[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28489-28510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12909]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG300


2018 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; response to comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 
has considered public comments for revisions of the 2018 marine mammal 
stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability 
of 46 final 2018 SARs that were updated and finalized.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the internet as 
regional compilations at the following address: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.
    A list of references cited in this notice is available at 
www.regulations.gov (search for docket NOAA-NMFS-2018-0086) or upon 
request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Lierheimer, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto, 206-
526-4026, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock 
assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362, 
[email protected], regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, 
[email protected], regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

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 stock assessments 
for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the 
jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports must contain information regarding 
the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates 
and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious 
injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with 
which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports 
were completed in 1995.
    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. The term ``strategic stock'' means a marine mammal stock: (A) 
For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the 
potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); (B) which, based 
on the best available scientific information, is declining and is 
likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed 
as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and 
the 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 independent Scientific Review Groups 
(SRG), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and 
revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to 
incorporate new information.
    The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016. NMFS updated SARs 
for 2018, and the revised draft reports were made available for public 
review and comment for 90 days (83 FR 47137, September 18, 2018). NMFS 
received comments on the draft 2018 SARs and has revised the reports as 
necessary. This notice announces the availability of 46 final 2018 
reports that were updated. The new individual draft report for the West 
Bay stock of common bottlenose dolphin stock was not finalized (see 
below). The final reports are available on NMFS' website (see 
ADDRESSES).

Withdrawal of the West Bay Common Bottlenose Dolphin SAR

    NMFS is in the process of writing separate stock assessment reports 
for each of the 31 individual stocks contained in the Northern Gulf of 
Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary common bottlenose dolphin report. For 
the draft 2018 SARs, 2 new individual reports were completed separating 
out the West Bay and Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stocks 
from the larger report. However, we are not finalizing the new 
individual report for the West Bay common bottlenose dolphin stock 
because the abundance estimate for this stock is based on a publication 
that is still currently in review (Litz et al., in review). NMFS will 
include the updated abundance estimate for the West Bay stock in the 
draft 2019 report, once the Litz et al. publication is in press or has 
been published. To date, we have completed individual reports for five 
bottlenose dolphin stocks (Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System, 
Barataria Bay Estuarine System, Mississippi Sound/Lake Borgne/Bay 
Boudreau, Choctawhatchee Bay, and St. Joseph Bay). The remaining 26 
stocks are included in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and 
Estuary Stocks report.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2018 SARs 
from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government; the 
Makah Tribe; the Marine Mammal Commission; the North Slope Borough; 11 
non-governmental organizations (Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Center 
for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of 
Wildlife, Friends of the Children's Pool, Hawaii Longline Association, 
The Humane Society of the United States, Oceana, Point Blue 
Conservation Science, Southern Environmental Law Foundation, and Whale 
and Dolphin Conservation); and 3 individuals. Responses to substantive 
comments are below; 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 
2018 SARs.

[[Page 28490]]

Comments on National Issues

Minimum Population Estimates
    Comment 1: The Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) comments the 
requirements of Section 117 of the MMPA require inclusion of a minimum 
population estimate (Nmin), a key factor for effective management of 
marine mammal stocks using PBR. Without an Nmin derived from recent 
data, PBR cannot be calculated and an ``undetermined'' value results, 
which is useless for management purposes. Including the revised 2018 
draft SARs, an Nmin estimate is lacking for 91 of the 251 identified 
stocks (or 36 percent). The Commission understands that the primary 
reason for this shortcoming is a lack of resources (mainly access to 
vessel and plane platforms from which surveys are conducted) to collect 
the necessary information. The Commission appreciates the efforts NMFS 
has made to address this shortcoming by setting priorities across 
regions, coordinating requests for vessel time, and maximizing the data 
collected during these surveys (e.g., Ballance et al. 2017). The 
Commission recommends that NMFS continue its efforts to prioritize and 
coordinate requests to secure the necessary survey resources across 
regions. In addition to these internal efforts, the Commission 
acknowledges and encourages NMFS' continued engagement and 
collaboration with other federal agencies that also require basic 
information on marine mammal stocks, through programs like the Atlantic 
Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species and similar programs in 
the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific. Further, the Commission recommends 
that these marine assessment programs continue to include appropriate 
personnel, logistical capability, and vessel time to allow for photo-
identification, biopsy sampling, satellite tagging and other efforts to 
augment and increase the value of the core line-transect survey data 
collected. These additional efforts will assist in delineating stock 
structure, confirming at-sea identification of cryptic species, and 
furthering understanding of marine mammal distribution, habitat use, 
and behavior, all important to the overall management goals of NMFS 
under the MMPA.
    Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and will continue 
to prioritize our efforts for the collection of data to address 
outdated Nmin estimates.
Fisheries Observer Coverage
    Comment 2: The Commission points out that adequate observer 
coverage continues to be an issue for many fisheries in most regions. 
In some cases, fisheries that have the potential to take marine mammals 
go unobserved entirely. For example, in Hawaii, several unobserved, 
state-managed line fisheries likely interact with endangered main 
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales. In Alaska, numerous 
unobserved, state-managed salmon gillnet fisheries pose a significant 
risk of interactions with harbor porpoises. In other cases, observed 
fisheries with known interactions with marine mammals have observer 
coverage but is inadequate (e.g., less than 10 percent). Observer 
coverage in the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, which is known 
to take significant numbers of common bottlenose dolphins, common 
dolphins, and harbor porpoises, averaged less than five percent from 
2012 to 2016. On the positive side, annual coverage increased steadily 
from two to eight percent over that period. Observer coverage in the 
Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery averaged under eight 
percent coverage over the same period, although once again annual 
coverage increased from five to ten percent during that period. The 
Commission recommends that NMFS continue to increase observer coverage 
in all fisheries with significant marine mammal bycatch that lack 
adequate coverage to provide reliable estimates of incidental take 
levels, with increased efforts to develop collaborative observer 
programs for state-managed fisheries, particularly in Alaska and 
Hawaii.
    Response: NMFS is charged with fulfilling a wide range of 
requirements under the Magunson-Stevens Act, MMPA, and ESA, and 
regulations implementing those Acts. These mandates include ending 
overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks, protecting and recovering 
threatened and endangered species, reducing bycatch, enforcing laws and 
regulations, and combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing 
internationally. In recent years, we have tried to meet performance 
goals ensuring that at least 38 U.S. fisheries continue to maintain 
adequate observer coverage through the deployment of at least 70,000 
sea days observed nationwide. Allocation of observer coverage involves 
a variety of trade-offs that prevent each fishery from being observed 
each year, or at high levels of coverage.
    In the case of the Hawaii line fisheries mentioned by the 
Commission, those fisheries are all Category III fisheries in the MMPA 
List of Fisheries (LOF). According to the 2018 LOF, only the Hawaii 
troll fishery has had documented marine mammal species and stocks 
incidentally killed or injured. In light of the high-priority marine 
mammal interactions in the Category I Hawaii deep-set longline fishery 
and the Category II Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery and American 
Samoa longline fishery, and limited observer budget resources, the 
Hawaii line fisheries cited by the Commission are not prioritized for 
coverage at this time.
    While we are not operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer 
Program (AMMOP) due to lack of available resources to fund additional 
observations of the southeast Alaska salmon driftnet fishery, we are 
working to assess the needed resources and actively exploring options 
to identify additional resources for the AMMOP.
    Coverage rates for the Category I Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery are 
limited both by funding and practical limitations, although observer 
coverage has continued to increase in recent years. Obtaining higher 
coverage is challenging due to the geographically dispersed nature of 
this fishery. In 2017, the observer coverage for this fishery was 9.36 
percent and generally higher in strata where marine bycatch occurred. 
Despite having observer coverage rates of 5 to 10 percent from 2012-
2016, the Category II Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl fishery generally has 
observer coverage required to meet the target of a 30 percent 
coefficient of variation (CV) for marine mammal mortality estimates in 
that fishery. In light of the fact that the 30 percent CV target is 
generally being met with 5 to 10 percent observer coverage, increasing 
observer coverage for this fishery is not a high priority given limited 
observer budget resources.
Review of SARs for Strategic Stocks
    Comment 3: The Commission comments that Section 117 of the MMPA 
directs NMFS to review at least annually, all stock assessment reports 
for strategic stocks. How NMFS addresses this requirement varies by 
region. For example, the 2018 draft reports for Alaska include proposed 
revisions, some minor, to the reports for all strategic stocks. While 
the other regions may have reviewed each strategic stock in 2018, not 
every strategic stock was revised and released for public comment. Some 
strategic stocks have SARs that have not been updated in more than five 
years, presumably because no significant new information has been 
published on abundance, distribution, human-caused serious injury and 
mortality, stock structure or habitat concerns for those stocks. To 
help ensure NMFS is aware

[[Page 28491]]

of new information relevant to all strategic stocks, the Commission 
recommends that NMFS include in the Federal Register notice, published 
when revised SARs are released, a specific request for new information 
for strategic stocks that were not updated that year. New relevant 
information could include peer-reviewed information on human-caused 
serious injury and mortality, fishery interactions, abundance, 
distribution, stock structure and habitat concerns, which could be 
incorporated into SARs, and other information that might draw attention 
to emerging concerns for a strategic stock.
    Response: We appreciate the Commission's recommendation and will 
include in future Federal Register notices regarding draft stock 
assessment reports a request for new information relevant to all 
strategic stocks not updated in the current year.
Reconciling Humpback Whale Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) and MMPA 
Stocks
    Comment 4: The Commission expresses concern that NMFS' review of 
the stock structure of humpback whales under the MMPA in light of the 
14 DPSs identified under the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 62259, 
September 8, 2016) has now been underway for two years with no 
timetable for its completion. They state the lack of reconciliation 
between humpback DPSs and humpback stocks has had effects on other 
management decisions undertaken by NMFS, such as those related to the 
proposed draft negligible impact determination for the California 
thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery (<14 inch mesh) and the 
Washington/Oregon/California sablefish pot fishery, and those related 
to its response to the increased number of humpback whale entanglements 
on the west coast since 2014. The Commission recommends that NMFS take 
the necessary steps to conclude its review of humpback whale stock 
structure and revise the humpback whale SARs accordingly in the draft 
2019 reports.
    The Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United 
States, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (CBD-HSUS-WDC) ask NMFS to 
elaborate on the status of the agency-wide moratorium on revising MMPA 
stock definitions and Point Blue Conservation Science expresses support 
for NMFS to clarify how the DPSs will be treated under the MMPA as 
quickly as possible.
    Response: As described in our Federal Register notice requesting 
comments on the Draft 2017 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (82 
FR 60181, December 19, 2017), we are currently in the process of 
reviewing stock structure under the MMPA for all humpback whales in 
U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for the species in 
2016, to determine whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs under 
the ESA. Until such time that the humpback whale stock structure under 
the MMPA with respect to the ESA listing has been completed, we are 
retaining the current stock delineations and any changes in stock 
delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR or strategic 
status) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports. Revising 
the stock structure for humpback whales is a high priority; however, 
the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA has taken 
longer than anticipated because we are evaluating the Agency's process 
for stock designation.
Nmin and PBR
    Comment 5: The Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) comments the 
draft assessment for the Bering Sea stock of harbor porpoise is an 
example of long-standing inadequacy in the development of Nmin and PBR 
for stocks with abundance estimates older than eight years. As a result 
of applying the guidelines for preparing the SARs, NMFS does not use 
abundance estimates older than eight years to calculate either Nmin or 
PBR due to a decline in confidence in the reliability of an aged 
abundance estimate. Both Nmin and PBR are considered ``undetermined'' 
or ``unknown'' which AOGA asserts is a mischaracterization that makes 
using SARs for permitting and management decisions very difficult. They 
suggest if Nmin can be identified, even from a survey that is outdated, 
it should be used to calculate PBR using the best available science. 
This approach seems analogous to the practice of under-estimating a PBR 
based on a recent survey which covers only a portion of an animal's 
total range. AOGA recommends that the guidelines for preparing the SARs 
be revisited and even if the ``eight-year rule'' remains the threshold 
for estimating Nmin and developing current PBRs, the SAR should 
identify the most recent data and an estimate of PBR that results from 
those data. If necessary, the SAR can provide caveats regarding the 
data and include statements to acknowledge the potential risks of using 
such data. They comment this is a more reasonable approach than stating 
that ``PBR is considered unknown.''
    Response: The topic of outdated abundance information was discussed 
at the 2011 workshop on the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal 
Stocks (GAMMS). We proposed revisions to the GAMMS in 2012, including 
an approach to address outdated abundance estimates developed at the 
2011 workshop. Due to the strenuous objections to the proposed approach 
received during public comment, we did not implement any changes 
regarding outdated abundance estimates at that time. We are currently 
working to develop an alternative approach, which would be included in 
the next revision of the guidelines. We will solicit public review and 
comment on any proposed revisions.

Comments on Alaska Issues

Alaska Native Subsistence Takes
    Comment 6: The Commission comments that accurate information on the 
taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives for subsistence and 
handicraft purposes is becoming increasingly important in light of the 
pace of climate changes occurring in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. 
Over the past several years, the Commission has repeatedly recommended 
that NMFS, in collaboration with its co-management partners, improve 
its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting in Alaska. The 
Commission appreciates the efforts made by NMFS in this regard with an 
increase in the 2018 draft SARs in the number of communities reporting 
hunting levels for bearded and ribbon seals (from 12 to 16 villages for 
the most recent five years). Nevertheless, this still represents only 
one-quarter of the 64 communities that may hunt ice seals. Therefore, 
the Commission continues to recommend that NMFS pursue additional 
mechanisms to gather reliable information on the numbers of marine 
mammals taken for subsistence and creating handicrafts, including by 
securing adequate funding for comprehensive surveys of subsistence use 
and Native hunting effort. The Commission encourages NMFS to continue 
to provide updated information whenever it becomes available, even if 
it pertains only to a limited number of villages or a subset of years.
    Response: We agree that it would be beneficial to have more 
comprehensive information about the harvest numbers of species of 
Alaska marine mammals taken for subsistence purposes and for creating 
handicrafts. We provide co-management funding to Alaska Native 
organizations under section 119 of the MMPA, in part to monitor 
harvests and

