[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47385-47397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XC187]
Final 2021 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 2021 marine mammal
stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability
of 50 final 2021 SARs that were updated and finalized.
ADDRESSES: The 2021 Final SARs are available in electronic form via
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Nancy
Young, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; copies of the Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Regional SARs may be requested from Sean Hayes,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center; and copies of the Pacific Regional
SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Schakner, Office of Science
and Technology, 301-427-8106, [email protected]; Nancy Young,
206-526-4297, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock
assessments; Sean Hayes, 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 SARs 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 SARs were
completed in 1995.
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information
is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks.
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 potential biological removal rate 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 or is designated as depleted under the MMPA. NMFS
and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has
changed or can be more accurately determined.
In order to ensure that marine mammal SARs constitute the best
scientific information available, the updated SARs under NMFS's
jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NOAA Fisheries Science Centers
and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups
(SRGs), established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS and
FWS. Because of the time it takes to review, revise, and assess
available data, the period covered by the 2021 Final SARs is 2015
through 2019. While this results in a time lag, the extensive peer
review process ensures the best scientific information is available in
the SARs.
[[Page 47386]]
NMFS reviewed the status of all marine mammal strategic stocks and
considered whether significant new information was available for all
other stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction. As a result of this review, NMFS
revised a total of 50 SARs in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions
to incorporate new information. The 2021 revisions to the SARs consist
primarily of updated or revised human-caused M/SI estimates and updated
abundance estimates. No stocks changed in status from ``non-strategic''
to ``strategic.'' Three stocks (all Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound,
and Estuary Common Bottlenose Dolphin stocks--Galveston Bay, East Bay,
Trinity Bay stock; Mississippi River Delta stock; and Sabine Lake
stock) changed in status from ``strategic'' to ``non-strategic.''
NMFS received comments on the draft 2021 SARs from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission); the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO); the Makah Indian Tribe (Makah); the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW); three fishing industry associations (Hawaii Longline
Association (HLA), Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA), and United
Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)), and a coalition comment letter
from two non-governmental organizations (Center for Biological
Diversity and Whale and Dolphin Conservation, hereafter referred to as
``CBD and WDC''). Responses to substantive comments are below.
Responses to comments not related to the SARs are not included.
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 2021 SARs.
Comments on National Issues
Requirements of Section 117
[Comment 1]: The Commission continues to be concerned about NMFS'
performance in meeting several of the requirements of section 117 of
the MMPA. Including the SARs revised in 2021, an Nmin estimate is
lacking for 77 of the 252, or 31 percent, of identified stocks. The
primary hindrance to full assessment of all stocks continues to be an
ongoing lack of resources, including lack of access to vessel and
aerial platforms from which population surveys are conducted. The
Commission encourages NMFS' continued engagement and collaboration with
other federal agencies that require basic information on marine mammal
stocks, and the Commission reiterates its recommendation that these
marine assessment programs continue to include appropriate personnel,
logistical capability, and vessel time to allow for photo-
identification, biopsy sampling, satellite tagging, acoustic monitoring
and other efforts to increase the value of the core line-transect
survey data collected.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission's comment and will
continue to prioritize our efforts for the collection of data to
address outdated Nmin estimates, as resources allow.
[Comment 2]: The Commission comments that regarding trend analyses,
guidance is needed on how population trend analyses should be
performed, and how key uncertainties should be addressed. To address
the reporting inconsistencies and lack of analyses, the Commission
recommends that NMFS convene a workshop to develop guidelines for data
requirements and best practices for population trend analyses pursuant
to section 117 of the MMPA. The Commission recommends that invited
participants include scientists from the NMFS Science Centers, SRG
members, and non-NMFS statisticians who might provide guidance and
different perspectives.
Response: NMFS agrees that long-term time series trend analyses are
useful, while also acknowledging that it is difficult to achieve the
appropriate precision and accuracy needed to detect trends (Authier et
al. 2020). NMFS will work to improve consistency across regions and
provide best practices for trend analyses in the SARs. We plan to
address this topic in a future GAMMS revision. In the short term, we
appreciate the Commission's offer to help with a workshop and will
consider the possibility of convening one, as resources allow.
[Comment 3]: NMFS' process for distinguishing serious from non-
serious injury requires reporting information on human-caused events
that result in injury to the animal. This includes detailed
documentation of strikes of marine mammals by vessels. These data are
listed in technical memoranda, which typically include summaries of
human-caused mortalities and injuries. Data is stored within different
NMFS programs, offices, and databases, such that there is no single
source to query for all vessel strike data. This impedes the
compilation of accurate data summaries and makes cross-regional
comparisons of data challenging. Given that these data are being
summarized separately by each region for reporting under the NMFS
injury determination process, the Commission recommends that NMFS
develop a system for centralizing all data on vessel strikes of marine
mammals into a single, queryable source. This resource would have
regional, national, and global value in understanding and mitigating
risk of vessel strikes.
Response: NMFS agrees with the value of a centralized database for
vessel strikes. We are working to create this and will keep the
Commission updated on our progress.
[Comment 4]: The Commission is concerned about the references made
to publications that are ``in review'' to support information in 12 of
the draft SARs, particularly when addressing annual human-caused
serious injury and mortality. Labeling a report as ``in review''
suggests that the underlying analysis has been completed and submitted
for publication, but analyses could change prior to publication.
Therefore, the Commission 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: Because SARs are considered to be influential scientific
assessments, all scientific information used in support of the SARs
should meet the peer review requirements described in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin on peer review and NOAA
Information Quality Act guidelines to ensure the information is not
only high quality but is available for management decisions in a timely
fashion. The best scientific information available for any given time
period covered in a SAR may not necessarily have been published or
subjected to professional peer review prior to inclusion in a draft
SAR, as this process can take months or years to complete. In other
cases, data such as annual human-caused serious injury and mortality
pertinent to assessments of stocks are routinely collected and
analyzed, and while not always suitable for journal publication, we
publish them as technical memoranda, annual reports, or memos to the
record. These data, and methods are annually reviewed by the SRG, and
NMFS considers this review to constitute peer review and to meet the
requirements of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and NOAA IQA guidelines.
[[Page 47387]]
Comments on Alaska Issues
Alaska Native Subsistence Takes
[Comment 5]: 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 notes that take levels are lacking for the majority of
communities that hunt or may hunt ice seals and harbor seals and
continues to recommend that NMFS find ways to gather reliable
information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and
handicraft purposes through partnerships with existing and emerging co-
management partners and the state of Alaska. Further, the Commission
encourages NMFS to continue to provide updated information in the SARs
whenever it becomes available, even if it pertains only to a few
villages or a subset of years.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to collect reliable
information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and
handicraft purposes. Funding for subsistence use surveys remains
limited. In most cases, the best available data are not comprehensive.
Nevertheless, we continue to work with our Alaska Native co-management
partners (and the State of Alaska in some cases) to conduct surveys of
subsistence use as resources allow, including animals struck and lost,
and we incorporate that information into the SARs as it becomes
available. In particular, we have encouraged the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game to explore the feasibility of obtaining harvest information
and biological samples of subsistence-harvested seals in communities
where such data collection has not recently occurred. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game is pursuing this.
Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) Beluga Whales
[Comment 6]: The Commission understands that the final 2020 SAR for
the Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) stock of beluga whales was withdrawn to
allow for Tribal consultation. That SAR was not included in the draft
reports for 2021. We await further word from NMFS on whether that SAR
will be included in the final 2021 SARs for Alaska.
Response: The EBS beluga whale SAR was not revised in 2021. After
ongoing consultations with NMFS co-management partner, the Alaska
Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC), NMFS has withdrawn the final 2020 EBS
beluga whale SAR and anticipates releasing a revised draft SAR for the
2022 or 2023 SAR cycle. This has been noted on the NMFS SAR web page
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock#cetaceans--small-whales). Additionally, NMFS temporarily withdrew the final 2020
Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Bristol Bay beluga whale SARs to review
potential implications of the ABWC recommendations on the Eastern
Bering Sea beluga whale SAR but republished them with an explanatory
note indicating that any changes resulting from such a review will be
reflected in a future SAR. As is our practice, we will include the most
recently revised version of each Alaska SAR in the compiled final
Alaska SARs. The most recent EBS beluga whale SAR is the final 2017
SAR.
NMFS is providing this information for awareness only and is not
seeking public comment on the NMFS-ABWC co-management agreement nor the
final 2020 EBS beluga whale SAR.
