increase in
mean estimated abundance compared to previously published estimates is
mostly due to the use of new g(0) estimates (from Barlow 2015), not due
to revised statistical methodology. General imprecision in the
estimates for many of the model parameters is a problem of limited
information in the data, not of the method. The minimum (20th
percentile) abundance estimate accounts explicitly for these
uncertainties. Substantial estimated levels of process variance are not
surprising given that the population is highly mobile and wide-ranging
(i.e., the study area is not closed). The current PBR estimates do not
make use of estimates older than eight years. Rather, the current PBR
estimate is based on a current abundance estimate, which is
appropriately informed by data spanning two decades. The default
maximum population growth rate of four percent for cetaceans is used in
the calculation of PBR for this stock. There are no reliable empirical
estimates of maximum potential population growth rates for sperm
whales. The values used by the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
(1982) were based on uncertain estimates of life history parameters now
considered to have been pessimistic (Whitehead 2002). Potential growth
estimates proposed by Whitehead (2002) were based on a survival
schedule for killer whales, while those of Chiquet et al. (2013) were
based on assumed ranges for annual survival. Distributions for the
growth rate estimates by Chiquet et al. were centered on approximately
zero percent per year with half of the distribution being negative.
Such results suggest consideration of implausible life table schedules.
Reproductive rate estimates for sperm whales used in these and other
previous models may also be pessimistic in that the data come from
heavily exploited populations rather than maximally growing ones.
Comment 22: Oceana recommended NMFS update the estimates of
fishing-induced mortality and serious injury (M/SI) for both humpback
and gray whales, based on: (1) New data through 2014 on whale
entanglements, which reflect substantially higher rates than reported
in the 2008-2012 period; and (2) revising the mortality and serious
injury estimates to reflect the best
[[Page 50603]]
available scientific estimate of the number of M/SI from entanglements
that go unreported.
Response: The SARs incorporate serious injury determinations that
have been vetted through the Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from
Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals and reviewed by the SRGs. As a
result of the reporting and revision process, data used for these
determinations typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR; in
this case, the 2014 SARs include mortality and serious injury estimates
for the 2008-2012 period.
NMFS acknowledges in the SARs that observed whale entanglements
represent underestimates, because the number of undetected cases is
unknown. The NMFS report cited by the commenter (Saez et al. 2013)
refers to an unpublished estimate for Gulf of Maine humpback whales
indicating that approximately ten percent of entanglements were
documented (Robbins and Mattila 2004). The Robbins and Mattila (2004)
report is not directly applicable to large whale entanglements on the
U.S. west coast, as fishery characteristics and spatial overlap with
large whales are different in each region. NMFS will continue to pursue
the development of methods that would enable the accurate correction
for underestimating entanglement impacts on large whales.
Comment 23: Oceana recommended that NMFS assess how the decreased
availability of humpback whale prey may be affecting the stock, and
cited a Hillet al. (2015) presentation related to Pacific sardine and
anchovy fisheries.
Response: NMFS assumes this comment was directed at the SAR for the
CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales, which was not updated in 2014. We
appreciate the comment and will consider it when the SAR is next
updated.
Comment 24: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS note in the SAR
for Western North Pacific (WNP) gray whales that the newly seen non-
calves may be immigrants to the Sakhalin feeding aggregation.
Response: Text in the SAR for WNP gray whales has been revised to
state that: ``While a few previously unidentified non-calves are
identified annually, a recent population assessment using photo-
identification data from 1994 to 2011 fitted to an individually-based
model found that whales feeding off Sakhalin Island have been
demographically self-contained, at least in recent years, as new
recruitment to the population is almost exclusively a result of calves
born to mothers from within the group (Cooke et al. 2013).''
Comment 25: The Makah Tribe questioned the assertion that the WNP
stock of gray whales is listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act and further recommended that in the absence of scientific
evidence for rejecting hypotheses 1 through 6 and adopting hypothesis 7
from Bickham et al. (2014) [a list of hypotheses regarding the
population biology of North Pacific gray whales], NMFS alter the SAR
for WNP gray whales in the following ways:
(1) Remove the statements in the draft SAR asserting that the
Sakhalin feeding aggregation is considered ``endangered'' under the ESA
and ``strategic and depleted'' under the MMPA;
(2) state instead that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation does not
have a formal status under the MMPA, although the population size has
been increasing for the last ten years;
(3) change the title of the draft SAR to ``GRAY WHALE (Eschrichtius
robustus): Sakhalin Feeding Aggregation'' to help eliminate confusion
between the whales identified as a stock in the SAR and the WNP stock
listed as endangered under the ESA; and
(4) re-calculate the Sakhalin feeding aggregation's PBR based on a
recovery factor of 0.5 (the default factor for a stock of unknown
status).