[[Page 28492]]

report harvest numbers. The best available information is more 
comprehensive for some species (e.g., bowhead whales, beluga whales, 
and northern fur seals) than for others (e.g., harbor seals and ice 
seals). The shortcomings reflect the limited resources available to 
support harvest monitoring and reporting, as well as the large number 
of communities over a wide geographic area that subsistence hunt for 
species such as harbor seals, ice-associated seals, and Steller sea 
lions. Within the constraints of appropriations, we will continue to 
work with our co-management partners to monitor subsistence harvests 
and make that information publicly accessible as it becomes available.
Prey Availability
    Comment 7: Oceana points out that in addition to estimating direct 
human-caused mortality, for a strategic stock, the SAR must identify 
``other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of 
the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.'' They 
note that NMFS has not assessed the impacts of prey levels on strategic 
stocks, such as whether, or how, commercial fishing or any other factor 
may be decreasing the availability of prey and, consequently, causing 
declines or impeding recovery of strategic stocks and they request that 
NMFS assess how prey availability may be affecting humpback whale, 
Steller sea lion, and northern fur seal stocks.
    Response: Overall, the NMFS Guidelines for Preparing Stock 
Assessment Reports (NMFS 2016) state if substantial habitat issues are 
important for strategic stocks, then a ``Habitat'' section should be 
used to summarize the existing data that indicate a problem. The 
guidelines also note that the SARs are not intended to be a forum in 
which to present significant new data and analysis. Instead, analyses 
are to be conducted and published separately, and such an analysis is 
not part of the SAR process itself.
    There is no comprehensive information about how prey availability 
may be affecting humpback whale stocks. To address this question would 
require accurate data on prey abundance across the whales' entire 
range, prey consumption rates for individuals and populations, 
energetics of individual whales, and spatial and species overlap with 
commercial fishery catches. While the latter might be quantifiable, 
there is currently no way to obtain any reasonable data for the other 
variables involved, let alone for the impact of changing environmental 
conditions on prey distribution and abundance.
    The overall trend for most humpback whale populations found in U.S. 
waters is positive and points toward recovery (81 FR 62259; September 
8, 2016), indicating that prey availability is not a major problem. 
However, a sharp decline in observed reproduction and encounter rates 
of humpback whales from the central North Pacific between 2013 and 2018 
has been related to oceanographic anomalies and consequent impacts on 
prey resources (Cartwright et al. 2019), suggesting that humpback 
whales are vulnerable to major environmental changes.
    The Western U.S. Steller sea lion SAR does summarize representative 
publications describing such potential threats in the ``Habitat 
Concerns'' section. It is also noted in the ``Current Population 
Trend'' section that the decline in pup abundance in the central Gulf 
of Alaska in 2017 was correlated with a dramatic decline in the 
abundance of Pacific cod in the area during the winter. There are no 
available data that definitively tie this decline to a drop in natality 
but the relationship is implied. As relevant studies become available 
they will be cited in future SARs.
    A 3-year study to address whether prey availability during the 
breeding season may be a factor affecting Eastern Pacific northern fur 
seal recovery was initiated in 2018 by NMFS, in collaboration with the 
University of Washington and with support from the Lenfest Ocean 
Program. Study results, when published, will be cited in future SARs if 
relevant.
Steller Sea Lion, Western Distinct Population Segment
    Comment 8: Oceana suggests the population trend, stock status, and 
habitat concern sections of the Steller sea lion assessment include a 
discussion on the observations and implications of localized 
extirpation of breeding sea lions from historical habitats.
    Response: Under the MMPA, stock status is determined relative to 
the entirety of a stock. Steller sea lion population trend estimates 
are shown in the SAR by subregions to highlight trend differences, but 
these are not management units under the MMPA. Implications of declines 
in various regions within the western stock are discussed in context of 
population recovery under the ESA in the Steller Sea Lion Recovery 
Plan.
    Comment 9: Oceana recommends that an assessment of mitigation 
measures for recovery of the Steller sea lion population in the 
Pribilof region is needed because climate change is a threat to Steller 
sea lions and their habitat and there have been several unusual 
mortality events in the last decade documented for marine mammals in 
Alaska. They note that Steller sea lion pup counts in the central and 
eastern Gulf of Alaska in 2017 were subsequently lower than prior 
years, indicating that prey availability from the warm conditions 
decreased pup production.
    Response: There have been three Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) 
declared in Alaska since 1991 (large whales in 2015; ice seals (ringed, 
bearded, and spotted) in 2011; and sea otters in 2006). Consistent with 
our response to Comment 8, the Pribilof population of Steller sea lions 
is within the western stock of Steller sea lions, so it is not assessed 
separately in the current SAR. We will cite published studies that 
discuss the potential consequences of climate change and harmful algal 
blooms on western Steller sea lions in the ``Habitat Concerns'' section 
of future SARs if we determine that these changes in the Alaska coastal 
environment are of concern for the western Steller sea lion stock.
    Comment 10: Oceana comments that while the draft SARs include 
annual mortality and serious injury rates from federally-managed 
commercial fisheries monitored and reported by groundfish fisheries 
observers, these observer data are limited and there are only partial 
observer data in some of the trawl fisheries (e.g., Gulf of Alaska 
flatfish trawl, Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl, and Gulf of Alaska 
Pacific cod trawl fisheries). As a result, they point out the majority 
of fishing activity, and the possible marine mammal interactions 
through that activity, are without monitoring or accountability. What 
is reported in the SARs is a yearly estimate, with unreported variance, 
extrapolated from observer data, which makes it difficult to evaluate 
the accuracy of those marine mammal mortality estimates. They recommend 
it would benefit marine mammal monitoring to have higher rates of 
observer coverage on fisheries that potentially interact with 
endangered species like the western DPS Steller sea lion.
    Response: Estimates of variance are reported as CVs and are 
consistently available for Alaska commercial groundfish fisheries that 
host fisheries observers. In the current SARs, CVs are reported for the 
estimates of mean annual mortality and serious injury rates. We will 
consider including the CVs for the yearly estimates of mortality and 
serious injury in future SARs;

[[Page 28493]]

however, these CVs would only describe the uncertainty in the 
extrapolated estimates of mortality and serious injury based on 
observer data from randomly-selected monitored hauls; it is not 
possible to calculate CVs for mortality and serious injury from 
opportunistic data (e.g., those collected from non-randomly selected 
hauls). The CVs for many observed fisheries are low because the 
proportion of the fleet that is observed is quite high. It is accurate 
that many Alaska fisheries that are known to have mortality and serious 
injury are observed at a low rate or are not observed at all. In 
general, the annual rates of mortality and serious injury reflected in 
the SARs are considered a minimum estimate for each stock. In Alaska, 
we place observers through an Annual Deployment Plan, which allows for 
flexibility as the priorities for observations change. We intend to 
observe state fisheries with at least an occasional level of mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals if resources become available.
Northern Fur Seal, Eastern Pacific
    Comment 11: Oceana recommends the northern fur seal assessment 
include an estimate of the direct or indirect mortality and loss of 
production that occurs from competition with commercial fisheries. The 
Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government (ACSPI) requests 
that NMFS include an estimation of commercial fisheries' impacts on the 
Eastern Pacific stock's population, habitat, and prey through removal 
of prey or provide an explanation as to why it is not included.
    Response: See response to Comment 7.
    Comment 12: ACSPI comments the MMPA requires that NMFS ``describe 
commercial fisheries that interact with the stock, including . . . the 
estimated level of incidental mortality and serious injury of the stock 
by each such fishery on an annual basis [and] seasonal or area 
differences in such incidental mortality or serious injury . . .'' They 
note that NMFS does not include estimates of incidental mortality from 
reduction in prey in the appendices that include these descriptions.
    Response: See response to Comment 7. Also, note that reduction in 
prey is not defined as an ``incidental mortality'' in the MMPA; 
incidental mortality is defined as mortality incidental to direct human 
activities.
    Comment 13: AOGA notes the draft northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific 
SAR refers to the pup harvests on St. George Island from 2014 through 
2016, and a total of 157 pups were killed over that period. The SAR 
states that there is no reason to believe that limiting mortality and 
serious injury to the level of the PBR will reverse the decline. They 
suggest the report would benefit from adding a brief explanation of the 
scientific analysis used to justify changes in the fur seal subsistence 
harvest regulations and any potential impacts as described in the 
recent Final Environmental Impact Statement published by NMFS (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/notice-availability-final-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement).
    Response: We agree that the statement referenced by the commenter 
is unclear. The full sentence in the draft SAR stated: ``However, given 
that the population is declining for unknown reasons, and this decline 
is not explained by the relatively low level of known direct human-
caused mortality and serious injury, there is no reason to believe that 
limiting mortality and serious injury to the level of the PBR will 
reverse the decline.'' We have replaced this sentence with the 
following sentence in the final 2018 SAR: ``The PBR calculation assumes 
mortality is evenly distributed across males, females, and each age 
class; but that is not the case with the subsistence harvest, which 
accounts for most of the known direct human-caused mortality. The 
subsistence harvest is almost entirely sub-adult males and male pups 
and, therefore, has a relatively low impact on the population due to 
the disproportionate importance of females to the population. Thus, 
non-breeding male-biased mortality up to the maximum levels authorized 
for subsistence use does not represent a significant risk to the 
Eastern Pacific northern fur seal stock.'' This issue is described in 
more detail in the recent Final Environmental Impact Statement cited by 
the commenter.
Ringed Seal
    Comment 14: AOGA notes that information and updates on the Alaska 
stock of the ESA-listed Arctic subspecies of ringed seal are not 
provided in the 2018 SAR. Ringed seals are the most abundant marine 
mammal species in the Arctic throughout the year, and a species of 
major concern related to ongoing oil and gas activities in the U.S. 
Beaufort Sea and they are unclear why the report for this ``strategic'' 
stock was not reviewed and updated.
    Response: The Alaska stock of ringed seals was listed as threatened 
under the ESA on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706). On March 11, 2016, 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a decision 
vacating the listing. A notice of appeal of the District Court decision 
was filed on May 3, 2016; and the listing was reinstated on May 15, 
2018. Because the stock was not listed as threatened under the ESA or 
considered to be strategic under the MMPA when the draft 2018 SARs were 
prepared, we did not revise the ringed seal SAR in 2018; however, we 
will revise the SAR in 2019.
Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet
    Comment 15: AOGA recommends NMFS include information in the beluga 
whale, Cook Inlet report that due to their continued small population 
size, the Yakutat Bay beluga whales remain part of the Cook Inlet stock 
and are still provided the same protections as the Cook Inlet stock 
including the limitations on hunting.
    Response: We have added this information to the final 2018 Cook 
Inlet beluga whale SAR.
    Comment 16: AOGA notes the draft Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR does 
not include the 164 observed dead stranded whales between 1998-2013 
identified in the December 2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale ESA Recovery 
Plan. They suggest the average, unexplained mortality during this 
period of approximately 11 beluga whales per year may provide important 
context for the lack of recovery of this species.
    Response: The mortality observed between 1998 and 2013 (Burek-
Huntington et al. 2015) is described in detail in the ``Other 
Mortality'' section of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR. We will add 
information about this observed mortality to the Status of Stock 
section of the draft 2019 SAR.
Harbor Porpoise, Southeast and Other Alaska Stocks
    Comment 17: The Commission expresses concern there remains 
appreciable uncertainty in the calculated PBR and estimated M/SI levels 
for the Southeast Alaska (SEAK) harbor porpoise stock due to: (1) Low 
observer coverage, (2) biased population estimates, and (3) 
insufficient data on stock delineation. In their comments on the 2017 
draft SARs, the Commission recommended that NMFS address these 
uncertainties and although NMFS is working to understand and reduce the 
uncertainties, no significant changes were made in the 2018 draft SAR. 
The Commission urges NMFS to continue its efforts to address these 
issues.
    Response: The PBR level of 12 for the Southeast Alaska harbor 
porpoise stock was estimated based on a survey that covered only a 
portion of the currently-recognized distribution of this stock,

[[Page 28494]]

and it includes commercial fishery mortalities or serious injuries that 
occurred far north of the surveyed areas. We are concerned about the 
Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise stock and are collecting additional 
information on stock structure and abundance to reduce uncertainties in 
the data available to manage this stock, and we have prioritized the 
Southeast Alaska drift gillnet fishery for additional observer coverage 
should resources become available.
    Comment 18: The Commission notes the MMPA requires NMFS to develop 
and implement take reduction plans (TRPs) for all strategic stocks 
(section 118(f)(1)) that interact with a Category I or II fishery, 
subject to the availability of funding (section 118(f)(3)). Further, 
the MMPA directs NMFS to give the highest priority to developing and 
implementing TRPs for stocks for which M/SI exceeds PBR, the population 
size is small, and/or the population is declining rapidly. Although the 
SEAK stock of harbor porpoise meets the first two criteria, NMFS has 
not yet chosen to develop a TRP for this stock. Given the small size of 
the stock and the fact that it is experiencing an unsustainable level 
of take, the Commission recommends that NMFS apply the criteria under 
section 118(f)(3) to give this stock high priority, establish a take 
reduction team (TRT), and initiate the development of a TRP. The 
Commission recognizes that TRTs require a minimum of information 
regarding population size, status, fisheries interactions, and 
mitigation options to develop TRP recommendations. In this case, based 
on what is known about this and other harbor porpoise stocks, their 
interactions with gillnet fisheries in the eastern United States and 
Europe, and the availability of approaches to reduce bycatch numbers 
(e.g., Bj[oslash]rge et al. 2013, Orphanides and Palka 2013, Read 2013, 
Reeves et al. 2013), the Commission believes NMFS has sufficient 
information to proceed.
    Response: As we have noted in our response to Comment 17, we are 
actively working to collect and analyze data needed to assess this 
stock. As the Commission rightly points out, a minimum amount of data 
and analyses are needed to support TRT deliberations; we are 
endeavoring to collect those data and provide those analyses. Further, 
MMPA section 118(f)(3) notes that we prioritize based on availability 
of funding and are currently implementing several other TRTs that 
address higher priority stocks and fisheries where the TRPs are not yet 
meeting MMPA goals (e.g., ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales, 
Hawaii pelagic false killer whales, and Northern and Southern North 
Carolina Estuarine System bottlenose dolphins).
    Comment 19: The Commission recommends that NMFS undertake analyses 
using harbor porpoise population data and state gillnet fisheries data 
from throughout the range of harbor porpoises in Alaska, and bycatch-
rate data from comparable harbor porpoise populations from the full 
range of the species, to develop model-based estimates of the likely 
magnitude of harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering 
Sea.
    Response: We will investigate the feasibility of conducting the 
analyses recommended by the Commission with existing abundance data for 
these stocks; however, because the abundance data were collected 
between 1997 and 1999, the analyses would be based on 20-year-old data 
that may not reflect the current status of the population.
Humpback Whale, Central North Pacific
    Comment 20: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that NMFS include in the Central 
North Pacific (CNP) humpback whale report the data presented and 
discussed at the November 2018 workshop that showed a decrease in 
Hawaii in overall humpback whale songs and a drop of nearly 80 percent 
in sightings of mother and calf pairs from 2014 to 2018.
    Response: At the time the draft 2018 SARs were made available for 
public comment, no published information was available on this apparent 
change in winter distribution. NMFS will include information from a 
recently published paper (Cartwright et al. 2019) in the draft 2019 
SAR.
    Comment 21: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that in the CNP humpback whale 
report, one humpback injury was observed in the Hawaii shallow-set 
longline in 2015 that is not recorded in the report's paragraphs on 
``Fisheries Information'' nor recorded in appendices giving fishery-
specific information. The appendices to the Alaska stock assessment 
report do not include interactions of Alaskan stocks with Hawaii 
fisheries. Also, in 2017, the Pacific stock assessment report included 
only Appendix 3, a summary of stock information.
    Response: Our marine mammal SARs contain information on human-
caused mortality and serious injury; thus, the non-serious injury 
observed in 2015 in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery is not 
included in the Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR. However, 
publications by the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 
(e.g., Bradford 2018, Bradford and Lyman 2018) that are cited in the 
SAR contain details about the human-caused mortality, serious injury, 
and non-serious injury of humpback whales observed in Hawaii fisheries 
and/or reported to the NMFS Pacific Islands Region stranding network. 
The 2017 U.S. Pacific SARs contain only the reports and appendices that 
were revised in 2017. An appendix in complete versions of the U.S. 
Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al. 2017) describes fisheries in U.S. 
west coast and Hawaii waters, while appendices in the NMFS Alaska SARs 
describe fisheries in Alaska waters.
    Comment 22: CBD-HSUS-WDC urge NMFS to include more detail about the 
impacts of increasing ambient noise on humpback whales in the CNP 
humback whale report. For example, a recent study of humpback whales in 
Glacier Bay National Park found that as ambient sound levels increased, 
humpback whales responded by increasing the source levels of their 
calls by 0.81 decibel (dB) for every 1 dB increase in ambient sound. In 
addition, for every 1 dB increase in ambient sound, the probability of 
a humpback whale calling in the survey area decreased by 9 percent. 
They suggest these details are especially important to guide management 
measures to protect whales from increasing ocean noise pollution.
    Response: Given the lack of conclusive data on negative impacts of 
anthropogenic noise on the humpback whale stock, we believe that the 
existing text in the ``Habitat Concerns'' section of the Central North 
Pacific humpback whale SAR is sufficient.
Bowhead Whale
    Comment 23: The North Slope Borough comments the bowhead quota from 
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was changed in 2018 to take 
effect in 2019 and includes up to 67 strikes per year plus up to 33 
previously unused strikes. They suggest because the new quota was 
broadly publicized, NMFS include a footnote in the bowhead whale report 
to reference the new quota that will take effect in 2019.
    Response: We have added information about the new block quota for 
the period 2019 to 2025 to the final 2018 SAR.
Killer Whale, AT1 Transient
    Comment 24: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that the final stock assessment 
report for the AT1 Transient killer whale reflect that in 2015 one 
killer whale, apparently from an Alaska transient stock, was entangled 
in a California commercial Dungeness crab trap. Given the uncertainty 
in the stock