Southeast Alaska Harbor Porpoise
[Comment 7]: USAG is concerned that the areas of highest densities
of harbor porpoises have not been surveyed and suggests that a more
thorough survey would involve track lines that followed the edges of
the straits, in shallower water, and include larger bays and inlets.
Since the stock boundaries for SEAK extend from west of Yakutat to
Dixon Entrance, USAG wonders why the outside waters were not surveyed
in 2019. This would indicate that the population estimate could be
biased low. USAG comments that population survey would be best for the
region if it included the coastal waters that were not included in
2019.
Response: In the 2019 survey, NMFS developed a protocol to sample
the study area more thoroughly than ever before and to account for
biases not previously considered in previous analyses. This protocol
focused on: Sampling the habitats in the main channels of SEAK where
harbor porpoise has been historically documented, including shallower
(close to shore) and deeper (middle of the channel) waters. Because
sampling in these areas was proportional to the area of each habitat,
estimates of density within these habitats are expected to be unbiased.
Approximately 40% of the area of inlets and small bays were sampled
in response to previous criticism that NMFS' SEAK surveys did not cover
these habitats. The results showed that only a small fraction
(approximately 5-10%) of the population occurs in these areas in the
summer.
Applying a correction factor to account for animals missed (``g(0)
correction'') developed with data from previous surveys in SEAK inland
waters.
The fact that the 2019 survey had nearly 200 sightings of harbor
porpoise suggests that the design implemented during the cruise did
sample the species habitat within inland waters.
The SAR acknowledges that the estimate of abundance from inland
waters is an underestimate for the whole stock because the outer coast
between Cape Suckling and Dixon Entrance has not been sampled. The
survey was limited to inside waters due to logistical and funding
constraints. Sampling the outer coast is needed to develop a stock-wide
estimate. Additional sampling for stock structure (e.g., environmental
DNA (eDNA)) is also needed to assess the relationship of animals in the
outer coast with those within inland waters.
[Comment 8]: USAG points out that the SARs include evidence of sub-
populations of harbor porpoises. This is based on eDNA samples, with a
notable difference between northern and southern parts of the region.
Since the SEAK stock includes a large area, eDNA should be procured
from all areas to further define sub-populations. There should also be
eDNA collected in the Gulf of Alaska stock for comparison with the
unique stocks in SEAK that may have been identified. USAG would
question whether the samples were collected in a fashion that could
have eliminated the possibility of familial relationships.
Response: The evidence supporting population differentiation among
regions throughout coastal Alaska waters and within the currently
recognized SEAK stock is based on genetic data generated from both eDNA
samples and tissue samples collected from fisheries bycatch and
beachcast strandings. Nuclear genetic data suggest a degree of genetic
relatedness among harbor porpoises sampled within a region that is
greater than we would expect by chance, suggesting genetic structure
and likely natal philopatry. Mitochondrial genetic data, generated from
both tissue and eDNA samples, indicate significant genetic differences
between Gulf of Alaska and SEAK, as well as within SEAK. The majority
of the samples represent nearshore coastal waters; however, some
coastal regions are poorly represented, or unrepresented (e.g., between
Copper River and Yakutat).
Environmental DNA samples were collected as surface seawater in the
[[Page 47388]]
fluke prints of submerging harbor porpoises from small boats in SEAK
inshore waters. At this time, determining familial relationships is not
feasible with eDNA samples. As a result, a conservative approach was
adopted, counting each ``discovered'' unique genetic sequence from each
eDNA sample only once. This strategy avoids over-representing
mitochondrial haplotypes based on sequencing read depth but may
underestimate genetic differentiation metrics if multiple related
porpoises comprising the same mitochondrial haplotype co-occur, as
multiple related porpoises represented by genetic material in a single
eDNA sample will only be counted as a singleton. The Gulf of Alaska
stock is well represented by tissue samples throughout nearshore waters
(e.g., Cook Inlet and Copper River); however, coastal regions between
SEAK and the Gulf of Alaska are unsampled and collecting samples from
these regions will be very valuable for identifying key regions
delimiting harbor porpoise stocks within SEAK and beyond.
[Comment 9]: USAG comments that the SAR notes that entanglement in
fishing gear is the only known human cause of mortality, but there are
other industrial fisheries being prosecuted in the region. To make the
assumption that only one gear type interacts with a species that exists
in the same habitat seems arbitrary. Charter boats, sport fishing,
yachters, cruise ships, both large and small, and other water related
outdoor excursions, have all increased substantially, and the USAG
notes that ship strikes are a cause of mortality.
Response: NMFS agrees that harbor porpoise are difficult to see in
the wild. We take the characteristics of the species into consideration
when we design and execute our surveys. For example, we search for
porpoise using binoculars, which allows for early detection. We only
search in good visibility and oceanographic conditions. Before
analysis, we inspect the data to assess whether there is evidence that
animals are reacting to the boat. We only analyze data collected in
relatively good observation conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state 3 or
less). The elusive nature of harbor porpoises often results in animals
or groups of animals being missed by observers. We therefore estimate
the proportion of porpoise missed and add that to the estimates of
density and abundance to minimize or eliminate any negative bias in the
estimates.
The estimates of population size indicate abundance is stable in
the northern portion of SEAK inland waters (e.g., around Cross Sound,
Icy Strait, and Glacier Bay), but there is evidence of declines in the
southern range of the species more towards the south, around Wrangell
and Zarembo Island.
Other types of fisheries can result in M/SI; but, as noted in the
comment, they have not been documented in SEAK. In other parts of the
world, harbor porpoises are known to be extremely vulnerable to
gillnets, and there is no reason to believe the situation is different
in SEAK. This is one of the reasons the concern with this type of
gillnet fishery is greater.
[Comment 10]: USAG emphasizes that the SEAK gillnet fishery has
been fishing the same statistical waters since statehood, and those
areas are a relatively small portion of the region. Portions of the
areas SEAK gillnetters are permitted to fish are often closed to
gillnetting for salmon management concerns, and other portions of those
areas are not fished due to lack of productivity. Since 1975, with the
inception of Limited Entry, USAG effort has been static. Given the
lifespan of a harbor porpoise, USAG feels that it is safe to assume
that any impact the gillnet fleet has had on the stock has likely
happened. USAG notes there are no population estimates pre-statehood,
so it would be impossible to determine just what impact commercial
fishing has had on these animals since its inception.
Response: It is still unclear whether the population is stable in
part of the range (near Wrangell and Zarembo Island). NMFS agrees that
there is uncertainty with respect to the potential impact of fisheries
to harbor porpoise and believes that additional data are needed to
address this question.
[Comment 11]: In 2012 and 2013, the SEAK gillnet salmon fishery was
observed in districts 6, 7, and 8. In 2012, there were 0 observed
interactions with harbor porpoise. There were 2006.5 boat days for that
particular season. In 2013, there were four observed interactions with
harbor porpoises, two released alive, and two released, judged by the
observer as significantly injured, likely resulting in a mortality.
There were 2,708.6 boat days in 2013. This makes 2013 an anomaly in
that USAG had several multi-day openings and more boats than normal
fishing in the districts observed. USAG thinks this inflates the
mortality associated with the gillnet fishery artificially.
Response: NMFS takes fishing effort into account when calculating a
bycatch rate and estimating M/SI. This minimizes bias in the estimates
given potential differences in effort across years (e.g., between 2012
and 2013, as suggested in the comment). NMFS agrees that rare events,
when observed, inflate the mortality estimate. However, the capture of
four porpoise in a single year (2013) suggests that bycatch events,
while rare, may be occurring at a frequency large enough to impact the
population, particularly in areas where harbor porpoise occur in
relatively large numbers such as around the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game fishing districts 6, 7, and 8 in SEAK.
Comments on Atlantic Issues
[Comment 12]: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
believes the reference number provided for electronic submission of
comments on the draft SARs (NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130) is incorrect as it
leads to the wrong docket.
Response: Thank you. Because of a technical error, we extended the
public comment period two weeks and published a correction notice in
the FR with the correct link for the appropriate docket.
Gray Seal
[Comment 13]: The Commission remains concerned that numerous known
serious injuries of gray seals are not being accounted for in estimates
of total M/SI. The 2021 draft SAR reports a PBR level of 1,458. Total
reported annual M/SI in U.S. waters is 1,179 (1,169 of which were
deaths caused by U.S. commercial fisheries). The Commission recommends
that NMFS use the best available science when calculating the total
estimated annual M/SI to account for these entanglements. Further, the
Commission encourages NMFS to work diligently to address this welfare
issue and greatly reduce gray seal injuries and deaths in U.S.
fisheries.