Response: In 2012, a NMFS Task Force (TF) was established to assess
stock structure of gray whales in the North Pacific. With respect to
gray whales in the western North Pacific, the primary objective of the
TF was to determine if currently available data supported the
recognition of gray whales in the WNP as a ``population stock'' under
the guidance provided in the MMPA and the GAMMS (Weller et al. 2013).
After completion of their review, the TF provided unambiguous advice
that WNP gray whales should be ``recognized as a population stock
pursuant to the GAMMS guidelines and the MMPA'' (Weller et al. 2013).
The TF did not explicitly consider how the available data fit in with
the hypotheses presented in Bickham et al. (2014). However, the
datasets examined by the TF and by Bickham et al. (2014) were very
similar, and both included a review of the results of genetic analyses
of biopsies collected from whales feeding off Sakhalin as well as of
information on the movements of some whales between Sakhalin Island,
Russia and the eastern North Pacific.
In the TF's consideration of whether gray whales in the WNP
represent a population stock under the MMPA, most of the data reviewed
were collected from the gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Thus
the recognition of a western North Pacific stock of gray whales that
includes those animals that feed off Sakhalin is consistent with the
TF's advice. Similarly, the listing of western gray whales as
``Endangered'' under the ESA and designation as ``Critically
Endangered'' by the IUCN were largely based on data collected from the
gray whales that feed off Sakhalin. The recent data on movements of
gray whales between the eastern and western North Pacific were not
available when these whales were listed under the ESA and would be
considered in any future reviews of these populations. Until such
reviews are conducted, however, the continued recognition of the gray
whales that feed off Sakhalin as ``Endangered'' under the ESA is
consistent with the data used to inform these listings.
As outlined in the report of the IWC Scientific Committee (SC)
(2015), additional analysis and modeling of gray whale range-wide
population structure and status has been underway since 2014 and will
be the topic of further review of a third IWC inter-sessional workshop
in April 2016. This report states the following: In order to
successfully complete modeling efforts required for the workshop, data
need to be compiled on: (1) Updated abundance estimates and variance
and covariance matrices for feeding grounds, (2) complete matching of
gray whales photographed south of Sakhalin Island along the coast of
Asia, (3) fishing effort along the U.S. and Canadian west coast to
determine trends by fishery type (e.g. pots, gillnets, set nets, etc.),
and (4) further analyses to narrow the bounds on the stock composition
of whales observed at Sakhalin Island. Modelling efforts will include
(1) update modelling framework with revised abundance estimates and
mixing matrices, (2) conduct further sensitivity examination to pre-
specified parameter values, (3) incorporate available data on fishing
effort for the west coast of the United States, (4) evaluate parameter
uncertainty using bootstrapping, and (5) integrate the gray whale and
PCFG strike limit algorithms (SLA) into the modelling framework.
Comment 26: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for WNP gray
whales should discuss the available data regarding whales seen feeding
off of both Sakhalin and Kamchatka, and the implications of this
information for the conclusions and analysis in the SAR, including the
identification of a separate WNP stock and the abundance estimate for
this stock.
Response: A description of information regarding whales off
[[Page 50604]]
Kamchatka is provided in the Stock Definition and Geographic Range
section as well as the Population Size section of the report. Division
of nearshore vs. offshore feeding areas off Sakhalin is not provided
because both areas are considered to be part of the overall Sakhalin
feeding area and the intra-seasonal interchange of whales between the
two sites is extensive. See response to Comment 25 regarding the IWC's
upcoming range-wide population structure and status workshop.
Comment 27: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS explain the basis
of using a 0.575 multiplier in the PBR calculation for WNP gray whales.
