[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