Response: NMFS recognizes that estimates of gray seal bycatch
mainly reflect mortalities because observers rarely document live
animals. Therefore, data derived from observer coverage do not reflect
the numerous animals that are seen living with entanglements and that
may eventually die as a result. Currently, there is not a system in
place to document seals that are living with entanglements in the NMFS
National Stranding database (live entangled cetaceans are recorded, but
not pinnipeds). This policy decision was made primarily due to the
inability to distinguish between individuals, resulting in uncertainty
over whether an observed entangled animal was a unique case, or one
seal observed multiple times over many years. NMFS is working to
address this issue, including developing a customized database for
tracking entanglements rather than the
[[Page 47389]]
National Stranding database. We are also preliminarily planning to
conduct entanglement surveys, as resources allow. The goal is to
quantify the number of entangled animals at various haul-outs in a
given day so that, at a minimum, we may add these to the bycatch
estimates.
North Atlantic Right Whale
[Comment 14]: DFO comments that right whale #3893 was assigned as a
Canadian mortality and was observed in U.S. waters on January 22, 2018,
before being found dead on January 28, 2018. Prior to this, it was seen
gear free in Canadian waters on July 29, 2017. No pictures or
information about the gear analysis have been provided to assist in the
Canadian analysis. DFO emphasizes this whale should be XU.
Right whale #3694 was ``unidentified'' prior to the 2020 SAR. Upon
inquiry to NOAA, DFO received the following response: ``Gear from #3694
was identified as Canadian snow crab by the NMFS Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, and this result was announced through an
email to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team in April 2018.''
No information on this was provided to Canadian officials for review.
Response: The U.S. gear team reports that the recovered gear from
right whale #3893 and #3694 are inconsistent with legal U.S. gear and
are consistent with offshore Canadian trap/pot gear. Without new
incident documentation or bilateral analysis, under longstanding NMFS
protocols, NMFS would not change the current attribution. NMFS believes
bilateral gear investigation of gear retrieved from entangled large
whales in U.S. and Canadian waters would be invaluable to improve our
understanding of at least that subset of entanglements that are
observed and documented. NMFS will continue to pursue collaborative
bilateral efforts on gear analysis and other fronts, toward improving
science and management to help the U.S. and Canada develop additional
solutions to reduce the impacts of our fisheries on endangered right
whales.
[Comment 15]: For Right whale #4094, the gear was identified as
Canadian crab pot in Daoust et al. Upon review of this report, no
information was included to support this finding. Additionally, the DFO
Marine Mammal Response archives have the following, ``A live entangled
North Atlantic right whale (NARW) was reported on July 19th, 2017 by
NOAA Fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No response was performed
as no action was permitted. No subsequent sightings were completed
after this date.'' It is unclear how a determination was made if no
response was performed. DFO believes this whale should be XC and NR.
DFO would like to suggest that the ``points'' for the serious
injury associated with right whale #4057 be equally split (.5/.5)
between Canada and the U.S. On August 13, 2016, #4057 was disentangled
by the Campobello Whale Rescue Team. In their report they noted that
the entanglement responded to impacted and exasperated old wounds from
2014. On February 16, 2014, #4057 was found near Florida dragging over
100 yards (91.44 meters) of heavy \9/16\'' diameter fishing rope.
Responders from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
disentangled the whale the following day.
The gear for Right whale #3125 is attributed to Canada. DFO
requests that the U.S. provide information on how the conclusive origin
of the gear was determined in this case. If no review of the gear has
been conducted, DFO concludes this whale should be XC.
Right whale #1226 is currently assigned ``CN.'' DFO comments that
this whale should be XC. The whale was sighted anchored alive in
Canadian waters, and the carcass was later found without gear present.
Response: NMFS notes that #4094's gear attribution was based on
identification of gear in the Daoust et al. report, which was co-
authored by DFO staff. We would consider changing it to XC if the
published incident report that identified the gear as Canadian snow
crab is revised.
#4057--The two events are evaluated separately in keeping with
longstanding NMFS protocols. The 2014 incident was deemed not serious,
assigned a 0 against PBR, and does not impact the current SARs because
the time frame for the data is 2015-2019. The 2016 incident was deemed
serious based on severe health decline despite disentanglement. U.S.
gear experts report that Parks Canada confirmed the recovered gear to
be Canadian snow crab.
#3125--The U.S. gear team reports that the recovered gear from this
event is inconsistent with legal U.S. gear and is consistent with
Canadian snow crab gear. Without new incident documentation or
bilateral analysis, under longstanding NMFS protocols, we would not
change the current attribution.
#1226--This whale was seen without gear in the Gulf of St Lawrence
(GoSL) from June 9-July 21, 2019. The entanglement was observed in GoSL
on August 6, 2019, when the whale was anchored alive. In keeping with
longstanding NMFS protocols, anchoring in place is considered evidence
of incident location so this incident was assigned as a Canadian
injury. Though no gear was present on the carcass on September 16,
2019, the documented fatal injuries on the carcass line up with the
entanglement configuration documented on August 6, 2019. Injury was
attributed to the August 6, 2019 entanglement.
[Comment 16]: MLA states that the Draft SAR fails to disclose key
limits of the Pace model. The Pace model remains sensitive to new data,
and its output is highly variable. Further, the period from 2011-2015,
during which time NARW shifted their geographic distribution to areas
lacking survey effort, may be producing an underestimate of the
population.
MLA notes that the Draft SAR underweight the existence of natural
predation as demonstrated by Taylor (2013), Curtis (2014), and Sharp
(2019). MLA comments the SAR must cite relevant literature on natural
mortality and discuss how the treatment of this significant factor
affects population models. This estimate of total annual human-caused
mortality may be somewhat positively biased (i.e., a slight
overestimate) given that some calf mortality is likely not human-
caused.'' Although the Draft SAR acknowledges this is likely a ``slight
overestimate,'' its conclusion that all mortality is human-caused is
not supported by Taylor (2013), Curtis (2014), and Sharp (2019). With
natural causes constituting a total of 14.5 percent of all examined
individuals and 25 percent of those incidents where cause was
confirmed, this is more than a ``slight overestimate,'' and the best
available scientific information does not support attributing all calf
and adult mortalities of unknown cause to human activity. MLA comments
that the assumption that natural mortality is limited to newborn calves
is without empirical justification and results in an overestimation of
anthropogenic mortality.
Finally, Pace (2021) incorrectly assumes an equal sex ratio and
probability of mortality. Neither of these assumptions are supported by
the best available data. Hamilton (2020) reports that through 2017, 94
percent of males have been entangled at least once compared to 87
percent of females. Males are known to make up a larger portion of the
population and statistically more likely to encounter and become
entangled in a vertical line. This, too, must be corrected or, at a
minimum, disclosed to the public.
Response: The Pace et al. 2017 and slightly updated Pace 2021 Mark-
[[Page 47390]]
Recapture-Resight MRR model has been reviewed and re-reviewed by both
journal peer review process for publication as well as more than 6
years of Atlantic SRG meetings with rotating membership, meaning an
additional 20 experts have reviewed the model and its contents are
publicly available to review as the documents are cited within the SAR.
The MRR model published by Pace et al. 2017 uses standard well-
verified methods of using sighting histories of individuals to estimate
interval (in this case annual) capture probabilities which are allowed
to vary at each interval. Indeed the estimated capture probabilities
since 2011 of NARWs have shown considerable variation compared with the
previous decade. The statistical methodology employed simultaneously
estimates survival and capture rates to estimate the number of whales
still alive thereby accommodating variable annual capture rates. Beyond
that the MRR model used, unlike some of its predecessors, allows for
individual animals to have unique catchability parameters thus reducing
biases in capture rate found in simpler MRR models. Although there is
no accommodation for permanent emigration, so far there has been no
evidence that even modest numbers of NARW have permanently left all of
the areas surveyed. Hence, the conservation conclusion is that the
estimated survival rates presented in the SAR and reflected in the
abundance estimates represent actual survival rates of the stock and
not merely apparent survival rates.
On the issue of natural mortality, NMFS and the SAR acknowledge
that some natural mortality of calves exists. However, there are no
observations of adult mortality from natural causes. NMFS reviewed
relevant data, existing models and the literature with the Atlantic SRG
on Sept 2, 2021 and requested guidance. The Atlantic SRG recommended
NMFS continue to assign 100 percent of the mortalities of non-calf NARW
to anthropogenic origins (Atlantic SRG letter to NMFS September 16,
2021).