Response: Moore and Weller (2013) evaluated the risk that a
proposed Makah hunt of Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales posed to
WNP gray whales and stated that ``The proportion of the WNP population
that migrates along the North American coast is unknown but based on
recent photo-identification, telemetry, and genetic matches of WNP
whales to Eastern North Pacific (ENP) areas, we estimate the value to
be at least 0.15, based on there being 23 known matches out of an
estimated population size of 155 (Mate et al., 2011; IWC, 2012;
Urb[aacute]n et al., 2012; Weller et al. 2012).'' The upper limit of
this estimate is 1.0, or a precautionary value that represents the
entire WNP population. The 0.575 multiplier represents the estimated
proportion of the WNP population that utilizes U.S. EEZ waters and
represents the mean value of a uniform distribution ranging from 0.15
to 1.0 that was used in risk models. NMFS has clarified the origin of
the 0.575 multiplier in the final SAR.
Comment 28: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR
and PBR calculation for WNP gray whales to include information from
Cooke (2015), which concludes that the proportion of gray whales
feeding off Sakhalin that utilize wintering grounds off the coast of
Asia is no greater than 63 percent. The comment stated that as a
result, the proportion of such whales that migrate to North America
would be between 0.37 and 1.0.
Response: At the IWC SC inter-sessional workshop on gray whale
population structure held in April 2015, a number of recommendations
were made for work to be undertaken that would narrow the confidence
range for this estimate of 63 percent reported in Cooke et al. (2015).
Revision of this work will be reviewed at the next IWC inter-sessional
workshop on gray whales (tentatively scheduled for April 2016).
Comment 29: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR
for the Sakhalin population of WNP gray whales to include the new
abundance estimate from the 14th IUCN Western Gray Whale Advisory
Panel's meeting's Second Rangewide Workshop (IUCN 2014), which
concluded that as of 2013, the population contained 38 mature females
(SE = 2) growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent (SE =
0.5 percent) over the previous 10 years, and that the best
estimate of the age 1-plus population in 2013 was 176 (SE = 2). The comment stated that the estimate currently listed in the
SAR is biased low because it only accounts for whales observed at
Sakhalin Island, and that the SAR should include and utilize this new
abundance estimate (IUCN 2014), including whales sighted in Kamchatka,
in the PBR calculation.
Response: While it is true that an analysis of the data from the
parallel photo-ID team of the Vladivostok Institute of Marine Biology
(IBM) has been conducted, including incorporation of their photo-ID
data from Kamchatka, the reliability of these datasets is unclear. That
is, analysis of the IBM photo-ID data from Sakhalin resulted in a
``less optimistic population projection'' as compared to the Russia-
United States data, ``with a high probability of future decline.''
Until the reasons for the apparent difference in results from the two
datasets have been elucidated, this difference should be treated as a
potential caveat to the assessment results presented in Cooke et al.
(2013). Therefore, we have reported numbers from only the Russia-United
States data which at this time represent the best available science.
Comment 30: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for the ENP
gray whale, the recovery factor for the Pacific Coast Feeding Group
should be 0.75 instead of 0.5. The comment stated that in the 2013 SAR,
NMFS agreed to consider this change in the 2014 SAR. The Makah Tribe
believe that a recovery factor of 0.75 is consistent with the best
available science regarding the PCFG, the guidelines for preparing
marine mammal stock assessments, the available precedent, and NMFS'
February 27, 2014 analysis.
Response: NMFS considered alternatives to the recovery factor of
0.5 in consultation with the Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) in
2014, including a proposal to increase the recovery factor to 0.75. The
PSRG did not support the change in recovery factor and NMFS has
retained the default factor of 0.5.
Comment 31: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) recommended that
NMFS streamline the SAR administrative process to be more timely,
because at any given time ``there are presently three versions of the
False Killer Whale (FKW) SAR available to the public, any one of which
might be construed by the public to be ``current'': (i) The Final 2013
SAR; (ii) the Draft 2014 SAR (dated October 2014), presently open for
public comment; and (iii) the Draft 2015 SAR (dated February 2015).''
Response: While we understand the potential for confusion, at any
given time the most recent ``final'' SARs should be considered the
``current'' version of the reports. The draft reports are reviewed by
the Scientific Review Groups and then by the public; they are not
considered ``final'' until the agency has addressed comments and issued
a notice of availability of final reports. In this case, the draft 2014
reports were made available for public comment from January 29, 2015
through April 29, 2015; during that time, the final 2013 SARs were the
most current final versions, and the draft 2015 reports were made
available to the Scientific Review Groups for review but not yet
available to the general public (and therefore should not have caused
any confusion for the public). With this Federal Register notice, NMFS
is finalizing the 2014 SARs and the 2014 reports should be construed as
the ``current'' assessment reports. The draft 2015 SARs are forthcoming
and will be made available for public comment for 90 days, as directed
by the statute.