[[Page 28495]]

definitions for Alaska killer whales and the overlap in range of the 
AT1 Transient stock with the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and 
Bering Sea Transient stock, they urge NMFS to identify all fishery-
related serious injury and mortality for Alaska transient killer whales 
in the stock assessment report for AT1 Transient whales. Further, a 
second killer whale of unknown stock origin was reported entangled in a 
California commercial Dungeness crab trap and was able to self-release. 
CBD-HSUS-WDC stress the importance that the stock assessment reports 
identify the killer whale stocks that are vulnerable to entanglement in 
Dungeness crab traps. Neither the death in 2015 nor the interaction in 
2016 is reported in the killer whale stock assessment report.
    Response: Based on genetic analysis, the killer whale that 
entangled and died in commercial California Dungeness crab pot gear in 
2015 was identified as a transient killer whale with a mitochondrial 
DNA (mtDNA) haplotype that has been found in transient killer whales in 
the Pribilof Islands and western Aleutian Islands. However, the whale 
cannot be assigned to a specific stock because mtDNA haplotypes are 
unique to ecotypes of killer whales (e.g., resident, transient, 
offshore) but not to populations. Therefore, we will assign this 
mortality to both the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 
Transient killer whale stock and the West Coast Transient killer whale 
stock in the next revisions of these SARs and in the NOAA Technical 
Memorandum that contains information on human-caused mortality and 
injury of NMFS-managed Alaska marine mammal stocks in 2013-2017 (Delean 
et al. in press). The mortality will not be assigned to the AT1 
Transient killer whale stock, because none of the whales in this 
population are missing. The killer whale that entangled in and self-
released from commercial California Dungeness crab pot gear in 2016 was 
photographically identified as a member of the West Coast Transient 
stock of killer whales, and this non-serious injury will also be 
included in Delean et al. (in press). We will add a statement to the 
draft 2019 AT1 Transient killer whale SAR noting that transient killer 
whales have entangled in pot gear in other areas and entanglement in 
this type of gear may be a risk for the AT1 Transient stock of killer 
whales.

Comments on Atlantic Issues

General Large Whale UMEs
    Comment 25: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that NMFS presented information 
at the most recent (2018) meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale TRT 
regarding three concurrent large whale UMEs that are ongoing. According 
to this agency presentation, they include one from 2016-2018 affecting 
humpback whales in the Atlantic (Cause: Undetermined; Contributory 
Human Interaction); another from 2017-2018 affecting North Atlantic 
right whales in the Atlantic (Cause: Preliminary Human Interaction); 
and one from 2017-2018 affecting minke whales in the Atlantic (Cause: 
Undetermined; Contributory Human Interaction and Infection). Each of 
these three concurrent large whale UMEs span from approximately 2016 to 
the present and extend from Atlantic Canada to Florida and involve 155 
whales in total. CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that although NMFS has made 
public the preliminary or contributory findings of human interaction in 
all three investigations public, there is little mention made of this 
in a number of the affected SARs.
    Response: The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016. The 
humpback whale UME began in January of 2016 and the 2018 SAR includes 
language about the UME in the other mortality section. Any 2016 animals 
included in the humback whale UME that were determined to be 
anthropogenic are included in the mortality table. The recent right 
whale UME was established in June of 2017. Although the time frame of 
this UME is outside the focus of the 2018 SAR, during its review of the 
SAR at the Atlantic SRG meeting in February 2018, the SRG suggested it 
was important to mention the UME in the text of the report. Prior to 
publishing the draft right whale SAR for public comment, NMFS updated 
the SAR text, added a link to the UME web page, and noted that all 2017 
events that are determined to be anthropogenic in nature will be 
included in the 2019 SAR. The minke whale UME started in January of 
2017 and also was outside the time frame of the the 2018 minke whale 
SAR. We have added text to the final 2018 minke whale SAR that 
references the UME and will include any events that are determined to 
be anthropogenic in nature in the mortality table and calcuations in 
the 2019 SAR.
North Atlantic Right Whales
    Comment 26: The Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law 
Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, The Human Society of the United 
States, Southern Environmental Law Foundation, and Whale and Dolphin 
Conservation (the Organizations) suggest that while NMFS has included 
some updates in the ``Stock Definition and Geographic Range'' section 
of the North Atlantic right whale report, this section should be 
revised to condense the historical distribution information and include 
the significant changes in right whale distribution that have occurred 
since 2010.
    Response: We agree with the Organizations that the ``Stock 
Definition and Geographic Range'' section of this report could use 
substantial updates and will plan to make these updates in the 2019 
SAR.
    Comment 27: The Organizations appreciate that NMFS includes a 
statement in the ``Stock Definition and Range'' section of the North 
Atlantic right whale report noting a habitat shift resulting in an 
increased use by right whales of Cape Cod Bay and decreased use of the 
Great South Channel. However, they request NMFS also re-evaluate the 
section which states that ``visual and acoustic surveys have 
demonstrated the existence of seven areas where western North Atlantic 
right whales aggregate seasonally: The coastal waters of the 
southeastern United States; the Great South Channel; Jordan Basin; 
Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank; Cape Cod and 
Massachusetts Bays; the Bay of Fundy; and the Roseway Basin on the 
Scotian Shelf (Brown et al. 2001; Cole et al. 2013).'' The 
Organizations do not dispute the accuracy of the data from the sources 
cited but note that these sources are between five and 17 years old. 
The Organizations assert NMFS itself has acknowledged that sightings in 
the Bay of Fundy have declined over the past 10 years, and the Agency 
has recently shifted significant resources to Canada, leaving many 
areas of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges and Jordan Basins, 
without meaningful effort to evaluate the current importance of those 
locations to right whales.
    Response: We have added a more recent reference to this section in 
the 2018 final SAR (Mayo et al. 2018). We will re-evaluate and update 
the section if newer sources are available for the 2019 SAR.
    Comment 28: The Organizations disagree with NMFS' conclusion that 
sightings south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard reflect only a 
``modest late winter use'' of this area by the species, suggest that 
the waters south of Cape Cod are increasingly important, and ask the 
Agency to review its own use of Dynamic Area Management (DMA) 
declarations for these waters as additional confirmation of their 
significance. In light of distributional changes in right whale habitat 
noted since 2010, the Organizations comment it is important

[[Page 28496]]

for the stock assessment reports to reflect not only historic, but also 
recent sightings outside of ``traditional'' habitat use that may 
indicate shifting habitat use and broader distribution.
    Response: As the period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-2016, any 
sightings made and DMA zones declared in 2018 are outside of the time 
frame of this report, but we will reflect any updates in the 2019 SAR. 
We have removed the word ``modest'' and changed Stone et al. to Leiter 
et al.
    Comment 29: The Organizations also ask NMFS to consider omitting 
older information and updating the references used in the ``Stock 
Definition and Range'' section of the North Atlantic right whale 
report. For instance, according to the draft SAR, ``(h)igh-resolution 
(i.e., using 35 microsatellite loci) genetic profiling has been 
completed for 66 percent of all North Atlantic right whales identified 
through 2001,'' for which a 2007 publication is cited. However, a 2009 
publication by Frasier et al. states that high-resolution genetic 
profiles are available for greater than 75 percent of catalogued right 
whales.
    Response: We agree with the Organizations and have updated the 
Frasier cititation in the final 2018 SAR. As noted above, we will re-
evaluate and update this section and include newer sources if available 
in the 2019 SAR.
    Comment 30: The Organizations comment it is unclear why Nmin was 
removed from the ``Population Size'' section of the North Atlantic 
right whale SAR and why the estimates provided here appear to differ 
from those provided by NMFS in its 2018 Technical Memo. According to 
the draft SAR, it appears Nmin was negated and changed only to ``N'' 
due to uncertainties around a probabilistic model and a median 
abundance of 451 individuals is provided. However, the NOAA Tech Memo, 
also citing Pace et al. 2017, estimates an ``overall species abundance 
of about 400.'' They suggest this lower number--the minimum estimate of 
animals likely alive--would seem more appropriate to provide as an 
Nmin.
    Response: The ``min'' was originally removed because the author 
thought using Nmin would cause confusion with the Minimum Number Alive 
calculation used in previous SARs. We have corrected this in the final 
2018 report and added Nmin back to the text because the sentence refers 
to the 60 percent lower bound common to most SARs but in this case 
results from the mark recapture estimation procedure. The Nmin of 445 
reported in the 2018 SAR is the lower limit of the 60 percent credible 
limit on the median estimate of 451. This is the calculation 
established by the GAMMS (NMFS 2016). The ``overall species abundance 
of about 400'' reported in the Hayes et al. 2018 NOAA Tech Memo was 
calulated by a different method and took into account the 2017 
mortalities, which are outside the time frame for the 2018 SAR.
    Comment 31: The Organizations suggest the ``Current Population 
Trend'' section in the North Atlantic right whale report should be 
revised and updated to omit aging literature (e.g., from the 1990s) 
that appears less relevant. They strongly suggest retaining the figures 
in this section, abbreviating historic information and using language 
taken from the NOAA Tech Memo which more clearly assesses the current 
status including the recent population decline.
    Response: We discussed this issue with the Atlantic SRG at their 
2018 meeting. The consensus was that while this SAR should continue to 
maintain its temporal integrity for abundance analysis and the case by 
case reporting of interactions, language would be added to the text 
referring to the 2017 mortalities. Prior to publishing the draft right 
whale SAR for public comment, we added the following text to the 
``Annual Human-Caused Serious Injury and Mortality'' section of the 
report: ``Although PBR analyses in this SAR reflect data collected 
through 2016, it should be noted that an additional 17 right whale 
mortalities were observed in 2017 (Daoust et al. 2017). This number 
exceeds the largest estimated mortality rate during the past 25 years. 
Further, despite the usual extensive survey effort, only 5 and 0 calves 
were detected in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Therefore, the decline in 
the right whale population will continue for at least an additional 2 
years.'' We will report the statistical analysis of population trends 
that include the 2017 mortalities in the 2019 SAR.
    Comment 32: The Organizations comment in the ``Current and Maximum 
Net Productivity Rates'' section of the North Atlantic right whale 
report, it is not clear how NMFS arrived at a total of 443 calves born 
between 1990 and 2016. According to NOAA's 5-Year Review: Summary and 
Evaluation for North Atlantic right whales, ``(f)rom 1990-2014, 411 
right whale calves were observed born, an average of 16.4 per year 
(with a standard deviation of 9.2). However, according to the 2017 
Right Whale Report Card provided by the New England Aquarium, 17 calves 
were born in 2015 and 14 in 2016, which would raise the total to 442, 
not 443.
    This section also includes a comparison of North Atlantic right 
whales to a counterpart species in the Southern Hemisphere. While we do 
not discount the information provided, it is unclear why NOAA did not 
rely instead on the more recent information in Corkeron et al. 2018. We 
understand the paper was not yet published when the draft report was 
made available to the public but note that it is not unprecedented for 
Stock Assessment Reports to include manuscripts ``in review,'' as 
evidenced by ``Henry et al. in review,'' cited in this draft.
    Response: We have updated the total number of calves born between 
1990 and 2016 to 442 in the final SAR. The Henry et al. paper, in 
review at the time we published the draft SAR, is the Serious Injury 
and Mortality Report for the same time period as the SAR and is on a 
parallel review track. The Henry et al. paper is currently in press and 
will be available shortly. In the interim, it will be provided upon 
request. The Corkeron et al. 2018 paper does cover more recent 
information but is more applicable to later SAR periods and will be 
included in the appropriate future SAR.
    Comment 33: The Organizations appreciate the inclusion of a 
statement reflecting the unprecedented mortality of 17 right whales in 
2017, the recent poor calving years, and the acknowledgement of a 
decline in the population but question whether any value of PBR other 
than zero is appropriate to use for this species when NOAA itself has 
determined the population is currently declining at 2.33 percent per 
year as a result of human causes.
    Response: As directed in the MMPA, each SAR ``shall'' estimate the 
PBR level for the stock. Further, the statute states that PBR is 
calculated as the product of three elements: The minimum population 
estimate (Nmin); half the maximum net productivity rate (0.5 Rmax); and 
a recovery factor (Fr). In this case, PBR is calculated as 0.9.
    Comment 34: The Organizations request NMFS to consider a 
comprehensive update of language in the ``Annual Human-Caused Serious 
Injury and Mortality--Background'' section of the North Atlantic right 
whale SAR to better reflect a more current view of anthropogenic 
impacts. For example, citations referencing analyses on entanglements 
of right whales are from 1999, 2001, and 2009; and, there are more 
recent information available. Additionally, they note there is no 
mention of sub-lethal impacts resulting from entanglements, in spite of 
available publications indicating this poses a significant population-
level risk to the species.