[Comment 17]: The Draft 2021 SAR includes new text speculating that
the probability of carcass recovery is higher for vessel strike events
than entanglement events. MLA comments that there is presently no
evidence to support such a finding, and the literature cited in the
Draft SAR are not the results of empirical studies to inform this
issue. MLA thinks it is equally, if not more likely, that the observed
data with respect to carcass status as discussed in Pace (2021) are
correct--that entanglements and vessel strikes kill whales in roughly
equal proportions. MLA requests that NMFS remove this entire section
until empirical data are available to inform the probability of carcass
recovery for different modes of death.
Response: NMFS agrees that there is no empirical study showing that
the bodies of whales dying from vessel strikes are more likely to be
detected than the bodies of whales dying from entanglement. However, it
is the intention of this stock assessment report to provide information
on our current understanding of the right whale population, including
trends in strandings data, and we will therefore continue to include
this empirical information relevant to the probability of carcass
recovery. We believe that including hypotheses that may explain the
disparity between the proportion of detected entanglement and vessel
strike serious injuries compared to the proportions by cause diagnosed
for dead whales is relevant and informative. The Moore et al. (2020)
hypothesis is founded in the physics of buoyancy on marine mammal
bodies under different conditions. However, we agree that there is not
currently sufficient basis to conclude that the proportion of observed
serious injuries that were the result of entanglement reflect the
correct apportionment of total mortalities. We also agree that there
may be factors that increase the likelihood of detection of
entanglement serious injuries. We do not believe there is currently
sufficient basis to assert that right whales struck by vessels are more
likely to sink.
NMFS proposed many alternative scenarios to the Atlantic SRG (ASRG)
on how best to apportion cryptic mortality (NMFS intersessional
September 21, 2021). The ASRG recommended that the ratio between
entangled and vessel struck NARW, calculated from documented
observations of Serious Injuries and Mortalities over the last five
years, be used to apportion cause. NMFS scientists will continue to
work on improving our methods for apportioning these sources of
mortality, and the ASRG will continue to consider better alternatives
as they are developed.
[Comment 18]: MLA is concerned that the Draft SAR only reports
total observed M/SI data without apportioning those observations
between the U.S. and Canada. The Draft SAR does not present the annual
mortality and serious injury estimates by each ``fishery.'' MLA
believes it is arbitrary for NMFS to ignore these data demonstrating
that many more M/SI are occurring in Canadian fisheries than U.S.
fisheries. MLA reiterates that NMFS should not rely on limited data to
conclude that all cryptic mortality results from anthropogenic sources
and that vessel strike carcass recovery is more likely than for
entanglements.
Response: NMFS seeks to provide the maximum precision and
resolution in apportioning all M/SI to cause--whether fishery, vessel
or other. However, there continues to be a distinct lack of information
available to the agency to assign entanglement to fisheries based upon
recovered gear. We believe expansion of gear marking and reporting
requirements will assist us in this area moving forward. In addition,
because right whales are able to travel thousands of miles in short
periods of time, even when trailing gear, it is very difficult to
attribute entanglement based upon the region of initial sighting.
NMFS has invested considerable effort developing better methods for
apportioning M/SI to appropriate sources in light of increased
mortality overall, including increasing observations in Canada. We are
also working to improve our ability to quantify unseen mortality with
consideration of if and how to apportion natural versus anthropogenic
mortality. As part of this effort, the agency convened a special
session of the Atlantic SRG in September 2021 for scientific and
technical input. The Atlantic SRG supported its prior position that 100
percent of the mortalities of noncalf NARW should be considered to be
of anthropogenic origin. The Atlantic SRG also considered the various
approaches provided by NMFS for apportioning SIM between U.S. and
Canada but did not have enough information to provide a robust
scientific alternative. They suggested alternatively, a fully fleshed
out co-occurrence model for both U.S. and Canadian waters could be
used, but this is also not presently available. Given this data
limitation, it would be arbitrary for NMFS to assign proportions
without better data to support conclusions.
[Comment 19]: MLA notes that the NARW Draft SAR contains none of
the statutorily required-information from Section 117 of the MMPA
regarding entanglements in fishing gear. As a result, the public has no
information about the fisheries that interact with the NARW and the
levels, types, and seasonal and geographic patterns of entanglement
that occur within and among those fisheries. MLA notes that the Draft
SAR presents only M/SI entanglement data--non-serious injury
entanglements are omitted. MLA requests that the SAR also include data
on the severity of entanglements. MLA
[[Page 47391]]
requests a more detailed table included in the SAR, since this
information is important for assessing individual fisheries.
The Draft SAR cites three studies concluding that NARW mitigation
measures implemented prior to 2009 have not worked and that the
effectiveness of measures implemented since 2009 have not yet been
evaluated. MLA comments that the SAR should report data showing that
there has been a 90 percent decline in instances of lobster gear
removed from entangled NARW since 2010 based on observed data. There
were four known cases of lobster gear removed from NARW from 1997 to
2000, six from 2000 to 2010, and one from 2010 to 2019. The only
confirmed M/SI resulting from entanglement in lobster gear occurred in
2002. MLA requests that NMFS present information about the fact that
the scarring data suggests most entanglements are minor.
Response: The fisheries are summarized in Appendix 3--Fishery
Descriptions. NMFS cites our annual M/SI report for reported injuries
during the time frame encompassed by the SAR. However, because only a
small fraction of entanglements have gear recovered and a smaller
fraction of those are traceable to the fishery, the agency has not been
able to estimate the annual M/SI to the resolution of fishery/region.
Given recommendations from the Atlantic SRG and additional analysis
resulting from Pace et al. (2021), the agency is working to improve our
understanding of this issue to the resolution requested above in future
SARs. For now, this topic is addressed to the extent that data can
support in table three of the SAR.
The issue of non-serious injuries is discussed in the third
paragraph of the section titled ``Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious
Injury.'' The draft cites Knowlton et al. (2012), which reported 26
percent of the population being entangled each year and now includes
Hamilton et al. (2019), which reports 30 percent of the population
receiving non-serious injuries annually. This is an increasing trend.
Despite roughly 100 injuries per year in recent years, they are almost
never observed, but the wounds persist for periods of weeks to months/
years during which time animals may travel thousands of miles.
Therefore, the agency takes a conservative approach to not apportion
injury by fishery or area where data are not available. Additional
language to address this concern has been added to the first paragraph
of the ``Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury'' section of the
SAR.
Regarding the ``decline'' in lobster gear removed from NARW, the
SAR does not address this because it is not a metric supported by a
rigorous sampling design with high probability of detection. Rather, it
is anecdotal in nature with detection rates subject to numerous biases
described above. The comment raises the similar ``observed decline'' in
entanglements observed to be connected with groundline. However,
despite some reason for optimism with both these observations, they are
anecdotal in nature, and also in juxtaposition with the dramatic
increase in mortality that has subsequently occurred. The SAR
acknowledges these are from multiple sources across multiple regions.
Because of this, the SAR focuses on the more appropriate metrics of
total M/SI and cryptic mortality. In response that most injuries are
``minor''--it should be noted that NMFS uses similar but slightly
different criteria for the assignment of injury severity than New
England Aquarium. The SAR does report the number of injuries which meet
the criteria for ``serious'' under the NMFS criteria, and there has
been an increase in serious injuries including entanglement for the
past decade. The SAR addresses these ``non-serious'' injuries in the
previous section, acknowledging that collectively they ``should be
considered to fully understand anthropogenic impacts to the population,
especially in cases where females' fecundity may be affected.''
[Comment 20]: MLA believes the SAR should include additional
available scientific information about NARW behavior that affects its
risk of harm from fishing gear. Recent scientific literature confirms
that NARW have shifted their habitat usage away from the Maine lobster
fishery. These findings were most recently summarized and reported in
Meyer-Gutbrod (2021), which MLA expresses must be referenced and
discussed in the Draft SAR.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and agrees with the
distribution changes and observations characterized above. The Meyer-
Gutbrod reference and some additional language have been added to the
habitat section. However, NMFS believes there is a flawed assumption
that right whales are only subject to mortality when they are densely
aggregated in foraging areas, and those areas are the only regions that
should be managed for right whale conservation. In reality, portions of
the NARW population are only aggregated in a few small regions during
some parts of the year, and we are recognizing that our management
measures need to be spatially resilient to reflect the documented
acoustic presence of right whales across their entire range through
much of the year, including the Gulf of Maine. Furthermore, given the
high degree of surveillance in the areas of high aggregation and the
comparative lack of surveillance in many other regions (aside from
acoustics, which only detect vocalizing whales, and cannot detect
mortality/injury), the agency is increasingly concerned that much of
the unseen mortality is likely to be happening in areas where there is
a high degree of risk from either fishing or vessel activity for
solitary whales transiting through those regions. We have added
additional language to reflect this in the habitat section.