Comment 32: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR be revised to
reflect the current FKW management framework. The comment states that
``the Draft 2014 SAR will effectively report information in 2015 that
is current only through the end of 2012. However, the FKW Take
Reduction Plan (TRP) regulations became effective in 2013 and a full
two years of data gathered under the significantly new regulatory
framework established by the TRP regulations are available. None of
this (sic) data will be reported in the final SAR and, as a result, the
Draft 2014 SAR is entirely irrelevant to the management of the Hawaii
longline fisheries because it is based upon data gathered under a very
different management framework.''
Response: The timelines associated with the drafting of SARs
unfortunately require some lag in the use of various datasets. The SAR
is prepared early in the calendar year, at which time the previous
year's Observer Program data are not yet available for use in
estimating bycatch. In the case of the 2014 SAR, bycatch estimates were
available only through 2012 at the time
[[Page 50605]]
the SAR was reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group.
Comment 33: The HLA requested that NMFS eliminate the five-year
look-back period for the FKW SAR. The comment states ``data reported in
the FKW SAR should reflect the data gathered after the implementation
of the TRP regulations to accurately measure the effects of the Hawaii
longline fisheries on FKW stocks.''
Response: As already indicated, the draft 2014 SAR uses data
through 2012. The TRP regulations did not go into effect until early
2013, such that no data after the period of TRP implementation are
included. It is appropriate to continue the 5-year look back for data
collected prior to the TRP. When 2013 bycatch data are available, NMFS
will evaluate whether it is appropriate to continue use of the five-
year look-back in the bycatch estimates.
Comment 34: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR for the Hawaii
pelagic FKW stock should expressly recognize the discrepancy between
the reported M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery and the positive
population trend for the stock, and requests that NMFS revisit the
manner in which it determines M/SI for FKW interactions. The comment
states ``For a decade, NMFS has reported a M/SI rate for the deep-set
fishery that far exceeds PBR for the Hawaii pelagic FKW stock . . .
However, the best available information suggests that the number of
FKWs in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the
supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring.''
Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR
19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014,
comment 26). The comment and included footnote continue to suggest that
the pelagic stock of FKWs 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 FKWs 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 and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious
from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals has been discussed in
numerous 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 FKWs would certainly better inform the
assigned outcomes, but until better data become available, the standard
established in the NMFS 2012 Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing
Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals 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 false killer whales and therefore,
the resulting abundance estimate. Further, because the entire stock
range of pelagic FKWs 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 automatically lead to the conclusion that the population is
declining. 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,
which 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 35: The HLA recommended that NMFS produce a publicly
available report that documents further analysis of the 2010 Hawaiian
Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey data for pelagic FKWs.
The comment states that otherwise, NMFS should remove the comment from
the draft 2014 SAR that states that there was ``some suggestion'' of
``attractive movement'' of FKWs in the 2010 survey. The comment states
that there is no citation to support this statement.
Response: Citation to Bradford et al. (2014) has been added to the
SAR within the sentence: ``There is some suggestion of such attractive
movement within the acoustic data, though the extent of any bias
created by this movement is unknown.'' Reports of responsive movement
and its potential impact on the estimates is discussed within the
Bradford et al. (2014) peer-reviewed publication.
Comment 36: The HLA recommended that the SAR for the pelagic stock
of FKWs use a recovery factor greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0
than to 0.5). The comment stated that the pelagic stock is not depleted
or threatened, nor is its status unknown, and therefore the draft SAR
should not assign it a recovery factor of 0.5.
Response: The current status of pelagic FKWs is unknown. This
population may be depleted given fishing pressures within and outside
of the EEZ over several decades. The status of Hawaii pelagic FKWs is
considered unknown because there are no trend data available to
evaluate whether the population is increasing, stable, or declining.
Designation of a stock as ``depleted'' requires specific analysis of
population trend which is not currently possible with the available
data. The recovery factor for Hawaii pelagic FKWs will remain 0.5, as
indicated, for a stock of unknown status with a coefficient of
variation of the mortality and serious injury estimate <=0.30, as
directed by the GAMMS.