[[Page 28497]]

    Response: We will update the text and citations for this section in 
the 2019 report. Regarding sub-lethal impacts resulting from 
entanglements, we note that the van der Hoop et al. (2017) paper is 
cited in the `Productivity Rates' section of the report: ``The 
available evidence suggests that at least some of the observed 
variability in the calving rates of North Atlantic right whales is 
related to variability in nutrition and possibly increased energy 
expenditures related to non-lethal entanglements (Rolland et al. 2016; 
van der Hoop et al. 2017).'' We will discuss with the Atlantic SRG how 
best to incorporate discussion of sub-lethal effects into the ``Annual 
Human-Caused Serious Injury and Mortality'' section of the North 
Atlantic right whale SAR.
    Comment 35: The Organizations request NMFS include more recent 
studies in the ``Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury'' section 
of the North Atlantic right whale report which can be used to better 
assess the impacts of serious injury resulting from fishery 
interactions. For example, van der Hoop et al. 2017 concluded that the 
duration of an entanglement is critical in determining the survival of 
the impacted individual and that chronic entanglement is a costly life 
history stage, not a short-term event. Pettis et al. 2017 found that 
severely entangled whales, along with lactating females, were more 
likely to exhibit declining body conditions than any other population 
segment. While they acknowledge that NMFS has set criteria for which 
serious injury and mortalities are determined, the Organizations stress 
consideration of these kinds of studies can help inform these criteria 
and better evaluate the overall impact of fishery interactions on this 
declining species.
    Response: We are working with partners on ways to quantify chronic 
entanglement so it can be incorporated into the serious injury 
determination process. A challenge that we are trying to address is 
that the status of individual whales might change between resights. We 
are undertaking a review of the policy distinguishing serious from non-
serious injury and will consider this type of information throughout 
that process.
    Comment 36: The Organizations ask NMFS to update the ID # for two 
North Atlantic right whales (#3996, #3610) and review its assessment of 
a number of individual North Atlantic right whales (including #3692, 
#2810, #1142, #1306, [#unidentified], and #4140) to determine whether 
they should be added to the list of M/SI cases in Table 1.
    Response: The Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff reviewed all 
these cases and their determinations regarding serious injury were 
later reviewed by experienced staff at another Fisheries Science 
Center, the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regional Offices, and the 
Atlantic SRG, per NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious 
from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. NMFS staff looks for 
evidence of significant health decline post event.
    Regarding whale #3996 and #3610, we have updated Table 1 in the 
final report to include the ID numbers. Three of the cases (#3692, 
#2810, and #1306) are ``inconclusive,'' or have evidence of health 
decline on par with rest of population. Regarding the unidentified 
whale located on Roseway Basin on September 13, 2015, while NMFS agrees 
that it is a serious injury, our experts cannot determine the source of 
the injury; because there is no agreement on vessel strike or 
entanglement, it cannot be tallied with other human interaction events. 
There are other instances where whales have serious injuries, but we do 
not know the source. For whale #1142 and #4140, we will include the 
updated information on the additional sightings in the 2019 report.
    Comment 37: The Organizations agree with NMFS' conclusion that the 
species should remain listed as endangered and is in decline. However, 
according to the 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of the North 
Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis), the species has been in 
decline since 2010, not 2011, as amended in the draft SAR.
    Response: The 2010 abundance estimate was higher than the 2009 
estimate. The 2011 estimate was lower than 2010, so we are considering 
2011 as the first year with evidence of decline.
Humpback Whales--Gulf of Maine Stock
    Comment 38: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that the ``Stock Definition and 
Geographic Range'' section of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale report 
should be revised to condense the outdated information and include a 
more thorough examination of recent changes in distribution and habitat 
use.
    Response: We agree that the ``Stock Definition and Geographic 
Range'' section of this report could use substantial updates and will 
plan to make these updates in the 2019 SAR.
    Comment 39: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment they understand that NMFS cannot 
rely on an estimate based on data more than eight years old and 
appreciate NMFS' development of a minimum number alive for the Gulf of 
Maine stock of humpback whales based on the Center for Coastal Studies 
(CCS) humpback whale catalog. They note that these data are collected 
by CCS for dedicated research purposes and include opportunistic 
sightings contributed to CCS by others. These data represent the most 
comprehensive catalog of this management stock and are provided to NMFS 
as a courtesy. CBD-HSUS-WDC urge NMFS to consider providing dedicated 
support for the long-term sustainability of this catalog, since NMFS 
relies on it for management of this stock.
    Response: We agree with the commenter on the importance of the CCS' 
humback whale catalog and acknowledge your comment.
    Comment 40: CBD-HSUS-WDC do not disagree with NMFS's assessment 
that the lack of carcass recovery and post-mortem examination confound 
conclusions regarding whether ship strikes or entanglements are more 
prevalent and note that NMFS does not provide in the Gulf of Maine 
humpback whale SAR any data on the analysis of carcasses recovered in 
the ongoing UME. They suggest it would be useful to include a more 
updated review for a UME stock to assess the number of cases in which 
necropsies have been conducted and what, if any, causes of death were 
determined. For example, NMFS has indicated elsewhere that at least 23 
out of 60 examined carcasses were confirmed or suspected vessel strikes 
and at least four were confirmed or suspected entanglement cases. Since 
more recent data are available, they should be used (e.g., data from 
2017 are used in the North Atlantic right whale SAR). In addition, CBD-
HSUS-WDC request that NMFS consider providing more detail in the 
``Other Mortality'' section beyond ``causes of these UME events have 
not been determined.''
    Response: While we included data from 2017 in the body of the right 
whale SAR as recommended by the Atlantic SRG, we did not yet include 
those data in the tables or in calculations. Any cases from the 
humpback whale UME that occurred in 2016 and were determined to be 
anthropogenic are included in Table 1 of the 2018 SAR. (See response to 
Comment 25.) For the 2019 SARs, we will review the UME language used in 
all reports and strive for more consistency. We will also provide some 
information on the number of cases necropsied, etc.
    Comment 41: CBD-HSUS-WDC request NMFS clarify its conclusion in the 
``Fishery-Related Serious Injuries and Mortalities'' section of the 
Gulf of Maine humpback whale report that 29

[[Page 28498]]

serious injuries were prevented by disentanglement between 2012 and 
2016. For example, Spinnaker, an adult female humpback whale, was known 
to be entangled on at least four separate occasions and disentangled 
three times but ultimately died as a result of what appears to be her 
second gear interaction. CBD-HSUS-WDC is unclear as to how NMFS' 
evaluation of disentanglement success would have been applied in such a 
case.
    Response: As noted above in our response to Comments 34 and 35, we 
do not currently have a method to address sublethal effects or more 
subtle/slow health decline for the assessment of long-term success. 
Under NMFS' Policy and Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-
Serious Injury of Marine Mammals (NMFS 2012), we consider 
disentanglement to be successful unless there is additional information 
available on the condition of the animal such as a significant health 
decline. This was the case with Spinnaker. Her mortality was attributed 
to her 2014 entanglement event, based on evidence from her 2015 
necropsy.
    Comment 42: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment they understand the factors that 
dictate how NMFS evaluates a stock as strategic and greatly appreciate 
NMFS' clarification of the uncertainties in the case of Gulf of Maine 
humpback whales, including that entanglements are surely biased low and 
that the uncertainties associated with their assessment may lead to an 
incorrect determination of the stock's status.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment.
Fin Whale
    Comment 43: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that abundance estimates and range 
definition in the fin whale report are based on survey data no more 
recent than 2011, at least 7 years ago. According to NMFS' own 
guidelines, abundance data should be more recent than eight years with 
a ``worst case'' scenario of a decline presumed thereafter. At the 2018 
meeting of the Atlantic SRG, NMFS informed the group that though 
Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) 
surveys have been funded by multiple agencies, no surveys were planned 
for 2018. In light of well-known perturbations in ocean temperatures 
and prey resources, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommends NMFS make every effort to 
assure that depictions of the species' range and survey-derived 
abundance estimates do not become outdated since there may be shifts in 
the ranges of large cetaceans who are dependent on distribution of key 
forage fish, which can result in exposure to different sources of risk 
(e.g., encountering fisheries in new areas).
    Response: We acknowledge this comment and note that we will provide 
a new abundance estimate for this stock in the 2019 SAR. The new 
estimate will be based on 2016 surveys, and the sighting locations will 
be added to the sighting distribution map in that SAR. As a point of 
clarification, the GAMMS (NMFS 2016) state that ``unless compelling 
evidence indicates that a stock has not declined since the last census, 
the Nmin estimate of the stock should be considered unknown if 8 years 
have transpired since the last abundance survey.'' This is different 
from presuming a ``worst case scenario of a decline'' as stated in the 
comment.
Minke Whale
    Comment 44: CBD-HSUS-WDC reiterate their comments on prior SARs, 
that where current information is readily available NMFS should 
incorporate that information into the most recent SAR to assure 
adequate depiction of the stock status. In the case of minke whales, 
the draft SAR makes no mention of a UME declared for this species in 
early 2017. In its public information page, NMFS states that 
``[p]reliminary findings in several of the whales have shown evidence 
of human interactions or infectious disease,'' though a single 
definitive cause is not identified for all stranded animals. The 
declaration of an on-going UME should be added to the SAR either in the 
section on ``Annual Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury'' or in 
the section on ``Other'' mortality.
    Response: See response to Comment 25.
Risso's Dolphins
    Comment 45: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that the abundance estimate for 
Risso's dolphins dates to 2011; and, as noted in a previous comment, 
according to NMFS' own guidelines, information on stock abundance 
should be more recent than 8 years. They recommend that NMFS update an 
abundance estimate as soon as possible so that it does not age out 
under GAMMS guidelines.
    Response: We will provide a new abundance estimate for this stock 
in the 2019 SAR.
Long-Finned Pilot Whales
    Comment 46: CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that the current mortality 
estimate for long-finned pilot whales is perilously close to the PBR. 
While they agree that the stock is considered ``non-strategic'' based 
on the most recent estimate of bycatch being below PBR, they recommend 
this may be temporary and bears watching. Because bycatch is so close 
to PBR and has fluctuated annually (often exceeding PBR), CBD-HSUS-WDC 
recommend that NMFS undertake an annual review of this stock's SAR 
rather than every 3 years as indicated under GAMMS for non-strategic 
stocks.
    Response: We recognize CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern about long-finned 
pilot whales and are aware of the fluctuations of bycatch around PBR 
for this stock. Because of this situation, we have updated the WNA 
long-finned pilot whale report in 18 of the 20 existing SARs and will 
continue to closely monitor the bycatch of pilot whales.
Short-Finned Pilot Whales
    Comment 47: CBD-HSUS-WDC stress the need to re-assess structure for 
short-finned pilot whales in both the Atlantic and in the Gulf of 
Mexico. They note at the Atlantic SRG's meeting in 2018, the SRG 
recommended that NMFS ``. . . consider new data, including satellite-
linked telemetry and photo identification, together with molecular 
evidence of stock structure, in a new analysis. In addition, the SRG 
recommends that both Centers prioritize the collection of new 
information that could contribute to the question of stock structure of 
this species, by deploying satellite linked transmitters, and 
collecting photo-identification images and biopsy samples for genetic 
analyses during upcoming Gulf of Mexico Marine Assessment Program for 
Protected Species (GoMMAPPS) and AMAPPS III cruises.'' CBD-HSUS-WDC 
understand that limits on resources result in limits on updating stock 
information but assert up-to-date information is key to the proper 
management of fishery interactions with short-finned pilot whales to 
assure that fishery-related bycatch is not exceeding the PBR of a 
properly-defined stock. They recommend NMFS prioritize collection of 
information to assure the stock is properly defined and assessed.
    Response: In planning discussions with BOEM and the U.S. Navy 
regarding GoMMAPPS and AMAPPS, we raised the need for additional data 
collection to evaluate short-finned and long-finned pilot whale stock 
structure and movement patterns. However, this was not identified as a 
priority for these programs. The GoMMAPPS project field work is 
complete as of the Fall of 2018, and the potential for AMAPPS III is 
currently under discussion. We will continue to identify pilot whale 
stock structure as an important information need in these discussions. 
In addition,

[[Page 28499]]

the Southeast Fisheries Science Center is currently working to revisit 
short-finned pilot whale stock structure using previously collected 
samples and next generation genetic sequencing techniques.
    Comment 48: CBD-HSUS-WDC note with concern that NMFS states in the 
short-finned pilot whale SAR that ``The total annual human-caused 
mortality and serious injury for this stock during 2012-2016 is 
unknown'' although it also states that there were 168 takes attributed 
to the longline fishery. They strongly encourage NMFS to improve its 
ability to ``predict the species of origin (long-finned or short-finned 
pilot whale) for each bycaught whale'' which it indicates in the SAR is 
hampering its ability to determine total anthropogenic mortality for 
both species.
    Response: The total annual human-caused mortality and serious 
injury for this stock is unknown primarily because there was a self-
reported take in the unobserved hook and line fishery in 2013, 
rendering the estimate of fishery-caused mortality an underestimate. 
While there remains some uncertainty in the assignment of some bycatch 
interactions to species, this is not a factor in describing total 
human-caused mortality and serious injury as ``unknown.''
White Sided Dolphin
    Comment 49: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that given the similarities of 
fisheries in Canada to those in the northeast United States, it is 
troubling each year to read that there are no recent data regarding 
Canadian bycatch of white sided dolphin in its fisheries, though 
stranded animals are reported to evidence entanglements. They suggest 
it is important to work with the Canadian government to encourage 
better tracking of lethal bycatch.
    Response: We agree with CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern and continue to 
engage with the Canadian government to receive data on the bycatch of 
white sided dolphin in Canadian fisheries.
Short Beaked Common Dolphin
    Comment 50: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out the short beaked common dolphin 
abundance estimate is aging and needs to be updated, particularly as 
NMFS has used only the U.S. portion of this stock's range, ``and a 
small portion in Canadian waters.'' Given the range of this species 
well into Canada, and a key uncertainty in population estimates is the 
number of animals in Canadian waters, they suggest the United States 
should be working more closely with the Canadian government to 
facilitate cross-border collaboration in understanding trans-boundary 
movements and both abundance and risks on both sides of the border for 
this stock. They note during the 2018 meeting of the Atlantic SRG, 
there was discussion of notable bycatch of this species in the monkfish 
fishery in Canada and that does not appear to have been captured in the 
SAR which only provides a ``pers. comm'' reporting a Canadian take in 
2012.
    Response: We will include a new abundance estimate for this stock 
in the 2019 SAR, which will include any available Canadian data. 
Unfortunately, the Canadian fishery bycatch data are currently not 
available to us, and we are only receiving unpublished reports.
Rough-Toothed Dolphin
    Comment 51: CBD-HSUS-WDC appreciate the substantial updates to the 
rough-toothed dolphin SAR. They note that the minimum population 
estimate of 67 (and a PBR of less than 1) was statistically derived 
from a single sighting during a survey that NMFS indicates covered only 
a portion of the stock's range, making this estimate highly uncertain. 
Though fishery-related mortality of rough-toothed dolphins during the 
time period of this SAR was said to be zero, NMFS acknowledges that 
longline fisheries that are similar to west coast fisheries (e.g., in 
Hawaii) are known to interact with the species, as have various purse 
seine fisheries. CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that observer coverage on 
some of these similar east coast fisheries may be insufficient to 
capture mortality of animals of this species whose abundance remains 
poorly understood.
    Response: Rough-toothed dolphins are very rarely seen during NMFS 
surveys in the Atlantic, creating a challenge for estimating abundance 
with confidence. The SAR is transparent about the estimate being highly 
uncertain. We acknowledge that observer coverage in the longline 
fishery is likely insufficient to reliably quantify interactions with 
rarely encountered species.
Harbor Porpoise
    Comment 52: CBD-HSUS-WDC note the most recent estimate of abundance 
for harbor porpoise was derived from a 2011 partial range survey. NMFS 
acknowledges that not all the range was covered at the appropriate time 
of year nor did the extant estimate account for availability bias as 
animals along the trackline may be submerged. Though this results in a 
negative bias and bycatch is well below PBR, they urge NMFS to update 
abundance range-wide since the low bycatch rate appears to be a result 
of depressed gillnet effort due to quota restriction on groundfish and 
could rise if catch quotas are raised.
    Response: We will include a new abundance estimate for this stock 
in the 2019 SAR. The new estimates will be based on both U.S. and 
Canadian surveys and will constitute a more complete coverage of harbor 
porpoise range in the Western North Atlantic. The new abundance 
estimates will account for availability bias for all species, including 
harbor porpoises.
Gray and Harbor Seals
    Comment 53: The Commission comments that the 2018 draft SARs 
continue to lack reliable, up-to-date information on abundance, 
distribution, and movements between Canadian and U.S. waters for the 
western North Atlantic stocks of gray and harbor seals. They stress the 
need for such information is becoming more pressing, especially for 
gray seals as their numbers and reports of conflicts with fisheries 
increase. The Commission remains concerned that the outdated or 
incomplete abundance and bycatch estimates currently available hamper 
NMFS' ability to competently manage those stocks. Therefore, they 
recommend NMFS secure the necessary resources and strengthen existing 
collaborations to (1) plan and execute comprehensive aerial surveys, 
including collecting data necessary to estimate appropriate haul-out 
correction factors for both stocks, and (2) increase efforts to 
understand and reduce bycatch for gray seals in particular. Studies on 
seal diet, movement patterns and fisheries interactions will contribute 
additional information vital to successful management of these stocks.
    Response: We agree with the Commission and note that we have been 
attempting to fill the information gaps as best as possible with the 
resources we have available. The 2018 SARs report a minimum estimate of 
gray seal abundance during the breeding season in U.S. waters, based on 
an extrapolation from pup counts obtained from aerial surveys. The 
multiplier used to extrapolate pup counts to total population size 
(4.3) is based on age-structured population models developed with known 
life history information from the same stock in Canadian waters. While 
use of the multiplier assumes these same life history parameters 
pertain to the U.S. portion of the stock, the 4.3 value does fall 
within the range of other adult to pup ratios suggested for pinniped 
populations, and uncertainties are noted in the SAR chapter.