[Comment 21]: MLA is concerned that the 2021 draft SAR omits
important details describing NARW stock definition and geographic
range. MLA believes the multiple references to right whale feeding
grounds located in New England waters must specify that these important
areas are located in southern New England. MLA thinks the Draft SAR
incompletely cites the available data on mortality in Canadian waters
and calving. MLA recommends the Draft SAR add a reference to Hamilton
(2022), which provides important ``insight into right whale calf
survival, growth rates, and association patterns.'' MLA comments that
the section summarizing M/SI from vessel strikes has the heading
``Other Mortality'' and also reiterates that the text and reference to
Frazier (2005) be removed.
Response: The description of NARW feeding grounds reflects our
current understanding and best available scientific information.
Acoustic and visual monitoring in the central Gulf of Maine indicates
right whales are present in areas besides southern New England.
All mortalities are accounted for in Table 3. The spike of right
whale mortalities in 2017 noted in the text is including all carcasses
found that year in both U.S. and Canadian waters. The 2019 calf
detection is included in the SAR text. The years 2020-2021 fall outside
the reporting period for the 2021 SARs and are therefore not included
in this report. The 2022 Hamilton paper was not available during the
2021 stock assessment report timeframe, but the findings will be
incorporated into the 2022 report.
The ``Other Mortality'' heading has been a standard heading for
stock assessment reports for all species. This suggestion will be
forwarded to the editorial board for consideration. As the section
opens with the sentence, ``Vessel strikes are a major cause of
mortality and injury to right whale'' and
[[Page 47392]]
discusses no other sources of mortality, NMFS has been diligent in
informing the public of this threat to right whales.
NMFS appreciates the MLA catching this transcription error.
Although NMFS believes that Fitzgerald (2018) best represents the
current understanding of pedigree-informed abundance estimation, as
noted in previous responses, Frasier (2005) has not been conclusively
refuted. NMFS has restored Frasier (2005), and added Frasier et al.
(2007), to the text and references of the final 2021 SAR.
NMFS believes the description of right whale distribution and
movement in the SAR is as comprehensive and accurate as the data and
available analyses currently allow.
[Comment 22]: MLA reiterates that Kenney (2018) should not be cited
in the SAR. Specifically, the methods used in this study fail to
account for basic biological processes--namely, natural death. Further,
calves have natural mortality rates that are ignored during scenarios
when they are included in this model. Additionally, Kenney (2018)
assumes a constant calving rate of one calf per 5 years (0.2/yr), which
is a vast oversimplification of the life history process of NARW, and
the Kenney (2018) value of the calving rate is far higher than the
``best'' current estimate of 0.04 in the Draft SAR. For these reasons,
Kenney (2018) should not be cited in the SAR. If NMFS is going to
continue to include citations of this study, then it must address these
scientific points.
Response: The Kenney (2018) reference is a relevant, peer-reviewed
study that helps provide context to the impacts of fishery-related
mortality on the right whale population. The study does account for
other mortality, removing only confirmed fishery-related deaths and
serious injuries (likely to lead to death). Several scenarios are
provided with varying levels of hypothetically-reduced entanglement
mortality rates corresponding to degrees of compliance to MMPA
regulations. While the paper presents a simple representation of
complex processes, the model parameters are reasonable and the results
are informative for the reader to appreciate the cumulative impact of
entanglement on the population. Any element of natural mortality or
other processes affecting the population other than documented
entanglement mortality are accounted for by using the time series of
abundance estimates as a baseline.
Inclusion of the unrealized calves in the paper is an
acknowledgment of basic population biology, and the outsized effect of
removing productive females on a population's trajectory cannot be
ignored. Kenny (2018) treats this effect conservatively. Proven female
calving intervals have varied between 3 and 10 years, but are primarily
in the 3- to 7-year range, so the choice of a 5-year calving interval
is well founded. The paper's total of 26 calves lost due to the deaths
of 15 females over 27 years equals an unrealised population increase of
much less than 0.01/yr (1 divided by the average annual population
size), and this undoubtedly underrepresents the actual value given that
only known females documented as mortalities or serious injuries were
used in the analysis.
[Comment 23]: CBD and WDC take issue with the statement which
currently reads ``In addition, right whales apparently abandoned the
central Gulf of Maine in winter (see Cole et al. 2013) . . . .'' CBD
and WDC do not believe it is accurate to indicate that right whales
have abandoned the central Gulf of Maine during winter months. In fact,
acoustic detections in the central Gulf of Maine have been documented
during the winter for the past several years. In addition, CBD and WDC
recommend the section regarding high resolution genetic profiling as it
relates to parentage and relatedness be updated using Hamilton et al.
2022.
Response: NMFS agrees that new, widespread acoustic monitoring has
changed our assessment of right whale presence and will adjust the text
to reflect this fact. We will evaluate Hamilton et al. 2022 in the
subsequent SAR cycle since its publication occurred during the
finalization of the 2021 SARs.
[Comment 24]: CBD and WDC ask NMFS to include the findings in the
recently published NARW (Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule
Assessment which concluded that voluntary measures did not have a
meaningful impact, small vessel collisions can seriously injure right
whales, and the current SMAs should be modified.
Response: In general, NMFS limits the content of the SARs to the
statutory requirements of section 117. The SAR is not intended to
evaluate or discuss the merits of specific management activities. The
SAR acknowledges that vessel strikes remain a serious issue for right
whales; and, for transparency, the vessel size class involved in lethal
strike events is always noted, if known. In addition, the NARW
(Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule Assessment is posted on the
NMFS website and easily accessible to the public.
Bryde's Whale, Gulf of Mexico Stock (Rice's Whale)
[Comment 25]: While CBD and WDC appreciate the extensive updates to
the 2020 Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale SAR, this species was not updated
in the recent 2021 draft. CBD and WDC remind NMFS that, as an ESA-
listed species, the SAR for these whales should be updated every year.
CBD and WDC also reiterate introductory comments on the general timing
of review and public comment for the SARs and the substantial delay in
including new information, as it is now known that these whales have
been designated a new species: Rice's whales. CBD and WDC request that
this new designation be recognized and the 2021 SAR updated
accordingly.
Response: The statutory requirement does not require the SAR to be
updated every year, but to be reviewed annually. In regard to the
updated designation, on August 23, 2021, NMFS published a direct final
rule to update the taxonomic classification, description, and common
name of species included in the list of endangered species maintained
at 50 CFR 224.101 to reflect the updated science (86 FR 47022). The
direct final rule changed the common name of the listed entity from
Bryde's whale (Gulf of Mexico subspecies) to Rice's whale, the
scientific name from B. edeni (unnamed subspecies) to B. ricei, and the
description of the listed entity from Bryde's whales that breed and
feed in the Gulf of Mexico to the entire species. The direct final rule
and these changes became effective on October 22, 2021. This change
became effective too late for an update to the draft 2021 SARs, but the
draft 2022 SAR has been updated accordingly to reflect the revised
taxonomy.
Comments on Pacific Issues
Hawaiian Monk Seal
[Comment 26]: CBD and WDC oppose NMFS categorizing fisheries
interactions with Hawaiian monk seals as non-serious when the national
guidelines would recommend the ``serious injury'' category. This is a
problem especially because NMFS does not adequately consider the
cumulative and chronic impacts of entanglements on Hawaiian monk seals.
The draft SARs rely on Mercer 2021, which gives details on the two
cases. Reclassifying these injuries from fishing gear as non-serious
fails to account for the cumulative impacts of chronic entanglements.
Entanglements make marine mammals more vulnerable to other sources of
mortality, including disease. It is premature to deviate from the
serious injury guidelines to
[[Page 47393]]
reclassify incidents as non-serious before NMFS adequately assesses
cumulative and chronic entanglement impacts for Hawaiian monk seals.
Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and notes that
determinations follow the NMFS' policy and procedural directive for
distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries.
Hawaii False Killer Whale
[Comment 27]: HLA appreciates NMFS' acknowledgment that ``timely
publication of results that inform SARs is important'' and hopes that
similar delays will not occur in the future. HLA reiterates that the
Draft 2021 SAR shows that the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate for the
Hawaii Pelagic False Killer Whale (FKW) Stock (Pelagic Stock) is well
below the stock's PBR. HLA believes the Pelagic Stock has never been
``strategic'' because the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate has never
exceeded a PBR based on those abundances. HLA comments there is no
legal basis to include the Pelagic Stock within the scope of the Take
Reduction team (TRT).