Comment 37: The HLA recommended that the 2014 draft SAR for the
insular stock of FKW be revised to report the ``correct'' range, M/SI
level, and status (i.e., status should be non-strategic). The comment
stated that ``. . . the Draft 2015 SAR appropriately proposes to modify
the range of the insular stock. . . the Draft 2014 SAR continues to
present the inaccurately assumed insular stock range, which will
effectively be reported as the ``best available science'' through most
of 2016. This inaccuracy is very significant. The draft 2014 SAR
reports an M/SI rate of 0.9, which is greater than the PBR of 0.3. In
contrast, if the correct insular stock range were used, then the M/SI
rate should be 0.0.''
Response: NMFS has not completed the draft 2015 SARs, nor have we
made them available for public notice and comment and, therefore, we
cannot make this comparison.
Comment 38: The HLA recommended that the language of the draft SAR
be revised to remove all implied allegations that the Hawaii-based
longline fisheries are responsible for dorsal fin disfigurements
observed in Insular Stock animals. The comment states that these
fisheries have been excluded from nearshore fishing grounds for several
years.
Response: The sentence has been reworded to be less explicit about
any specific type of fishery. It now reads: ``The commercial or
recreational hook-and-line fishery or fisheries responsible for these
injuries is/are unknown.''
[[Page 50606]]
Comment 39: The HLA recommended that NMFS acknowledge in the SAR
for the insular stock of FKW that the population has maintained a
stable abundance since 2000, as maintained by the best available
information, and asserted that the assumption that the insular stock
has declined is speculative.
Response: The SAR cites the most recent Status Review for the MHI
insular stock of FKW. Within that Review, a Population Viability
Analysis was conducted, including 45 different scenarios incorporating
various uncertainties in anthropogenic and natural mortality, the
impact of allee and other small population size effects, and
uncertainty around various measures of abundance. All but one model
indicated the population has undergone decline. The SAR acknowledges
that some two-stage models suggest a lower rate of decline since 2000.
The Status Review does not consider the two-stage models as any more
appropriate than the single growth rate models. When new data become
available to support an updated analysis of trend in the MHI insular
stock, NMFS will update the assessment of population status
accordingly.
Comment 40: The HLA recommended that NMFS alter the proration
assumptions used in the draft SAR for FKW interactions, as they do not
reflect the best available information. The comment stated: ``NMFS
categorizes certain interactions as FKW interactions when, in fact, no
data exist from which NMFS can reliably determine whether the
interactions in question involved FKWs . . . First, NMFS assigns a
proportion of FKW interactions for which no injury determination has
been made as M/SI interactions that ultimately count against the
fisheries. Second, NMFS assigns a proportion of ``blackfish''
interactions (i.e., interactions with unidentified cetaceans) as FKW
interactions that also count against the fisheries. Neither of these
methods is reasonable or lawful.''
Response: FKW bycatch proration reflects the best available
information on the species and injury status of cetaceans observed
hooked or entangled in the longline fishery. First, NMFS prorates
injuries with a status of `cannot be determined' according to the ratio
of known serious and non-serious injuries. To treat all `cannot be
determined' cases as non-serious would be a clear under-representation
of total M/SI within the fishery. This proration supported within
GAMMS, judged by NMFS, and supported by external peer-review, as the
best approach for dealing appropriately accounting for injuries whose
injury status cannot be determined based on the information provided by
the observer. Second, when a species code of ``unidentified blackfish''
has been assigned to an interaction by the Pacific Islands Regional
Office Observer Program, the Program has determined that the species
identity is known to be either FKW or short-finned pilot whale. This
species assignment is much more specific than ``unidentified
cetacean.'' Because the species identity is known within two possible
candidates, NMFS has used all other interactions with those two species
to develop a proration model for assigning these blackfish interactions
to be false killer whales or short-finned pilot whales. All available
interaction data inform the proration scheme. Cetacean interaction with
a species identity of ``unidentified cetacean'' are not currently
prorated to any specific species and are therefore not included in any
assessment of M/SI.
Comment 41: The HLA recommended that NMFS further consider its
delineation of a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stock of FKWs.
HLA's comment indicates that HLA remains ``highly skeptical of NMFS's
ability to so quickly and conclusively `confirm' that NWHI whales are a
distinct stock separate from the Insular Stock and the Pelagic Stock.''