[[Page 28500]]

    We recognize that this approach does not take into account changes 
in abundance throughout the year as animals move between the United 
States and Canada. We have submitted several proposals to partners to 
tag gray seals but to date none have been accepted. Given limited 
resources and competing priorities, it has been difficult to secure 
these kinds of resources internally. Due to the high cost of studying 
seal movements via satellite tags, we have also explored studying 
movements via acoustic tags. We began a pilot study in 2017 under our 
previous research permit, but then were denied use of continuing the 
research when our permit was renewed, due to MMC concern about the 
impact of acoustic tags on the animals.
    Despite the difficulty we are having in securing the necessary 
resources to fully investigate the abundance, distribution, and 
movements between Canadian and U.S. waters for the western North 
Atlantic stocks of gray and harbor seals, we are making some progress. 
In May 2018, we conducted an aerial survey of harbor seals which will 
be used to update the previous estimate reported in the SARs. We also 
conducted aerial surveys after the 2018 UME. We collaborated with a 
non-profit organization to study the movements of gray seal pups and 
successfully deployed 11 satellite tags in 2019. We also surveyed the 
gray seal pupping colonies in 2019. The results from this and other 
recent seal research will be incorporated into the SAR once the data 
have been reviewed and published.
    With respect to bycatch reduction, we collaborated with our 
research partners to study pinniped depredation in the gillnet fishery 
in 2018 and have recently begun communications with another group to 
develop a proposal to study the effectiveness of pingers in reducing 
bycatch. We are investigating diet via hard parts in the stomachs of 
bycaught animals, and via fatty acids in blubber.
    In summary, we believe the Commision's comment encapsulates the 
goals of our seal ecology and assessment group. We continue to try and 
secure resources to achieve these goals but get pushback in the face of 
competing conservation needs. Despite this, we continue to make small 
headway in studying the abundance, distribution, movements, diet, and 
bycatch of gray and harbor seals.
Harbor Seals
    Comment 54: CBD-HSUS-WDC strongly urge NMFS to update pinniped SARs 
to better reflect current knowledge of the range of the species. In the 
harbor seal SAR, the section on Stock Definition and Range They 
recommend the ``historic'' data (often 20 or more years old) should be 
abbreviated and replaced with more recent information on regular 
habitat use well outside of the area outlined in the section on 
distribution, and the legend that explains the map shading, that the 
areas from New Jersey south represent only ``stranding records'' is 
outdated and incorrect. CBD-HSUS-WDC also note that internet posts by 
NOAA show the agency is tracking harbor seals regularly ranging well 
into the mid-Atlantic. The New Jersey Wildlife Foundation documents a 
major haul out in Great Bay, NJ, with over 120 harbor seals typically 
hauled out in the winter. The Virginian-Pilot reports dozens hauled out 
at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay each winter. Seals, including harbor 
seals, regularly strand in New Jersey and other parts of the mid-
Atlantic, often as very small pups, indicating the possibility of 
pupping well south of New England. Thus, this SAR should be revised to 
more accurately reflect current distribution.
    Response: We have updated the range map in the final 2018 harbor 
seal SAR to change the ``stranding records only'' portion to indicate 
``seasonal designation.'' The period covered by the 2018 SARs is 2012-
2016 so we will include the tagging work performed in 2018 in the 
appropriate future reports. We will update the text and references in 
the next SAR to reflect the seasonal presence of harbor seals in the 
mid-Atlantic.
    Comment 55: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend both the harbor seal and gray 
seal SARs be updated to include information about a long-closed UME for 
these stocks that ended in 2013, and an ongoing UME affecting these 
stocks which began prior to July 2018. This current UME has cost the 
lives of over 1,300 harbor and gray seals in the northeastern United 
States.
    Response: We believe this comment pertains to the 2011 UME (see 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events), and we have referenced this UME 
in the harbor seal and gray seal chapters. The period covered by the 
2018 SARs is 2012-2016 so we will include the 2018 UME in the 
appropriate future reports.
Gray Seal
    Comment 56: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend NMFS update the text and range 
map for gray seals and point out the map shows movement south of New 
Jersey as ``stranding records only,'' but there are popular press 
reports and photographs of animals hauled out near Chesapeake Bay 
during the winter. They also note that, though cited in the harbor seal 
SAR, the gray seal SAR lacks a citation to published work by Johnston 
et al., 2015, which contains useful information regarding strandings 
and bycatch of this species.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment and have reviewed the gray 
seal range map. At this time we have not made any changes, as we do not 
have new peer-reviewed literature to include in the text which would 
support the extension of the range map. However, we will be discussing 
improvements to the SAR range maps in general at the SRG meetings and 
will revisit this issue at the time. As to Johnston et al. 2015, we do 
not feel that the paper adds new information that is not already stated 
or reported in the SARs; and, while much of the discussion points in 
that paper are interesting, they are speculations to explain patterns 
in the data.
Hooded Seal
    Comment 57: CBD-HSUS-WDC point out that the hooded seal SAR lacks a 
range map. While they acknowledge that much of the distribution and 
greatest habitat use is outside of the United States, they suggest 
there is increasing documentation of hooded seals' perhaps extra-
limital use of U.S. waters in the winter that may be helpful to include 
in a range map.
    Response: A range map has not been included in this chapter due to 
the extra-limital presence of hooded seals in U.S. waters. However, we 
can revisit the possibility of adding in reported bycatch or sightings 
information when we discuss general improvements to the range maps at 
the upcoming SRG meetings.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin
    Comment 58: The Commission comments the 2018 draft SARs for Bay, 
Sound, and Estuary bottlenose dolphin stocks include two new reports 
for the Terrebonne-Timbalier and West Bay stocks. Although the 
Commission is encouraged to see NMFS incorporating new data, it also is 
concerned about the references made to publications ``in prep.'' or 
``in review'' to support some of the key information in the new SARs. 
The Commission supports the use of the best available science and does 
not wish to delay publication of new or updated SARs unnecessarily, but 
the information on which a draft SAR is based needs to be available to 
the public to enable informed review. Labelling a report as ``in 
review'' suggests that the underlying analysis has been completed and 
submitted for publication, while ``in prep.'' suggests that the 
analyses are still

[[Page 28501]]

ongoing and could be changed prior to publication. As such, reliance on 
such information might be premature and generally should not be 
considered the best available science. Therefore, the Commission 
recommends that, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise, 
NMFS refrain from publishing draft SARs for public comment that rely on 
reports or analyses that are still ``in prep.'' The Commission further 
recommends that NMFS carefully consider whether it should base draft 
revisions to the SARs being considered for public comment on analyses 
that are still ``in review.'' At a minimum, NMFS should make every 
attempt to make the underlying reports/publications available to the 
public during the comment period.
    Response: We agree with the Commission that further standardization 
is needed with respect to finding a balance between providing new 
information for SARs and publication requirements. We strive to cite 
only peer reviewed literature in SARs, to the extent possible; 
occasionally we will include papers that are ``in review'' or ``in 
press'' in draft SARs with the expectation that the manuscripts will be 
published by the time the SAR is final. To that point, we have updated 
the Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System SAR with the final 
citation, and we have retracted the West Bay SAR in its entirety 
because one key document remains in peer-review and is not yet 
published.
    Comment 59: CBD-HSUS-WDC note that NMFS provided redlining to 
illustrate changes made to most of the revised SARs, but the three 
stocks of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Gulf of 
Mexico (i.e., Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stock, the West 
Bay stock and the Norther Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary stocks) 
lacked redlining to note changes from prior versions. They request for 
future iterations of all stocks, NMFS use redlining for all draft 
revised SARs as a courtesy for reviewers.
    Response: We provide track changes for all revised draft SARs to 
make it easier for reviewers. The Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine 
System SAR and the West Bay SAR were newly drafted with no prior 
versions. For the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and Estuary Stocks 
SAR, we did submit the revised SAR with changes tracked (i.e., red-line 
version), and the version appears with changes tracked within the pdf 
draft that was posted online (U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Draft 
Marine Mammal Stock Assessment (PDF, 257 pages)) at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.
    Comment 60: CBD-HSUS-WDC express disappointment that NMFS did not 
include any text in the bottlenose dolphin stock assessments for a 
number of stocks currently affected by the ongoing UME declared by the 
agency. The elevated death toll, which began in 2017, has resulted in 
the mortality of over 100 dolphins in southwest Florida as a result of 
a red tide bloom (brevetoxin). Several resident stocks could have been 
affected, given the size of the area involved in the event since 
documented mortalities began and the affected has changed and/or grown. 
Since the information was public during the period of time in which 
SARs were being revised, the SARs for these stocks should have been 
revised on the basis of the availability of new information documenting 
adverse impacts on the stocks. CBD-HSUS-WDC also recommend the report 
be revised to include that the origins of the red tide are primarily 
human-related.
    Response: Elevated dolphin mortalities did not begin until July 
2018, which is outside the scope of the 2018 reports. We will include 
future updates on the UME event in the appropriate bottlenose dolphin 
SARs.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin: Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System 
Stock
    Comment 61: CBD-HSUS-WDC note in the common bottlenose dolphin 
Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stock SAR that a cited 
reference ``capture-recapture photo-ID surveys conducted during June 
2016 (Litz and Garrison in prep)'' is still not available and listed as 
``in prep'' over two years later. They stress these data should have 
been analyzed with at least a NOAA Tech Memo, since this stock is one 
of those affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and tracking its 
abundance and vital rates should be a priority, as would providing the 
public with that information.
    Response: The Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System Stock SAR 
was drafted specifically because this stock is a priority, and NMFS 
does not want to delay making the most up-to-date information available 
to the public. The publication describing the survey and abundance 
estimate is now published, and we have updated the final 2018 SAR with 
the citation.
    Comment 62: CBD-HSUS-WDC are concerned that the common bottlenose 
dolphin Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System Stock stock may be 
interacting with the shrimp fishery at notable levels and recommends 
NMFS treat this stock as a ``strategic stock'' due to the high 
likelihood that their PBR is being exceeded. They further stress that 
NMFS must work expeditiously to stratify data in a way that allows for 
an understanding of the magnitude of impact to this stock, and should 
be updating the SAR annually until data can clearly show that it is not 
strategic.
    Response: We acknowledge CBD-HSUS-WDC's concern and note this topic 
was discussed at length at the 2018 Atlantic SRG meeting. We requested 
the Atlantic SRG's advice on how to handle possible mortality from the 
shrimp trawl fishery given the limitations of available observer 
program data and the resulting text follows from the recommendation of 
the Atlantic SRG. Therefore, we revised the SAR based on the Atlantic 
SRG's recommendation. We believe it is unlikely all of the extrapolated 
bycatch from the state of Louisiana would occur within the boundaries 
of Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay. We are working to improve the analyses so 
that an extrapolated estimate specific to each bay/sound/estuary will 
be available in the future.
    Regarding stock status, this stock does not meet the statutory 
definition of strategic (i.e., ESA-listed, declining and likely to be 
listed as threatened in the forseeable future, or serious injury/
mortality exceeds PBR). Thus, the stock is determined to be ``not 
strategic.'' However, we have indicated concern for the stock in the 
SAR.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin: West Bay Stock
    Comment 63: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment the common bottlenose dolphin West 
Bay stock is another small stock (less than 50 members) in the Gulf of 
Mexico, occupying a small defined area within the Galveston Bay estuary 
and with a PBR of less than 1.0. Fishery-related mortality is stated to 
average 0.2 per year, or 20 percent of the PBR. However, NMFS 
acknowledges that all potentially interacting net and trawl fisheries 
are not observed by the federal observer program and stranding data 
indicating fishery-related interactions were not considered since, 
among other reasons, they cannot be attributed to a specific fishery. 
This stock is also within the operating range of the shrimp trawl 
fishery. Because the observer program does not extend into the Bay, 
Sound and Estuarine waters, and the inappropriate spatial resolution of 
data relative to this stock's distribution, NMFS could not provide an 
estimate of interactions and therefore legitimately provide a ``zero'' 
estimate. They believe

[[Page 28502]]

that this small stock, with risk-prone fisheries operating in its 
range, should be considered strategic--with annual updates of its stock 
assessment--until such time as data show that it is not in fact 
sustaining mortality in excess of its PBR.
    Response: The West Bay SAR has been retracted from the 2018 SARs 
because one document remains in peer-review (see response to Comment 
58). We agree the West Bay Stock is a small stock, and this issue was 
discussed at the 2018 Atlantic SRG meeting. We must follow the 
statutory criteria for determining strategic status, and this stock 
does not meet the criteria to be designated as strategic. A lack of 
information on human-caused mortality is an insufficient basis for 
designation as strategic.
Common Bottlenose Dolphin: Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and 
Estuary Stocks
    Comment 64: CBD-HSUS-WDC reiterate their comment from previous 
years that NMFS must make a better effort to provide individual SARs 
for the common bottlenose dolphin Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound 
and Estuary individual stocks. While they applaud progress made over 
the past few years, they stress more needs to be done to provide 
updated population and mortality estimates as well as assuring that the 
range of each stock is properly defined.
    CBD-HSUS-WDC note that the St. Joseph Bay stock remains lumped with 
others in this region (identified as stock B-11). Moreover, there is a 
confusing/cryptic footnote for this stock in Table 1 in the SAR to 
``[p]lease see the individual stock assessment report for this stock.'' 
Yet we see none for this stock on the NMFS site listing all marine 
mammal SARs that were not necessarily updated. They comment the 
reference should be corrected; or, if there is an individual SAR for 
this stock, it should be listed on the NMFS website at which the final 
SARs can be accessed.
    Response: There is an independent SAR for the St. Joseph Bay Stock, 
which was first included in the 2011 SARs. The report is available on 
our website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock.
    Comment 65: CBD-HSUS-WDC comments that the overarching common 
bottlenose dolphin SAR for Bay, Sound and Estuarine stock was updated 
to provide estimates of ``years to recover'' (absent additional non-
natural mortality) from the Deepwater Horizon event. For the 
Mississippi River Delta stock it was listed as 52 years and for the 
Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay stock as 31 years. However, according to Dr. 
Randy Wells (pers. comm.), there may also be additional estimates of 
``years to recovery'' estimates for other stocks affected by the 
Deepwater Horizon spill, including the hard-hit Barataria Bay stock. If 
so, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend these estimates for all stocks should be 
provided in the SAR.
    Response: The information on the ``years to recover'' from the 
Deepwater Horizon event was included in the overarching Bay, Sound, and 
Estuary SAR for the Mississippi River Delta and Mobile Bay/Bonsecour 
Bay stocks because they currently do not have their own independent 
SARs. However, the Barataria Bay Estuarine System Stock has its own 
independent SAR, and extensive information regarding impacts of the DWH 
spill are included therein.