In addition, NMFS did state in response to comments on the Draft
2020 SAR that NMFS cannot determine trend information for the Pelagic
Stock based upon the three comprehensive surveys it has performed in
the EEZ over a 15-year timeframe, along with multiple modeling
exercises (performed over periods of years). HLA emphasizes that there
are no data available supporting the notion that the stock has declined
over time.
Response: NMFS uses the best available science at the time it is
available to inform each SAR and support management actions. Subsequent
years of data collection and analysis effort and refinement produce
newer estimates of pelagic false killer whale abundance. These current
estimates now represent the best available science. However, at the
time the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team (FKWTRT) was
established in 2010, the pelagic stock of false killer whales was
strategic and met the trigger for convening a take reduction team per
MMPA section 118(f).
NMFS maintains that a temporal trend in the estimates of pelagic
stock abundance cannot be determined because of the confounding effect
of random variation in the encounter rate. As explained in Bradford et
al. (2020), the model-based approach minimizes the effect of annual
sampling variability but assumes that there are no underlying temporal
trends in abundance aside from those predicted by habitat changes.
While model-based methods can be used to estimate population trends,
more data are needed to do so for pelagic false killer whales. Since a
trend cannot be estimated, there is no basis to definitively state that
the population is not declining. Anecdotal accounts cannot be used to
infer population status. Metrics that can be quantitatively derived
(e.g., depredation rates) would need to control for other factors
(e.g., cultural transmission rates) for which there are currently no
data.
[Comment 28]: HLA disagrees with NMFS' assignment of a recovery
factor of 0.5 to the Pelagic Stock, which is the value typically
assigned to depleted or threatened stocks, or stocks of unknown status,
with a mortality estimate Coefficient of Variation of 0.3 or less. HLA
comments that the Pelagic Stock is not depleted or threatened, its
status is not unknown, and it has never qualified as a ``strategic
stock.'' Accordingly, all of the available data contradict any
hypothesis that the Pelagic Stock is decreasing or otherwise not at its
optimum sustainable population. HLA believes NMFS' assignment of a
recovery factor of 0.5 to the stock is therefore arbitrary and not
consistent with the best available scientific information.
Response: The status of the pelagic false killer whale population
relative to its optimum sustainable population size is unknown, and a
temporal trend cannot be estimated as explained in the previous
response. The Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks indicate
that stocks of unknown status should use a recovery factor of 0.5 based
on results of previous simulation studies (Wade 1998) designed to
evaluate the ability of the PBR management scheme to achieve the
conservation goals of the MMPA in the face of uncertainty. The
guidelines further state that for stocks of unknown status, recovery
factors of 1.0 should be reserved for cases where there is assurance
that the minimum population estimate (Nmin), the maximum net
productivity rate (Rmax), and the estimates of mortality and
serious injury are unbiased and where the stock structure is
unequivocal, which is not the case for pelagic false killer whales.
NMFS notes that more recent simulation work supports these guidelines
(Punt et al. 2020) and that the recovery factor is not linked to a
specific abundance level or a stock designation of ``strategic'' or
``depleted.''
[Comment 29]: HLA comments that the population estimate for the
Main Hawaiian Islands insular FKW stock inappropriately reflects the
abundance of animals in only a portion of the Insular Stock's range.
The 2021 Draft SAR estimates the Main Hawaiian Islands insular FKW
stock (``Insular Stock'') abundance to be 167 animals, based upon
Bradford et al. (2018), which found that the population size of the
Insular Stock in certain study areas has consistently ranged between
144 and 187 animals over a 16-year period. Bradford et al. (2018)
concludes that (1) the study on which the Insular Stock abundance
estimate is based did not sample the entire range of the stock and (2)
the population estimate underestimates the abundance to an unknown
degree.
The MMPA requires the SAR to ``describe the geographic range of the
affected stock'' and to provide minimum population estimate for ``such
stock'' (not a ``portion of such stock''). 6 U.S.C. 1386(a). NMFS has
made no attempt to estimate the abundance of the Insular Stock across
its range or to apply ``appropriate correction factors'' to do so.
Response: Mark-recapture estimation does not require the full range
of a population to be sampled. Thus, Bradford et al. (2018) indicated
that the partial sample of main Hawaiian Island insular false killer
whales would not be problematic if all distinctive individuals in the
population used the sampled area at some point. This assumption could
not be evaluated, so Bradford et al. (2018) indicated that the true
abundance of distinctive individuals in each year may be
underestimated. The text from Bradford et al. (2018) that was omitted
from the second paragraph (i.e., ``. . . it is likely that all
individuals in the population have been exposed to sampling efforts at
some point during the study period . . .'') is not speculation, but
rather inference from movement analyses of satellite-tagged false
killer whales (Baird et al. 2010, 2012). The number of satellite tag
deployments on main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales has
almost doubled since the Baird et al. (2012) study, and movement tracks
from these individuals and fitted utilization distributions continue to
reflect a lack of spatially-restricted use, such that individuals could
be subject to sampling at some point during the sampling period. These
utilization distributions are currently being used in an updated
analysis of main Hawaiian Island insular false killer whale abundance
that accounts for animal availability and the spatial bias in sampling.
[Comment 30]: HLA disagrees with NMFS' decision to apportion a
small amount of ``take'' by the deep-set fishery to the Insular Stock
despite the fact that there has never been a recorded interaction
between the deep-set fishery and the (the ``Insular Stock'') and the
[[Page 47394]]
fact that the fishery operates almost exclusively outside the Insular
Stock's range. HLA continues to disagree with this approach for the
reasons it has previously stated and incorporates those previous
comments by reference.
HLA also reiterates its position that this type of overly
conservative decision, which has no support in the best available
science, undermines the integrity of the TRT process and decreases the
fishing industry's motivation for participation in that process.
Finally, in its responses to comments on the Draft 2020 SAR, NMFS
agreed that it ``can more explicitly state that no confirmed MHI
insular false killer whales have been observed as taken in [the deep-
set] fishery.'' 86 FR 38991 (July 23, 2021). HLA requests that NMFS do
so in the final SAR.
Response: NMFS reiterates its response to this same comment from
the 2020 Draft SARs. NMFS' Observer Program does not observe every
deep-set trip. With ~20 percent coverage, some statistical
extrapolation/approximation of what is observed is required. False
killer whale takes are relatively rare. The rarity of observed takes
together with the sampling design mean that the lack of observation
does not equate to the lack of actual interactions. NMFS is not
attributing interactions that occur outside of the MHI insular stock
area to the MHI insular stock. We are prorating the estimated portion
of the take to account for fishing effort that occurs within the MHI
insular stock range and based on the relative density of the false
killer whale stocks in this area. In reality, if an MHI insular false
killer whale were taken by the fishery, we would very likely be
underestimating the impact on this stock given our current proration
method.
Further, although NMFS noted that we can more explicitly state that
no confirmed MHI insular false killer whales have been observed as
taken in this fishery, the overlap between the 2020 SAR comment period
and the preparation of the 2021 draft SAR precluded this change. We
will add this note, with previously noted caveat that very few of the
observed takes are identified to stock due to the lack of tissue
samples or adequate photographs.
Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW)
[Comment 31]: CBD and WDC reiterate that NMFS update its protocol
of using a July deadline for its annual census. We once again ask NMFS
to update the protocol to reflect this shift in timing and to capture
the most complete population count possible in a year by setting a
December date and remind NMFS again that a July deadline reflects a
number more than a year and a half out of date currently, and six
months out of date for the SAR.
There are two updated regulatory measures that should be included
in this SAR: the final rule for the revision of critical habitat should
be noted in place of the reference to the proposed rule, and Washington
State has issued new vessel guidelines requiring a distance of 300
yards (274 meters) from the sides and 400 yards (365.76 meters) in
front or behind a group of SRKWs, and a vessel speed of 7 knots within
a \1/2\ mile (0.8 km) of the whales.
New research on the SRKW population should be included in this SAR.
Additional data from Hanson et al. (2018) is available on passive
acoustic monitoring in coastal waters. Updated analysis on coastal prey
sampling has been completed and is no longer ``in press''--Hanson et
al. (2021). New studies on body condition (Fearnbach et al. 2018) and
adult sizes (Groskreutz et al. 2019) provide additional information on
the impacts of prey depletion on the health of SRKWs. NMFS and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have also completed a report
on Priority Chinook Stocks that should be noted.