HLA believes that ``NMFS's rush to judgment regarding the existence of
this new `stock' appears to reflect an aversion to attributing these
additional 552 whales to the Insular Stock or to the Pelagic Stock.''
Response: NMFS disagrees with the comment: 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 mitochondrial and nuclear DNA,
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 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 42: The HLA recommended that the draft 2014 SAR for the
NWHI stock of FKWs be revised to state that the M/SI rate for the NWHI
Stock is zero. The comment stated, ``The Hawaii longline fisheries are
excluded from fishing within the range of the NWHI Stock and, moreover,
there has never been a reported interaction between either of the
Hawaii longline fisheries and the NWHI Stock.''
Response: The Hawaii longline fishery is not excluded from fishing
within the range of the NWHI stock of FKWs. The range of the NWHI stock
extends outside of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
(where fishing is prohibited) to the islands of Kauai. Much of the NWHI
stock range east of the Monument is exposed to longline fishery for a
portion of the year when the Longline Exclusion Zone contracts toward
the islands. Although such contraction was eliminated in 2013, prior to
that time the NWHI stock did overlap with a reasonable level of fishing
effort during the contraction period. There are in fact two takes of
FKWs within the overlap zone between the fishery and all three stocks
of FKWs in 2012.
Comment 43: One commenter recommended that NMFS include a
statistical test to determine whether the regression analysis of
California harbor seals net production is statistically different from
no change.
Response: The previous text (and figure) in this SAR addressing net
production for this harbor seal population is being deleted, because
any assessment of net production needs to incorporate accurate
information on human-caused mortality. Such information is lacking for
this stock, as the fishery historically responsible for most mortality
has only been observed sporadically in recent years. Text appears in
the SAR detailing why the estimation of net production for this stock
is not possible.
Comment 44: One commenter suggested that the population estimate
for California harbor seals does not represent the entire population of
the stock. Another commenter suggested that NMFS's current sampling
methods understate harbor seal and California sea lion populations
along the California coast.
Response: The SAR states that a complete count of all harbor seals
is not possible because not all seals will be hauled out of the water
during the time of surveys. NMFS has worked with other researchers to
develop haul-out correction factors, which are used to account for the
number of animals not hauled out at the time of surveys. Such
correction factors are incorporated into final population size
estimates, which represents the best available method to adjust raw
counts upwards to account for animals in the water at the time of
surveys.
[[Page 50607]]
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 45: The Commission recommended that NMFS reference in the
Alaska Region SARs any workshop reports or recommendations that came
from meetings in December 2010 and March 2011, when NMFS partnered with
the Indigenous People's Council on Marine Mammals to convene two
workshops of marine mammal hunters and representatives from Alaska
Native Organizations.
Response: We appreciate the recommendation and will review the
workshop reports and recommendations from these meetings to determine
whether to include any of this information in future SAR revisions.
Comment 46: The Commission recommended that NMFS provide an update
on the status of the development of a statewide program for monitoring
subsistence hunting and harvests. The Commission further recommended
that NMFS should update all related information in the SARs and address
concerns about any potential shortcomings in these efforts. For
example, NMFS should clarify if the following statement from the ribbon
seal SAR is still accurate: ``at this time, there are no efforts to
quantify the total statewide level of harvest of ribbon seals by all
Alaska communities.''
Response: NMFS agrees that a comprehensive statewide program for
monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests would be desirable, but is
not funded. NMFS works with our partners in Alaska Native Organizations
and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to obtain information for
many subsistence-harvested marine mammal species. While incomplete,
these efforts provide some assurance that the current and foreseeable
levels of subsistence use are sustainable for all marine mammal species
under NMFS jurisdiction that are presently harvested.
We have made considerable updates of the subsistence harvest
information in the draft 2015 ringed seal, ribbon seal, and bearded
seal SARs, and we will update this information in the spotted seal SAR
the next time it is revised.
Comment 47: For the SAR for the North Pacific stock of right
whales, the Commission recommended that NMFS estimate the range of
ship-strike probabilities and assess the results in the context of this
stock's PBR level and a population viability analysis.
Response: Unfortunately, at this time there are no data with which
to undertake this exercise and too few data on other relevant variables
to construct a meaningful population viability analysis for North
Pacific right whales.
Dated: August 14, 2015.
Cathryn E. Tortorici,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20502 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P