Comments on Pacific Issues

Large Whales
    Comment 66: The Commission recognizes NMFS' responsiveness in 
addressing the recommendations it made on the 2017 draft SARs. In 
particular the Commission acknowledges the inclusion of 2018 draft SARs 
for blue and humpback whales, including up-to-date estimates of M/SI 
and commends the SAR author(s) for making those revisions in such a 
timely manner.
    Response: We appreciate the Commission's comment. The revision 
schedule for SARs is sometimes delayed by unforeseen circumstances, and 
we strive to keep the SARs up-to-date with the most relevant 
information.
    Comment 67: The Makah Tribe comments the draft 2018 SARs for large 
whales introduce a concept to NMFS' stock assessment process in which 
entanglements of unidentified large whales are assigned to a specific 
species utilizing a modeling exercise. As the SARs note, each year 
approximately 15 percent of large whale entanglement reports cannot be 
assigned to a species due to limitations such as the observer's 
knowledge of whale identification, sighting distance, weather 
conditions, and other factors. Carretta (2018) describes a machine 
learning approach that assigns entangled whales of unknown species to a 
species based on the location, timing, and other factors. However, NMFS 
appears to be taking the information from the entanglement reports at 
face value, without verifying that an entanglement was actually 
observed or that there are not multiple reports for the same entangled 
whale.
    While NMFS should be applauded for developing a technique for 
classifying unknown species of entangled whales that assists in 
quantifying serious injuries and mortalities, the Makah Tribe is 
concerned that accepting every entanglement report of an unknown whale 
without scrutiny risks introducing bias into the use of this new tool. 
They recommend that NMFS be careful in deciding when to include reports 
of unknown whales in the injury and mortality report and when to apply 
the model. Specifically, NMFS should apply a stricter quality control 
methodology for reports where the species is unknown to ensure that 
they represent unique events and are not duplicative of other 
documented cases of serious injury and mortality.
    Response: We review all entanglement records for reliability, 
taking into consideration factors as observers' distance from the 
whale, the experience of the reporting party, and the narrative 
associated with the entanglement report. Some entanglement reports are 
not necessarily verified if the evidence is equivocal. For example, 
there have been reports of whales described as possibly entangled or 
playing in nearshore kelp. Gray whales in particular will occur 
nearshore in kelp beds and a record involving that species with such an 
equivocal narrative may not be counted as an entanglement. We note that 
the species proration as applied to unidentified whale entanglements is 
conservative. This is because unidentified whale entanglement reports 
are opportunistic in nature and there is a large degree of negative-
bias (underreporting) in accounting for all entanglement cases. 
Additionally, there are many cases of multiple documented whales being 
entangled in fairly close proximity, so the fact that an unidentified 
entanglement and known-species entanglement co-occur in the same time 
period and region does not alone support the notion that they are 
probably the same animal. Further, we evaluate available information 
including descriptions and photographs (if available) in an effort to 
identify re-sighted animals. While it is true that an occasional 
unidentified whale entanglement may match an identified entanglement 
case, this is likely only a small minority of cases. Many entanglement 
cases are followed up with vessels actively searching on the water to 
relocate whales to attempt gear removal operations. Many of these 
whales are never relocated, which highlights the low probability of

[[Page 28503]]

observing an entangled whale in the first place.
Humpback, Blue and Fin Whales
    Comment 68: Point Blue Conservation Science (PBCS) appreciates the 
inclusion and discussion of the humpback, blue, and fin whale ship 
strike results from their 2017 paper. They note this is an important 
step towards realistic treatment of ship strikes and their potential 
impact on west coast whale populations as compared to relying solely on 
confirmed strandings. PBCS also applauds the inclusion of methods and 
results that estimate the proportions of unidentified whale 
entanglements that likely belong to the various whale species. While 
both of these sources of information involve modeling with inherent 
uncertainties, the resulting mortality estimates are certainly more 
accurate than minimums derived from confirmed strike and entanglement 
events. Clearly, these better estimates will result in more appropriate 
management decisions for these species.
    Response: We acknowledge the comment and are working to make the 
data in the SARs more representative of the anthropogenic risks to 
populations.
    Comment 69: PBCS notes in all three SARs (humpback, blue and fin 
whale), the text states that ``strike mortality was recently estimated 
. . . in the California Current,'' and clarify their models covered the 
west coast's U.S. EEZ. This is an important distinction because all 
three species spend significant time outside this region, meaning that 
any strike deaths that occur outside the EEZ are not included in our 
estimates. PBCS points out this is particularly important when 
considering the implications for blue whales in the context of the 
Monnahan et al. 2015 conclusion that the Eastern North Pacific blue 
whale population is near carrying capacity and likely experiences 
little population-level effects from ship strikes.
    Response: We appreciate this clarification and inadvertently 
equated the California Current with the U.S. EEZ in the humpback, blue, 
and fin whale SAR text. We have updated the text in the relevant SARs 
that the estimated vessel strikes do not include undetected events 
outside of the U.S. EEZ, where these stocks spend a considerable 
portion of the year.
    Comment 70: PBCS notes Monnahan et al. 2015 is important research 
in which the authors conclude that Eastern North Pacific blue whales 
are nearing carrying capacity. In the blue whale SAR, Monnahan et al. 
2015 plays a key role in explaining the observed population trend of 
blue whales. However, PBCS notes the analysis was based on: (1) A lower 
number of strikes than likely occurs, and (2) a faulty historical 
distribution of strike mortality. First, since the authors are modeling 
the entire population, it is important that their ship strike estimates 
represent total strike numbers, not just those that occur in U.S. 
waters. PBCS' estimates for July-November in U.S. waters only were 18-
40 deaths. To approximate total population mortality, these would need 
to be extrapolated to include mortality in December-June and in areas 
outside the EEZ. The SAR states that Eastern North Pacific blue whales 
spend ``approximately three quarters of their time outside the U.S. 
EEZ,'' suggesting population-level ship strikes could be much higher 
than our EEZ estimates.
    Response: We appreciate the attention to this point (see response 
to Comment 69) and have included text in the final SAR that better 
considers the risk, given the available data and estimates.
    Comment 71: PBCS notes that Monnahan et al. 2015 assume that blue 
whale ship strike deaths are directly proportional to historical global 
vessel counts. However, they point out that: (1) U.S. west coast vessel 
numbers were not linearly related to the global fleet size through 
time, (2) vessel numbers are not directly proportional to distances 
traveled, (3) vessel sizes have changed significantly over their 
analysis period, and (4) vessel speeds, increased through time. These 
factors mean that strike mortality was likely distributed more recently 
in time than predicted by the Monnahan et al. 2015 ship model. 
Population-level mortality significantly higher than 35 deaths/yr (used 
as a high limit by Monnahan et al. 2015) and distributed differently in 
time may or may not change the results of their population model. PBCS 
suggests that given the significance of the analysis to Eastern North 
Pacific blue whale management, an improved and updated assessment would 
be very valuable.
    Response: In response to this comment we have included text in the 
final SAR that better considers the risk, given the available data and 
estimates.
    Comment 72: PBCS suggests that in the blue whale report, there 
should be clearer distinction between where discussion of EEZ mortality 
is relevant versus population mortality. They think that the comparison 
made between their higher 40 deaths/6-month estimate and the Monnahan 
et al. 2015 use of 35 deaths/year suggests a false equivalency and 
should either be clarified or removed. In addition, they note there is 
some evidence that blue whales may actually have behavioral responses 
to ships that elevate their collision risk (i.e., the equivalent to 
negative avoidance). PBCS thinks the description of our 40 death/6-
month estimate as a ``worst-case estimate'' is inaccurate.
    Response: We acknowledge the comment and have revised the text in 
the final SAR as suggested.
Humpback Whale--California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA)
    Comment 73: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the increase in PBR level for 
the putative CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock is difficult to understand 
given that the California-Oregon feeding group as defined in this SAR 
includes nearly all of the Central American distinct population 
segment, which was estimated to include 411 whales. The MMPA defines 
the term ``population stock'' or ``stock'' as a ``group of marine 
mammals of the same species . . . that interbreed when mature.'' 
Because the Central American DPS does not interbreed, they assert it 
should be considered a separate stock. The PBR level should be 
calculated using a minimum abundance estimate for the Central American 
DPS, not a coast-wide abundance estimate, and a recovery factor for an 
endangered species with less than 500 animals.
    Response: As noted in our response to Comment 4, we are currently 
in the process of reviewing stock structure under the MMPA for all 
humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing for 
the species in 2016, to determine whether we can align the stocks with 
the DPSs under the ESA. Thus, we have not yet designated new stocks of 
humpback whales along the U.S. west coast, despite new information on 
DPSs that the commenter notes. Once we have completed our review, any 
changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as PBR) 
will be reflected in future stock assessment reports. The noted 
increase in the PBR for the CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock resulted from 
a higher estimate of abundance compared with a previous version of the 
SAR and the continued aggregation of multiple DPSs into one recognized 
stock.
    Comment 74: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest NMFS provided insignificant 
justification in the CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR in switching from 
using the Darroch model, which was used to estimate abundance in prior 
stock assessment reports, to the Chao model. In the report, NMFS states 
that the Chao ``estimate is considered the best of those reported by 
Calambokidis et al. (2017a) because it accounts for individual capture 
heterogeneity,'' but

[[Page 28504]]

that does not explain why NMFS chose it this year and not others when 
it has been available over the same time period of the Darroch model. 
The Chao model accounted for individual capture heterogeneity in prior 
years too, when NMFS instead chose the Darroch model as the best 
estimate of abundance. Figure 2 in the SARs indicates that data used in 
both the Darroch and Chao models are from approximately the same time 
period. CBD-HSUS-WDC request NMFS explain why it was not until this 
year that it used the model that gives higher abundance estimates, per 
Calambokidis et al. (2017a). This is especially important in order to 
justify the increase by half in the minimum population estimate (a 
change from 1,876 animals to 2,784 animals).
    Response: The Chao estimate from Calambokidis et al. (2017a) as 
stated, accounts for capture heterogeneity and results in an estimate 
of approximately 2,400 whales with a CV of 0.03. This is the most 
precise Chao estimate reported from Calambokidis et al. (2017a) and it 
has a CV closest to the most recent Darroch estimate (Table 3 of 
Calambokidis et al. 2017a). While the Darroch estimates generally have 
better precision, they do not account for capture heterogeneity, and 
this was considered in the most recent SAR. Given the nearly-equal CVs 
for the latest Chao and Darroch estimates (0.03 versus 0.01 
respectively), the model with the best ability to account for capture 
heterogeneity was chosen for the 2018 revision. In the previous SAR, 
the model with the lowest CV was chosen, while capture heterogeneity 
was largely ignored. In retrospect, we acknowledge more consideration 
of the strength of the competing models, especially regarding capture 
heterogeneity, was warranted. When sufficient data are available from 
mark-recapture estimates, it is advisable to use models that account 
for capture heterogeneity and we reevaluated this in the 2018 SAR. We 
also note that estimates from the Chao model are more similar to 
independently-derived line transect estimates of approximately 3,000 
humpback whales reported by Barlow (2016). The commenter may also note 
that a Chao model mark-recapture abundance estimate has been used in 
the SAR for the Eastern North Pacific blue whale since 2013. The use of 
Chao estimates for both humpback and blue whale stocks is now more 
logically-consistent.
    Comment 75: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that the CA/OR/WA humpback whale 
report should at a minimum discuss what the PBR level might be if the 
stock were appropriately defined to be consistent with the DPS 
identified. As an example from elsewhere in the SARs, in the case of 
the Central North Pacific stock, the stock assessment report says 
``Just for information purposes, PBR calculations are completed here 
for the feeding aggregations.'' It then continues by saying ``If we 
calculated a PBR for the Southeast Alaska/northern British Columbia 
feeding aggregation, it would be . . .'' CBD-HSUS-WDC note these 
hypotheticals are important for stakeholders, including managers, to 
understand the status and population abundances of humpbacks when 
appropriate DPSs are used. NMFS has declined to consider public comment 
on potential management actions that contain calculations of PBR that 
are not in the stock assessment reports. They maintain this makes it 
pressing for the stock assessment reports to give as much information 
as possible prior to a future stock revision.
    Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.
    Comment 76: CBD-HSUS-WDC request that NMFS clarify and correct the 
calculations of humpback whale serious injury and mortality in the 
sablefish fishery. They suggest the stock assessment report should 
apportion some humpback whale serious injuries and mortality in 
unidentified gear to the sablefish fishery, as required by the 
biological opinion for the fishery. Specifically, the biological 
opinion requires that ``a portion of unidentified whale and gear 
entanglements would be counted against these take limits . . . in 
addition to known humpback whale entanglements in gear of the proposed 
fishery.'' It also says that data ``used to pro-rate unidentified whale 
and gear entanglements will be updated each year.'' CBD-HSUS-WDC urge 
NMFS to include these data and calculations in the stock assessment 
report.
    Response: There is currently no model available for assigning 
unidentified fishery interactions to specific fisheries. There are 
ongoing analyses in progress to see if this will be possible; but, thus 
far, the results have not been promising due to lack of sufficient 
sample sizes of known-gear cases used for model construction.
    Comment 77: CBD-HSUS-WDC points out that the stock assessment 
report's serious injury and mortality for humpback whales in the 
sablefish fishery are lower than the five-year average in the NMFS 
report ``Marine Mammal Mortality in U.S. West Coast Groundfish 
Fisheries (2002-2016).'' This report says that 4 humpback whales were 
entangled in sablefish fishery from 2012-2016, but the stock assessment 
report says that 2.5 were entangled. It is not clear why there is a 
discrepancy.
    Response: We note that the draft humpback whale SAR was prepared 
months before the release of the cited report, and we have updated the 
final SAR with the estimates in the cited report.
    Comment 78: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend the CA/OR/WA humpback whale 
report should address the determination that NMFS made as to whether or 
not to convene a take reduction team for fisheries that are known to 
entangle humpback whales along the west coast. The draft report 
proposes to insert a sentence that discusses stakeholder processes in 
California, Oregon, and Washington. This does not indicate whether NMFS 
has evaluated the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales since 2015, when it 
was a lower priority compared to other marine mammal stocks and 
fisheries for establishing take reduction teams. NMFS should identify 
in the report when it most recently evaluated whether CA/OR/WA humpback 
whales were the highest priority for a take reduction team. This would 
address the Pacific SRG's recommendation that NMFS convene a TRT. 
Relying on an evaluation in 2015 ignores both the listing of the DPSs 
and the impact of most of the recent entanglements.
    Response: SARs by definition include the best available science for 
assessing marine mammal stocks. Deciding whether to convene a TRT is a 
management determination that is outside the scope of a stock 
assessment and is therefore not included in a SAR.
    Comment 79: The Makah Tribe comments that CA/OR/WA humpback whale 
stock does not represent a stock of humpback whales under the 
definition of a stock under the MMPA; the listing of humpback whales 
together from CA/OR/WA is for management purposes and is best 
characterized as a mixed-stock assemblage. The SAR should provide PBR 
estimates for each stock (Mexico DPS, Central America DPS, and Hawaii 
DPS) that occur in the management area. The SAR could also report a 
separate PBR for the two feeding groups within the management area 
(Washington-Southern British Columbia and Oregon-California) in order 
to better inform management decisions and assess localized impacts. The 
Makah Tribe notes these changes would allow a more thorough evaluation 
of how human impacts affect humpback whale stocks. If photo-
identification allows separation of a whale to one or another stock, 
then that data should be used. If photo-identification is not 
available, then the