Response: With regard to the timing and reporting of census
numbers, NMFS has previously addressed this same public comment (86 FR
38991, July 23, 2021). The Hanson et al. (in press) reference has been
updated to Hanson et al. (2021). We will update the revision of
critical habitat as well as the updated information on body condition
and prey in the subsequent SAR cycle.
Humpback Whale, CA/OR/WA
[Comment 32]: WDFW, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association (WDCFA), and the Makah Tribe note the characterization of
the distinct population segment (DPS) composition of humpback whales
occurring in the stock is inconsistent with other NOAA reports.
Regarding the text in the Draft 2021 SAR that describes the proportion
of DPSs designated under the ESA for humpback whales by breeding
grounds that utilize feeding grounds off the coast of Washington and
southern British Columbia: The Draft 2021 SAR states, as previous SARs
have stated, ``The northern Washington and southern British Columbia
feeding group includes primarily threatened Mexico DPS whales, with
smaller numbers from the unlisted Hawaii DPS and endangered Central
America DPS.'' It is not clear where this characterization was
originally derived from, as no reference is provided. This
characterization of most of the whales in Washington coming from the
threatened Mexico DPS is inconsistent with estimates provided by NOAA
scientists to the International Whaling Commission. Furthermore, this
statement is in conflict with a memo released by NMFS in July 2021,
which states that the proposed approach for evaluating impacts to
listed DPSs in ESA section 7 consultations (and in all relevant ESA
analyses) would consider DPS proportions for humpback whales foraging
off of northern Washington and southern BC derived from Wade (2021).
The numbers included in the memo do not align with the characterization
in the Draft 2021 SAR. The text in the report should be updated to
reflect Wade as the best available science on the migratory destination
of North Pacific humpback whales.
Response: NMFS will replace the following language ``The northern
Washington and southern British Columbia feeding group includes
primarily threatened Mexico DPS whales, with smaller numbers from the
unlisted Hawaii DPS and endangered Central America DPS'' with findings
from Wade (2021): ``Based on a Pacific-wide photo-ID effort in 2004-
2006, Wade (2021) reported that of 180 unique whale identifications
from the Southern British Columbia--Washington stratum (``SBC/WA''), 28
were matched to Mexico wintering areas, 19 to Hawai[revaps]i, and 3 to
Central America. Wade (2021) also estimated movement probabilities from
the SBC/WA stratum to each wintering area. The highest movement
probabilities were between SBC/WA and Hawai[revaps]i (0.688), followed
by SBC/WA and Mexico (0.254), and SBC/WA and Central America (0.059).''
[Comment 33]: WDFW and the Makah Tribe comment that the draft 2021
SAR relies heavily on Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) to provide the
minimum population (stock) abundance estimate (i.e., 4,776 animals) and
will be used for practical/regulatory purposes (e.g., assessing the
impacts of anthropogenic activities). Our primary concern with respect
to the use of Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) for providing an
authoritative minimum abundance estimate for the stock comes from the
fact that it does not consider sightings data collected off the coast
of Washington. This is especially concerning because the genetic makeup
of the feeding aggregation (in terms of DPSs or Demographically
Independent Populations--DIPs) off of WA and SBC is significantly
different from that of the CA/OR feeding aggregation. A minimum
abundance estimate for the entire CA/OR/WA stock should include an
[[Page 47395]]
estimate of animals found off the coast of Washington (animals that
belong to the WA/SBC feeding group).
WDFW respectfully requests a comparative analysis of the
assumptions and precision of each of these estimates, as this would
increase transparency and improve the public's understanding of this
important process for determining the best available science. WDFW also
requests NMFS find some way to derive Nmin that more
precisely accounts for humpback whales found off the coast of
Washington.
Response: NMFS cites and compares two abundance estimates (Becker
et al. 2020, Calambokidis and Barlow 2020) in the draft humpback whale
SAR. The Becker et al. (2020) estimate is based on line-transect survey
efforts that included Washington state waters (Becker et al. 2020), and
for which the estimate is approximately 200 whales lower than the
Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) estimate. While the lower estimate of
Becker et al. (2020) could be used to represent CA + OR + WA abundance
in this SAR, the mark-recapture estimate of Calambokidis and Barlow
(2020) is used, for reasons given in the SAR.
[Comment 34]: WDFW staff, in coordination with Oregon and
California Departments of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW and CDFW) staff,
reviewed the Draft 2021 SAR alongside the 2021 M&SI Report (Carretta et
al. 2021) and the most up-to-date version of the West Coast Region
entanglement database currently available to state agencies. Multiple
inconsistencies were identified, and WDFW concurs with the comments
provided by ODFW regarding these inconsistencies.
Response: NMFS reviewed the draft SAR and M/SI report and revised
the values consistent between the SAR narrative and M/SI report totals.
Totals that appear in the M/SI report may not agree with West Coast
Region entanglement reports, as the latter is released months in
advance of the preparation of the annual M/SI report. During that
period, additional details or evidence regarding entanglements may come
to light that result in addition or deletion of cases.
[Comment 35]: CBD and WDC request that NMFS revise the CA/OR/WA
humpback stock so as not to aggregate two demographically independent
populations that do not interbreed when mature. The current draft 2021
SAR does not reference these papers or provide hypothetical stocks if
each were separate stocks. The draft SAR misleadingly includes
information from Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) about an apparent
increase in abundance from 2014 to 2018. Including appropriate caveats
to the apparent increase in the CA/OR/WA stock is important because
they explain that the increase may not apply to the DIPs. The draft
SARs do not include scientific information regarding the accuracy of
determining to which DIP or DPS a whale belongs based on photographic
identification. There is genetic evidence that animals that are
photographically identified as wintering in mainland Mexico-feeding off
California/Oregon are not representative of that herd. It is not clear
that photo identification will accurately assess the ESA-listed Central
America DPS and Mexico DPS. CBD and WDC request adequate funding to
meet the MMPA mandates for completing stock assessment reports.
Response: The draft 2021 SARs were prepared before the referenced
Technical Memoranda were published. New information on multiple
demographically independent humpback populations and their status in
U.S. west coast waters will be addressed in the 2022 draft SARs.
[Comment 36]: CBD and WDC recognize that one important function of
the SARs is enumerating serious injury and mortality for each stock,
and this is especially critical for ESA-listed humpback whales
vulnerable to vessel collisions off California. The draft SAR includes
Rockwood et al. (2017) but not more recent research available. A 2019
follow-up to Rockwood et al. (2017) concluded that even the 2017 study
estimates were an underestimate, particularly in relation to humpback
whale mortality during winter months. Table 1 of the Rockwood et al.
(2021) paper allows the results from the 2017 paper to be comparable to
the results of the paper. This information on ship strike mortality and
injury should be updated in the humpback whale SAR.
Response: Rockwood et al. (2021) did not estimate vessel strike
deaths for the entire U.S. EEZ as they did in the 2017 publication,
though they compare estimates for Southern California between the two
studies. The increase in estimates for Southern California between the
two studies does not translate to an increase over the whole study
area, thus it is unclear how the new estimates for Southern California
(including new winter estimates) may be incorporated into the SAR, when
estimates from the remainder of the U.S. EEZ are lacking. It is also
unclear how winter/spring estimates of humpback whale vessel strike
deaths can be higher than summer/autumn estimates for the same region,
when humpback whales are more abundant in this region in summer and
autumn. NMFS will consult with the authors on how the new results may
directly apply to future SARs.
[Comment 37]: CBD and WDC recommend that the SAR should also note
the impacts from marine heat waves and changing ocean conditions under
Habitat Concerns. Warmer ocean temperatures influence primary prey
choice by humpback whales and creates shifts in distribution and
habitat use, which may increase risk of human interaction.
Response: NMFS has added language to the Habitat Concerns section
with regard to marine heat waves. ``The impacts of marine heatwaves on
the foraging activities of humpback whales, including changes in the
abundance and distribution of prey and whale foraging locations, may
increase risk of human interactions (Santora et al. 2020).''
[Comment 38]: WDCFA and the Makah Tribe are concerned that the
abundance of SBC/WA populations is not included in the west coast
abundance estimates. The excluded population of the SBC/WA population
is in the order of 1,593 distinct animals and is not factored into the
total of what the 2021 SAR characterizes as coast wide abundance
estimated at 4,973, which produces an Nmin of 4,776. While a
portion of the SBC/WA population is international in range a
significant portion of that population occurs off of WA and should be
accounted for in the west coast (CA/OR/WA) population. A more accurate
abundance estimate would benefit from and be more reflective of
population abundance from a proportional inclusion of SBC/WA
populations.