[[Page 28505]]

mortality or serious injury should be proportionally assigned to the 
stocks based on the occurrence of those stocks within the feeding area.
    Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.
    Comment 80: The Makah Tribe recommends the calculation for PBR 
needs to be changed for the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales. The PBR 
calculation used has 8 percent for Rmax. NMFS scientists published a 
paper in 2010 using life history tables to evaluate what the maximum 
rate of increase is for humpback whales. They concluded, ``It is 
proposed that the upper 99 percent quantile of the resulting 
distribution of the rate of increase (ROI) for Approach B (11.8 
percent/year) be established as the maximum plausible ROI for humpback 
whales and be used in population assessment of the species.'' (Zerbini 
et al. 2010). It is unclear why NMFS has chosen to use 8 percent, which 
is rate that population has increased at, rather than using the Rmax 
for the population as is required in the PBR calculation. The observed 
rate of increase of 8 percent may be less than the true Rmax of the 
population because the population size was greater than abundance at 
which Rmax occurs.
    Response: We agree with the comment that the observed ROI may be 
lower than the theoretical Rmax for this population. However, Zerbini 
et al. (2010) note that ``we emphasize that such a high figure can be 
observed only with extreme and very optimistic lifehistory 
parameters.'' The estimated Rmax reported by Zerbini et al. (2010) also 
includes life history data from other ocean basins where reported rates 
of increase were much higher, for example southern hemisphere 
populations that were recovering from intense whaling. The GAMMS (NMFS 
2016) also states that ``Default values should be used for Rmax in the 
absence of stock-specific measured values.'' There is a stock-specific 
estimate of Rmax based on mark-recapture abundance estimates from a 
recovering population of humpback whales in the California Current and 
that estimate is 8 percent as outlined in the SAR. While we acknowledge 
that this area likely includes multiple stocks of humpback whales, 8 
percent is currently the best estimate of humpback whale Rmax for this 
ocean region.
    Comment 81: The Makah Tribe recommends NMFS reconsider the 
assumption about what proportion of time the CA/OR/WA humpback whale 
stock spends in U.S. waters. NMFS has assumed that whales of the CA/OR/
WA stock only spend 50 percent of the year in U.S. waters without any 
justification. The Makah Tribe thinks the estimate should be increased 
for two reasons. First, many of the whales of the CA/OR/WA stock winter 
in Hawaii and thus only leave U.S. waters during the short period of 
the year when they are migrating between wintering and feeding grounds. 
Second, in Washington, humpback whales feed from late April through 
December, roughly 8 months. Some of the whales even appear to spend the 
entire winter in Washington rather than migrating to wintering grounds. 
They suggest the proportion of time spent in U.S. waters would be 
easiest to address using the assumption above of reporting separate 
PBRs for each of the stocks within the mixed-stock management area.
    Response: The comment incorrectly implies that many of the humpback 
whales that feed off of the U.S. west coast winter in Hawaii. The 2018 
SAR states: ``Along the U.S. west coast, NMFS currently recognizes one 
humpback whale stock that includes two separate feeding groups: (1) A 
California and Oregon feeding group of whales that belong to the 
Central American and Mexican distinct population segments (DPSs) 
defined under the ESA (NOAA 2016a), and (2) a northern Washington and 
southern British Columbia feeding group that primarily includes whales 
from the Mexican DPS but also includes a small number of whales from 
the Hawaii and Central American DPSs (Calambokidis et al. 2008, Barlow 
et al. 2011, Wade et al. 2016).'' NMFS agrees that further work is 
needed to refine estimates of time spent in U.S. waters by the various 
DPSs that utilize the California Current.
Humpback Whales--Mexican DPS and Central American DPS
    Comment 82: Oceana notes the best available information on 
entanglement, injury, and mortality of humpbacks off the U.S. west 
coast indicates that risks to the stock from entanglement in fishing 
gear have significantly increased and comment that recent information 
was not considered in the stock assessment report.
    Response: The CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR states in the Fishery 
Information section that ``Pot and trap fisheries fishery entanglements 
are the most commonly documented source of serious injury and mortality 
of humpback whales in U.S. west coast waters (Carretta et al. 2013, 
2015, 2016a, 2018a), and entanglement reports have increased 
considerably since 2014.''
    Comment 83: Oceana suggests that as humpback whales in the U.S. 
west coast stock, a strategic stock under the MMPA due to its ESA 
listing, were recently split into two DPSs, it is imperative that the 
SARs assign serious injuries and mortalities to each DPS, and establish 
PBR levels accordingly. Oceana is concerned that aggregating the much 
more critically endangered Central American DPS along with a much more 
numerous Mexico DPS into a single PBR may obscure and underestimate 
impacts to the Central American DPS.
    Response: See response to Comments 4 and 73.
    Comment 84: Oceana expresses concern that NMFS is not taking 
sufficient action for the CA/OR/WA humpback whale stock to reduce whale 
entanglement levels to below PBR and ultimately to levels approaching 
zero. While they understand NMFS' approach has been to rely on state 
working groups to develop programs like California's Risk Assessment 
and Mitigation Program, to date, NMFS has not indicated to the state of 
California or the Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear Working Group what 
actions and outcomes are necessary to permit the fishery to operate 
under the MMPA or ESA.
    Response: The States of California, Oregon, and Washington have 
indicated an intention to apply for an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) 
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for their fisheries that entangle 
protected species. We will be working closely with those states on the 
development of their applications and associated Conservation Plans for 
that permitting process. A successful application for an ESA ITP 
requires that the applicant minimize the impact of their incidental 
take to the maximum extent practicable (among other requirements) and 
NMFS must make both a ``not likely to jeopardize'' finding under the 
ESA and a ``negligible impact'' finding under the MMPA in order to 
issue such permits. As a result, we expect that the development process 
for both permits would include discussions of the actions and outcomes 
necessary to permit the incidental take from the actions under the ESA 
and MMPA.
    Comment 85: Oceana also notes that humpback whale entanglement data 
from NMFS indicates higher levels of entanglements in 2017 (31 
confirmed) and 2018 (27 confirmed) than in 2012 and 2013, and suggest 
the 5-year average level of M/SI would be higher if the SAR used the 
most recent 5-year period. In addition, the estimates of human-caused 
M/SI for all whales do not account for unreported entanglements, which 
could result in a serious underestimation of total M/SI and the 
associated determination whether M/SI is above or below PBR. NMFS has 
scientifically reliable means of

[[Page 28506]]

estimating potential total entanglement numbers. According to NMFS Tech 
Memo (Saez et al. 2013), the authors applied a 10 percent reporting 
rate for all whale species on the U.S. west coast to produce an 
estimate that ``an average of 103 whale entanglements per year may be 
occurring, with 93 unobserved and undocumented with their ultimate 
fates unknown.'' This is based on a study where ``The number of 
reported entangled whales was estimated to be only 10 percent of the 
actual number of whales entangled (Robbins and Mattila, 2004).'' 
However, in the SAR, the estimates of total fishing-induced M/SI only 
include reported entanglements for which M/SI was determined.
    Response: We note the SARs utilize the most recent 5-years of data 
that have been analyzed and vetted when preparing the draft reports. We 
will include newer data in the appropriate future reports. Values for 
entanglement reporting rates cited (Saez et al. 2013) are taken from 
U.S. east coast studies and are not representative of U.S. west coast 
data. There currently are no estimates of the total number of 
undetected entanglements in this region.
    Comment 86: Oceana comments the SAR estimates of whale entanglement 
are based on an incorrect assumption that zero M/SI events occur from 
entanglements that are not reported. They note NMFS acknowledges that 
the number of unreported entanglement events--and thus the number of M/
SI events--is well above zero and has estimated that the actual number 
of entanglements is ten times the observed number. Oceana stresses the 
importance of incorporating some estimate of unobserved M/SI numbers 
for understanding the true level of risk to each stock. They request 
that NMFS provide an estimate of the reporting rate for whale 
entanglements, particularly for humpback, blue, fin, and gray whales 
and use the estimate to provide a total annual fishing mortality for 
these whales to reflect the best available science.
    Response: See response to Comment 85.
    Comment 87: Oceana requests NMFS take appropriate actions to reduce 
whale entanglements and ship strikes, as each of these human-threats is 
individually exceeding PBR, and the cumulative mortality is over double 
PBR.
    Response: See response to Comment 84. We acknowledge the comment 
and note it is outside the scope of the SARs, but we are actively 
working on this topic with our partners, such as state agencies and 
marine shipping companies to reduce the ship strike risk in U.S. waters 
(see our web page at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-vessel-strikes on the subject).
Fin Whale--CA/OR/WA
    Comment 88: CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest the report for CA/OR/WA fin whales 
should be updated to reflect the 2015 interaction with the Hawaii 
shallow-set longline in the northeastern fishing area (namely, closer 
to the west coast EEZ) and specify whether this vessel was Hawaii or 
California-based.
    Response: There are no estimates of fin whale abundance on the high 
seas outside of the Hawaii or U.S. west coast EEZs; thus, PBR and 
human-caused mortality is assessed for those records that occur within 
the U.S. EEZ. The GAMMS (NMFS 2016) note that ``If estimates of 
mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. EEZ cannot be determined, 
PBR calculations should be based on abundance within the EEZ and 
compared to mortality within the EEZ.'' The 2015 entanglement was 
determined to be a non-serious injury (Bradford 2018) and because it 
occurred outside the U.S. EEZ, it is not included in the stock 
assessment report for the CA/OR/WA stock of fin whales. The stock of 
fin whales for which this entanglement should be assigned to is 
unknown; but, based on the location, we have updated the text in the 
final 2018 CA/OR/WA fin whale SAR to better inform the reader of 
potential fishery risks to this particular stock.
    Comment 89: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the Pacific SARs do not 
regularly include appendices with relevant and timely fisheries 
information. They note updated information on interactions in longline 
fisheries is important especially as the number of longline vessels has 
increased drastically since 2008 in California. Eighteen Hawaii-
permitted vessels landed swordfish and tuna in California in 2016. 
Stakeholders, including federal fisheries managers, need the stock 
assessment reports to accurately represent marine mammal interactions 
occurring in the Hawaii longline fisheries in order to assess the risk 
to marine mammals in the California Current. Further, it is not easy to 
find information on interactions with the California-based shallow-set 
longline fishery in the Pacific or Alaska SARs and suggest the 
interaction rates of the California-based shallow-set longline fishery 
should be included in the appendices, if not directly in the SARs.
    Response: We produce summaries of marine mammal interactions in the 
longline fisheries in the Pacific region (e.g., Bradford 2018). 
Updating the fishery description appendices sometimes takes a lower 
priority in the SAR preparation process due to the increasing workload 
involved in SAR preparation. We will strive to produce more timely 
updates to these fishery description sections in future SARs.
Risso's Dolphin--CA/OR/WA
    Comment 90: CBD-HSUS-WDC encourage NMFS to investigate Risso's 
dolphin interactions in the California market squid fishery via 
electronic monitoring (video). They reference a video of a purse seine 
encircling marine mammals in Monterey Bay was published on YouTube on 
April 25, 2018, and suggest this type of interaction, which may not 
occur with observers on board and may not be self-reported, could be 
captured via electronic monitoring. CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest NMFS 
acknowledge in the stock assessment reports that interactions in this 
fishery do currently occur.
    Response: This particular SAR was not revised in 2018, and we take 
note that interactions with this purse seine fishery should be updated 
the next time the SAR is revised. Past interactions with the squid 
purse seine fishery are detailed in the last revision of this SAR.
Killer Whale--Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident
    Comment 91: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that although some updates were 
included on basic information about killer whale populations in the 
Eastern North Pacific, additional changes should be made to update 
terminology, distribution, and stock differentiation information in the 
southern resident killer whale (SRKW) report. They note that the 
tracked changes made in the introduction to the Eastern North Pacific 
Offshore killer whale SAR align with their requested changes for the 
SRKW SAR introduction, particularly the clarification of different 
types of killer whales as ``ecotypes'' instead of ``pods'' and updated 
genetic differentiation. For more recent background information and 
consistency among SARs, CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that NMFS apply the same 
updates to the SRKW SAR. In addition, they suggest that NMFS update 
terminology referring to the three pods in the SRKW population from J1, 
K1, and L1 to J, K, and L, as the alphanumeric designations refer to 
individuals, not pods.
    Response: We acknowledge the comment and have made the suggested 
changes in the final 2018 SRKW report.

[[Page 28507]]

    Comment 92: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment while NMFS includes some updated 
information on the distribution of SRKWs outside the inland waters of 
Washington state and southern British Columbia (the Salish Sea), they 
disagree with the SAR's statement that the coastal habitat of SRKWs is 
still uncertain, when more recent recovery documents and status updates 
thoroughly describe how this population uses coastal habitat. They 
suggest NMFS use updated research from multiple tagging studies, 
passive acoustic recording, and monitoring from vessel cruises to 
update the the use of coastal habitat in the SRKW SAR. In addition, 
they comment that recent research published by Canada's Department of 
Fisheries and Oceans establishes SRKW presence off southern Vancouver 
Island, which resulted in expanded critical habitat in Canadian waters. 
They suggest this information should also be included in the SAR and 
used to update the information about coastal habitat use in Canada by 
the SRKWs.
    Response: The SAR states ``The complete winter range of this stock 
is uncertain.'' While there has been substantial new information 
acquired in recent years on the occurrence of this population in 
coastal waters, the complete winter range of the population is still 
unknown. The SAR describes what is known of the range in the Stock 
Definition and Geographic Range section and the range map provides 
readers with information on the known range of the stock.
    Comment 93: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that the Center for Whale Research 
conducts the annual census for the SRKWs and typically provides updates 
on July 1st and December 31st of each year. They suggest this allows 
enough time for NMFS to reflect a more recent census report in the SRKW 
report using numbers reported on July 1st in the same year as the SAR. 
Using census numbers from July 1, 2017, reflects population abundance 
more than a year and a half out of date, which is unnecessary for a 
population as small and as closely monitored as the SRKWs. As of July 
1, 2018, the SRKW population consisted of 75 individuals.
    Response: The Center for Whale Research is under contract to NMFS 
and provides a population estimate on July 1st of each year. Since the 
beginning of the Center for Whale Research's study in 1976, July 1st 
was used as the date for the population estimate. Although additional 
effort in the fall months in recent years has occasionally allowed for 
a population estimate of December 31st, for some years sighting data of 
all three pods may not exist for most or all of the fall months. For 
the sake of consistency, we will continue to use the census data from 
July 1st. We do provide an update to the SRG at their annual meeting of 
any changes (births/deaths) since the SAR was filed.
    Comment 94: CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend NMFS add a description in the 
SRKW report of the ``current population trend, including a description 
of the information upon which [it is] based,'' as required by the MMPA. 
The SAR describes the past trends and provides the 2017 number of 
animals (77) but does not specify the current trend. The population of 
SRKW has now dropped to 74 animals, its lowest point in 34 years, and 
it is continuing to decline. In 2014, a population viability study 
estimated that under status quo conditions, the SRKW growth rate was a 
0.91 percent annual decline, meaning it would reach an expected 
population size of 75 in one generation (or by 2036). This abundance 
was reached in mid-2018. Its current growth rate is just half of the 
previous estimate described by a 2012 international panel review.
    Response: The SAR states: ``Following the peak census count of 99 
animals in 1995, the population size has declined and currently stands 
at 77 animals as of the 2017 census.'' This is the lowest number since 
1995 and is based on data from the annual census, and is considered a 
declining trend. The inclusion of the 2018 census data, 74, does not 
change this trend. The SAR language as stated is sufficient to describe 
the current trend.
    Comment 95: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that growth rates and productivity 
in different Resident killer whale populations may be affected by 
variability in diet, environmental conditions, and habitat range. These 
different environmental conditions, including prey availability, 
pollution, and disturbance levels may impact their resulting annual 
growth rate. To better reflect the habitat conditions of SRKWs and the 
resulting maximum net productivity, CBD-HSUS-WDC suggest that NMFS use 
the same growth rates and estimated net productivity rates as are used 
for Northern Resident killer whales. They suggest this population is 
closer to SRKWs in prey availability and environmental conditions, and 
shares a similar history in exploitation for captive display. If NMFS 
does not make the change to maximum net productivity rate, we request 
that NMFS update the estimate for PBR to reflect the update to 
population size. With a population of 77 individuals and a calculated 
PBR of 0.13, NMFS should also update the estimate of ``1 animal every 7 
years'' to ``1 animal every 8 years.''
    Response: We will evaluate other maximum rates of increase for 
killer whale populations and consult with the Pacific SRG regarding 
potential changes to the SAR moving forward. We will retain the 
currently-used Rmax value from the published study of Matkin et al. 
(2014) in the final 2018 SAR. The retention of the current Rmax value 
results in no appreciable difference in the calculated PBR compared 
with the Rmax value proposed by the commenter.
    Comment 96: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment in the ``Human-caused mortality 
and serious injury'' secion of the SRKW SAR, NMFS notes a lack of 
fishery-related stranding information for killer whales in Canadian 
waters. However, a 2014 report of a juvenile Northern Resident killer 
whale (I103) being entangled in a gillnet is documented and included in 
Canada's updated Recovery Strategy for killer whales. Although the 
whale was quickly released from the net, he/she died the following 
winter. Given the biological similarities between Northern Resident 
killer whales and SRKWs, including a preference for Chinook salmon, a 
similar risk of interaction exists and CBD-HSUS-WDC recommends this 
example of a potential occurrence should be noted in the SAR.
    Response: We have added this information to the final 2018 SAR.
    Comment 97: CBD-HSUS-WDC disagree with NMFS that the total non-
fishery human-caused mortality for the SRKW stock for the past five 
years (2012-2016 or 2013-2017) is zero. NMFS notes in this SAR the 
death of a young adult male, L95, from a fungal infection introduced by 
a satellite tag. While the infection was determined to be the cause of 
death for L95, they argue that human activity exacerbated this 
infection and contributed to the introduction of the fungus into L95's 
bloodstream, hastening his death. Additionally, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend 
the death of J34, from blunt force trauma, should be included as 
another human-caused mortality and attributed as vessel strike 
mortality. For a population in a highly vulnerable state, deaths with a 
high likelihood of being caused by human activity should be noted as 
such.
    Response: We acknowledge the uncertainty of such cases in the 
``Other Mortality'' section of the SAR and include past documentation 
of a vessel strike death of a southern resident killer whale from 2006. 
We have added language to the SAR that acknowledges