Response: NMFS notes that whales summering in NBC/WA waters are not
considered a separate ``stock'' under the MMPA, as stated by the
commenter. With respect to the estimate of 4,973 (CV=0.048) whales for
CA + OR + WA waters by Calambokidis and Barlow (2020), they state:
``While this estimate was calculated using identifications from
California and Oregon, it likely incorporates the smaller number of
Washington animals since there is some level of interchange with that
area and adding our estimate for Washington-Southern British Columbia
would likely be biased high both for that reason as well as because it
would inappropriately (for purpose of calculating an Nmin
for US waters) include whales outside US waters.'' The only other
independent estimate of abundance for CA + OR + WA waters combined is
4,784 (CV=0.31) (Becker et al. 2020), and it is lower than the mark-
recapture estimate of Calambokidis and Barlow (2020). The Becker et al.
(2020) estimate could be used in the SAR, but
[[Page 47396]]
the mark-recapture estimate is considered the best estimate for
management purposes for reasons given in the SAR.
[Comment 39]: The data for consideration in this SARs report on
Pacific coast Humpback activity was gathered in 2018. WDCFA is
concerned about how long it takes to get data processed and analyzed so
that stakeholders and fisheries managers can make timely and well-
informed decisions on practices that may impact the well being of
stakeholders who make a living from the sea and the well being of the
marine species that share ocean space with us.
Response: Data on the abundance of humpback whales were collected
during a line-transect and mark-recapture survey in the past several
years. It takes 1-2 years to analyze and publish these data for use in
SARs. Guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments note
that abundance estimates are considered valid for use in SARs for an 8-
year period after being collected.
[Comment 40]: The Makah Tribe has two concerns with the use of 8
percent for the maximum net productivity rate. First, the 8 percent is
determined based on the observed rate of increase of humpback whales on
the U.S. west coast and is not the maximum net productivity rate
required by the formula for PBR. In the absence of a model with
anthropogenic mortality included, the best available science indicates
that an 11.8 percent growth rate should be used as the maximum
theoretical or estimated net productivity rate in calculating PBR for
the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales. The Makah Tribe also note that
Calambokidis and Barlow calculated an observed growth rate of 8.2
percent per year from the 1980s to the current best estimate of CA/OR
humpback whales. Thus, even if NOAA decides to use an observed growth
rate for purposes of the SAR, the rate should be increased to 8.2
percent.
Response: Guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments
note that default rates of Rmax should be used in the absence of stock-
specific measured rates. The guidelines also note that ``to be
consistent with a risk-averse approach, these default values should be
near the lower range of measured or theoretical values.'' The Rmax of
11.8 percent noted in the comment is taken from the upper 99th quantile
of the results reported by Zerbini et al. (2010) which does not reflect
the lower range of the theoretical values reported. It also does not
represent a stock-specific estimate of increase. The impacts of
anthropogenic removals on estimates of Rmax has not been estimated for
humpback whales; thus, observed rates of increase have been used in the
SARs. The commenter is correct that Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) note
that an 8.2 percent growth rate is implied for U.S. west coast humpback
whales, based on rates of increase shown since the late 1980s. NMFS has
updated the Rmax estimate to 8.2 percent in the final 2021 SAR.
[Comment 41]: The Makah Tribe notes that the assumption that the
stock spends 50 percent of its time outside of US waters is too low.
Modeled ship strikes should not be counted against the potential
biological removal. The Makah Tribe suggests that it is best to compare
the PBR to observed rates of ship strikes because the actual reports
can be validated, whereas the modeled rates may not be accurate.
Response: NMFS will review the available data with regard to how
much time this stock spends outside of U.S. west coast waters, as
resources allow. The 50 percent proration factor has been used in the
SAR for many years but can be improved. The vessel strike estimates of
Rockwood et al. are considered as any other published estimates of
anthropogenic removals might be in a SAR, including bycatch estimates.
The commenter does not make a defensible case for why estimates of
vessel strike deaths should be excluded from the SAR.
Blue Whale, Eastern North Pacific
[Comment 42]: CBD and WDC comment that the changes NMFS proposes to
the section on ``Current Population Trend'' do not seem to reflect the
concern among the Pacific SRG regarding the large declining trend in
the species distribution model (SDM) abundance estimates. Also, CBD and
WDC are concerned that the draft SAR does not adequately explain the
choice to adopt the mark-recapture estimate (1,898, CV=0.085) rather
than the SDM estimate (670, CV=0.43). The results of the SDM show a
declining trend and a worrisome low estimate of abundance for blue
whales, which could easily be explained by an actual decline in the
blue whale population. The lack of consideration of the blue whale SDM
estimate stands in contrast to the adoption of the SDM results for fin
whale abundances estimates. If the agency's explanation is that it
favors mark-recapture estimates over line-transect or SDM for
transboundary stocks, this should be more fully developed in the draft
SARs.
Response: NMFS has been consistent in favoring mark-recapture
abundance estimates over line-transect estimates (or SDM estimates
derived from line-transect surveys) in SARs when (1) the precision of
the mark-recapture estimate is superior and data were collected over a
sufficient time period; (2) the line-transect survey effort is
spatially-reduced compared with previous surveys, as was the case in
2018 (Becker et al. 2020); or (3) the line-transect estimate is
outdated. When available, the mark-recapture estimates have been used
in the blue whale SAR since 2009. In the case of fin whales, the SDM
estimate of Becker et al. (2020) is used because it represents the only
recent estimate, compared with the older line-transect trend estimates
from Moore and Barlow (2011) and Nadeem et al. (2016), and there are no
mark-recapture estimates for fin whales in this region. For blue
whales, use of the Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) mark-recapture
estimate is explained in the draft SAR as being due to its superior
precision over the SDM estimate and the fact that the SDM estimate is
spatially and seasonally constrained: ``The mark-recapture estimate
(1,898) is considered the best estimate of abundance for 2018 due to
its higher precision and because estimates based on line-transect data
reflect only animal densities within the study area at the time surveys
are conducted.'' Given that spatially-constrained line-transect
abundance estimates have declined while mark-recapture estimates have
increased, it is not irrational to assume that some portion of the blue
whale population is outside of the U.S. EEZ during summer/autumn
surveys or that their distribution has shifted north over time, as the
SAR outlines with multiple published references. One of these
references (Monnahan et al. 2015) notes that this blue whale population
may have been near carrying capacity in 2013. Given the uncertainty
from all of these sources, the SAR conservatively states that ``the
current population trend is unknown.''
[Comment 43]: ODFW notes that Table 1 in the blue whale Draft SAR
shows 2 serious injuries attributed to CA Dungeness crab gear (2 M&SI
total). The M&SI Report shows 3 entanglements involving CA Dungeness
crab gear that resulted in 2.75 serious injuries (2.75 M&SI total).
This also results in a different total M&SI from human-related
interactions in the Draft SAR (10.75 M&SI total) and the M&SI Report
(11.5 M&SI total).
Response: Totals have been corrected in the final SAR.
References
Authier M, Galatius A, Gilles A, Spitz J.
[[Page 47397]]
2020. Of power and despair in cetacean conservation: estimation and
detection of trend in abundance with noisy and short time-series.
PeerJ. 2020;8:e9436. doi:10.7717/peerj.9436.
Baird RW, Hanson MB, Schorr GS, Webster DL, McSweeney DJ, Gorgone
AM, Mahaffy SD, Holzer DM, Oleson EM, Andrews RD. 2012. Range and
primary habitats of Hawaiian insular false killer whales: informing
determination of critical habitat. Endangered Species Research.
18(1):47-61.
Baird RW, Schorr GS, Webster DL, McSweeney DJ, Hanson MB, Andrews
RD. 2010. Movements and habitat use of satellite-tagged false killer
whales around the main Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species
Research. 10:107-121.
Bradford AL, Baird RW, Mahaffy SD, Gorgone AM, McSweeney DJ, Cullins
T, Webster DL, Zerbini AN. 2018. Abundance estimates for management
of endangered false killer whales in the main Hawaiian Islands.
Endangered Species Research. 36:297-313.
Pace III, R.M. 2021. Revisions and Further Evaluations of the Right
Whale Abundance Model: Improvements for Hypothesis Testing. NOAA
Tech Memo 269.
Pace III, R.M., R. Williams, S.D. Kraus, A.R. Knowlton, and H.M.
Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales.
Conservation Science and Practice. 3:e346.
Pace, R.M., C.P.J., and K.S.D. 2017. State-space mark-recapture
estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic
right whales. Ecol and Evol 7:8730-8741.
Dated: July 28, 2022.
Evan Howell,
Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-16543 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P