[[Page 28508]]

that undetected or unclassified human-related mortality and injury may 
occur in the population.
    Comment 98: CBD-HSUS-WDC notes that the ``Habitat Issues'' section 
in the SARs is intended by the MMPA to cover ``other factors that may 
be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including 
effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.'' Thus, they request that 
NMFS reflect the level of research that has established the preference 
for Chinook salmon of SRKWs and remove the phrase ``appears to be'' in 
noting that SRKWs are Chinook salmon specialists. They also disagree 
with the inclusion of pink salmon in the list of other species in their 
diet, as the paper cited (Ford et al. 2016) finds that pink salmon are 
present in proportions of less than 0.01 in fecal samples from SRKWs. 
Additionally, CBD-HSUS-WDC recommend that NMFS elaborate on its note 
that ``changes in Chinook abundance have affected this population,'' to 
include updated information on the impact of human activity (e.g., 
harvest, vessel disturbance, and habitat modification) on the 
availability of SRKW prey as well as the significant impact prey 
abundance has on SRKW body condition, nutritional stress, fecundity, 
and survival.
    Response: We have elaborated on the published links between lower 
Chinook salmon availability and lower population fecundity of southern 
resident killer whales in the final SAR.
    Comment 99: CBD-HSUS-WDC comment that with respect to harvest 
impacts, NMFS has acknowledged elsewhere that the harvest of salmon (in 
particular Chinook) can result in harm to SRKWs by ``reducing prey 
availability, which may cause animals to forage for longer periods, 
travel to alternate locations, or abandon foraging efforts.'' Ocean and 
inland fisheries harvest fish from priority stocks of Chinook salmon 
that the orcas target. Scientists have estimated that ocean fisheries 
alone reduce Chinook abundance by 18-25 percent. This is significant to 
the Southern Residents, as shown by Lacy et al. (2017), which projected 
that a ``50 percent noise reduction plus a 15 percent increase in 
Chinook would allow the population to reach the 2.3 percent growth 
target'' needed for recovery. They suggest that NMFS include updated 
information on toxic contamination and potential impacts in this 
section.
    Response: See response to Comment 98 regarding Chinook prey 
availability. With regard to contaminants, we are analyzing data 
collected via biopsy samples, which will add to the body of knowledge 
on contaminants published by Krahn et al. (2007, 2009) which is 
currently cited in the SAR.
Gray Whale--Eastern North Pacific
    Comment 100: The Makah Tribe comments that the ``Stock Definition 
and Geographic Range'' section of the Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray 
whale SAR should be updated to improve accuracy and clarity and to 
reflect current, best available science, particularly in the discussion 
about the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG). They recommend the SAR be 
changed to reflect the PCFG abundance estimate is ``approximately 
240,'' as indicated in the Population Size and Minimum Population 
Estimate sections, rather than the outdated estimate from Calambokidis 
et al. (2014).
    Response: We have updated the ``Stock Definition and Geographic 
Range'' section in the final SAR to omit the reference to the number of 
whales in the PCFG. Abundance estimates are addressed in the 
``Population Size'' section and are limited to those animals within the 
IWC-defined region detailed in the SAR.
    Comment 101: The Makah Tribe comments NMFS should not use a lower 
recovery factor for PCFG gray whales but should use the same recovery 
factor of 1.0 as used for ENP whales. They state the best available 
science, as developed by the IWC's range-wide review over an intensive 
five-year evaluation of stock structure hypotheses for all north 
Pacific gray whales, indicates that the PCFG is not separate from the 
ENP stock, and the recovery factor for PCFG whales should be 1.0 
because they are ENP gray whales. Even if NMFS disagrees that PBR for 
the PCFG should be calculated based on a recovery factor of 1.0, the 
Makah Tribe suggests the recovery factor should at least be increased 
to 0.75 to reflect the continuing population growth of the PCFG as 
reflected in the most recent abundance estimate through 2015 
(Calambokidis et al. 2017b). The Makah Tribe reiterates their comments 
on the 2014 draft SAR for ENP gray whales for increasing the recovery 
factor of the PCFG above the default value for stocks of unknown status 
due to a stable abundance trend and the already conservative effect of 
calculating PBR for a feeding aggregation.
    Response: We have the flexibility to set recovery factors that 
reflect considerations other than population trends. The GAMMS state 
that ``Recovery factors of 1.0 for stocks of unknown status should be 
reserved for cases where there is assurance that Nmin, Rmax, and the 
estimates of mortality and serious injury are unbiased and where the 
stock structure is unequivocal. '' (NMFS 2016). This PCFG is small in 
size and the estimated M/SI is based on minimum counts of observed 
cases. Thus, the M/SI is not unbiased, it is negatively-biased. This, 
in combination with the small size of the feeding group, warrants a 
smaller recovery factor until that time the population dynamics of the 
PCFG can unequivocably be determined. A goal of the MMPA is to maintain 
populations as functioning elements of their ecosystem, thus use of a 
more conservative recovery factor is consistent with a small feeding 
group that has a restricted geographic range.
    Comment 102: The Makah Tribe suggests that the ``Human-Caused 
Mortalities and Serious Injury'' section of the ENP gray whale report, 
the PCFG mortalities and serious injuries should be added to the total 
for mortalities and serious injuries of the ENP stock to accurately 
report the total number of human-caused mortalities of the ENP gray 
whale stock. Currently, mortalities and serious injuries are treated as 
mortality to two separate stocks, although the SAR states that NMFS 
does not consider the PCFG a stock, but is included as a part of the 
ENP.
    Response: We have revised the ``Human-Caused Mortalities and 
Serious Injury'' section of the ENP gray whale report to clarify that 
such estimates of anthropogenic impacts for PCFG whales are a component 
of the estimates for the overall ENP stock.
    Comment 103: The Makah Tribe suggests that the section on 
``Subsistence/Native Harvest Information'' be updated to reflect the 
IWC's approval of a new gray whale catch limit covering the period 2019 
through 2025 at the 2018 biennial meeting. The new catch limit of up to 
140 strikes annually is an overall increase; and, while it does not 
affect the number of whales potentially available to the Makah Tribe if 
its waiver request is approved, the important changes in the gray whale 
catch limit should be included in the new SAR. The Makah Tribe has 
concerns about the last sentence of this section, which reports on the 
total number of gray whales harvested in aboriginal subsistence hunts 
over a 32-year period from 1985 to 2016. They point out the SAR already 
includes values from aboriginal harvests for the relevant five-year 
period 2012-2016 and does not need the value reported from the longer 
period. The sentence should be removed because it serves no function in 
the SAR. If NMFS decides to retain the sentence, they suggest

[[Page 28509]]

appropriate context should be added, including the abundance trend of 
ENP gray whales over the same time, the current abundance estimate for 
the stock, and representative PBR values over the period, which 
demonstrate that the average annual removals are a fraction of the 
calculated PBR and are thus sustainable.
    Response: We have updated the aboriginal subsistence quota in the 
final SAR based on the 2018 IWC meeting. We disagree that historical 
subsistence takes of gray whales reported in the SAR are unnecessary to 
report. They serve to inform the public of the history of takes in 
recent decades, and the values implicitly support the assertion that 
aboriginal takes have been sustainable, in light of the population 
trend data shared in the SAR. We have added a sentence to this section 
noting that the size of the ENP population has grown during this same 
period.
Gray Whale--Western North Pacific
    Comment 104: The Makah Tribe comments the title for the Western 
North Pacific (WNP) gray whale SAR should be changed. The term 
``Western North Pacific'' gray whale was previously used by NMFS for 
the continued listing under the ESA of an isolated gray whale 
population that both feeds and winters off the coast of Asia. The fact 
that a substantial percentage of the whales described in the ``Western 
North Pacific'' SAR migrate through U.S. waters, and not along the 
coast of Asia to wintering grounds off of Asia, shows that the whales 
represented in the SAR are a different group of whales than the 
isolated population previously considered to be ``Western North 
Pacific'' gray whales. The SAR makes it clear that the Sakhalin Island 
feeding area is made up of a mixed stock aggregation of whales that 
migrate to wintering grounds off Asia and whales that migrate through 
U.S. waters to wintering grounds off North America. The Makah tribe 
suggests that because only the former population represents the 
historic ``Western North Pacific'' stock, the title of the SAR should 
be changed to ``Western Feeding Group Gray Whales'' to reflect that the 
latter group of whales analyzed, i.e., those that migrate to U.S. 
waters and thus must be evaluated in a SAR under the MMPA, are members 
of a feeding group of eastern breeding animals but are unlikely to be 
the whales that historically existed only in Asian waters and which 
remain listed as endangered under the ESA.
    Response: We responded to a similar comment on the 2014 version of 
this report (see 80 FR 20502, August 20, 2015). The current SAR notes 
that whales seen near Sakhalin may include a mixture of ENP animals 
feeding in this region, in addition to WNP whales. There is no evidence 
to indicate that the WNP stock of gray whales is extinct, as implied by 
the commenter (see Comment 105). Evidence continues to support an 
extant WNP population as reported in Br[uuml]niche-Olsen et al. 2018.
    Comment 105: The Makah Tribe comments the WNP gray whale SAR should 
include a description of Cooke (2015), which provided a quantitative 
estimate of the percentage of whales that feed off Sakhalin Island and 
migrate to wintering grounds off North America. The results of Cooke's 
analysis--that whales representing 37 to 100 percent of Sakhalin 
feeding whales could be migrating to North America--is essential to the 
context for this SAR. That a high percentage of--and possibly all--
Sakhalin whales may in fact migrate to North America rather than solely 
along the Asian coast raises significant questions about the identity 
of those whales migrating east rather than south, the potential that 
the historic ``Western North Pacific'' stock is extinct, and the stock 
status and ESA-listing status of the Sakhalin whales that do migrate to 
North America as separate from the historic ``Western North Pacific'' 
stock. Citation to Cooke (2015) is also appropriate because the SAR 
identifies the proportion of the stock that uses U.S. EEZ waters in the 
Potential Biological Removal section. Cooke (2015) is clearly relevant 
to that determination and should be discussed.
    Response: The Cooke (2015) paper is discussed in this context in 
the ``Stock Definition and Geographic Range'' section of the SAR.
    Comment 106: The Makah Tribe comments the IWC's range-wide review 
represents the most recent and best available scientific information on 
questions of gray whale stock structure. While the SAR mentions the 
five-year review process, it would be much more informative if it were 
to discuss the stock structure hypotheses currently considered by the 
IWC to be most plausible for gray whales. It is notable that in the two 
hypotheses considered most plausible by the IWC (3a and 5a), the whales 
migrating to North American wintering grounds from feeding grounds in 
the Okhotsk Sea are considered the Western Feeding Group of the ENP 
gray whale stock. In only one hypothesis (6b), which was considered to 
have lower plausibility by the IWC, would whales from the Sakhalin 
Island feeding area include Western Breeding Stock (i.e., the historic 
``Western North Pacific'' stock) animals that utilize wintering grounds 
in North America without fidelity to wintering grounds in either North 
America or Asia. The Makah Tribe suggests adding a detailed discussion 
and analysis of the IWC range-wide workshop's stock structure 
hypotheses.
    Response: We have added text to the final SAR to reflect the two 
most plausible hypotheses put forward by the IWC. It is important to 
note that these represent hypotheses, which do not equate to best 
available science used in a SAR. Genetic studies of gray whales in the 
North Pacific provide the best available science for the conclusion 
that the Western North Pacific population of gray whales is extant, 
though likely very small.
    Comment 107: The Makah Tribe recommends the WNP gray whale SAR 
should more accurately reflect the conclusion of Cooke et al. (2017) 
regarding whether the combined Sakhalin-Kamchatka feeding aggregation 
is a closed population.
    Response: We have updated the final SAR with text taken directly 
from Cooke et al. (2017) that better addresses the uncertainty and 
conclusions: ``We conclude that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation is 
probably not genetically closed but that the Sakhalin and Kamchatka 
feeding aggregations, taken together, may be genetically closed. 
However, genetic data from Kamchatka would be required to confirm 
this.''
Harbor Seal--California
    Comment 108: One commenter pointed out that the California harbor 
seal SAR was not updated in 2018 though well overdue.
    Response: This comment deals with a SAR that was not revised in 
2018. The most recent abundance estimate for this stock is based on 
data collected in 2012, and the SAR was revised in 2014. No new 
information on the population size of this stock is currently available 
that warrants a revision of the report.
False Killer Whale--Hawaiian Stocks
    Comment 109: The Hawaii Longline Association notes that NMFS has 
proposed no revisions to the 2018 SAR for the Hawaii false killer whale 
stocks and asks NMFS to provide an explanation in its responses to 
comments.
    Response: We reviewed available data for all three Hawaii false 
killer whale stocks, and there was no new information that would change 
the status of any of the three stocks discussed within the SAR. 
Therefore, we did not update the False killer whale Hawaiian Islands 
Stock Complex SAR in 2018.


[[Page 28510]]


    Dated: June 13, 2019.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-12909 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P