[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19530-19536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XL62
Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock
assessment reports (SARs). These reports for 2008 are now final and
available to the public.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as
regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. You also may send requests for
copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn:
Stock Assessments.
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN
15700, Seattle, WA 98115.Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be
requested from Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166
Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim
Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla
Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Eagle, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail [email protected]; Robyn
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032, email
[email protected]; Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, email [email protected]; or Jim Carretta, Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, 858-546-7171, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) required 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. These reports contain information
regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population
growth rates and trends, the stock's Potential Biological Removal level
(PBR), estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury
from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock
interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed
in 1995.
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information
is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks.
NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock
has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction
with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs),
reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised
reports in each of the three regions.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2008, and the
revised reports were made available for public review and comment (73
FR 40299, July 14, 2008). The MMPA also specifies that the comment
period on draft SARs must be 90 days. NMFS received comments on the
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports
for 2008 are available.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2008 SARs
from two Federal agencies (Marine Mammal Commission and Environmental
Quality Division, National Park Service), three non-governmental
organizations (Center for Biological Diversity, Australians for Animals
International, and Hawaii Longline Association), and two individuals.
Most letters contained multiple comments.
Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or minor
clarifying changes were included in the reports. Such editorial
comments and responses to them are not included in the summary of
comments and responses below. Other comments recommended development of
Take Reduction Plans or to initiate or repeat large data collection
efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or other
mortality estimates. Comments on actions not related to the SARs (e.g.,
convening a Take Reduction Team or listing a marine mammal species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) are not included below. Many
comments recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional
abundance surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in previous
years. NMFS' resources for surveys, observer programs, or other
mortality estimates are fully utilized, and no new large surveys or
other programs may be initiated until additional resources are
available or until ongoing monitoring or conservation efforts can be
terminated so that the resources supporting them can be redirected.
Such comments on the 2008 SARs and responses to them may not be
included in the summary below because the responses have not changed.
In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be
considered for, or incorporated into, future revisions of the SAR
rather than being incorporated
[[Page 19531]]
into the final 2008 SARs. The delay is due to review of the reports by
the regional SRGs. NMFS provides preliminary copies of updated SARs to
SRGs prior to release for public review and comment. If a comment on
the draft SAR suggests a substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may
discuss the comment and prospective change with the SRG at its next
meeting prior to incorporating the change.
Comments on National Issues
Comment 1: NMFS should include a ``Habitat Concerns'' section in
all SARs.
Response: NMFS disagrees. MMPA section 117(a)(3) requires a
discussion of habitat concerns only in certain SARs (`` for a strategic
stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery
of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat ...'').
Accordingly, such discussion is included where habitat effects may have
a substantial population effect (one that could cause a decline or
impede recovery).
Comment 2: The SARs tend to lag about two years behind the latest
data on fishery mortality. In those fisheries where there is 100
percent observer coverage, the data are received in near ``real-time''
and could be incorporated sooner so that management decisions are based
upon the latest information.
Response: Although data are produced in near ``real-time'' in some
cases, the data must be reviewed for quality assurance purposes prior
to use in SARs or supporting management decisions. Fluctuations in
estimates of mortality and serious injury tend to be relatively small
because NMFS uses 5-year averages in most cases, and the PBR approach
was tested and found to be robust for underestimates of mortality and
serious injury or the precision of these estimates in meeting
performance goals.
Comment 3: Many stocks have ``undetermined'' PBR because abundance
estimates are more than eight years old. There is no excuse for failing
to update abundance estimates for many of theses stocks. Given the
precautionary principles incorporated into the MMPA, any such stocks
should be designated as strategic because NMFS cannot conclude that
mortality does not exceed PBR.
Response: Funding limitations prevent more frequent surveys for
updating abundance estimates. Funding requests have been formulated
considering Administration priorities for marine resource conservation
and other national needs.
The MMPA includes specific criteria for designating a marine
mammals stock as ``strategic.'' These criteria include (1) human-caused
mortality and serious injury at levels above PBR, (2) a designation or
listing as a depleted, threatened or endangered species or stock, and
(3) declining status likely to result in the stock's or species'
listing as a threatened or endangered species. NMFS' guidelines for
preparing stock assessment reports provide guidance for determining
status in situations where insufficient information is available for a
comparison of human-caused mortality and serious injury to PBR. The
guidelines state, ``If the human-caused mortality is believed to be
small relative to the stock size based on the best scientific judgment,
the stock could be considered as non-strategic. If human-caused
mortality is likely to be significant relative to stock size (e.g.,
greater than the annual production increment) the stock could be
considered as strategic.'' Accordingly, each such situation is
addressed individually and considered by NMFS experts and members of
the appropriate SRG before a determination is made on the stock's
status.
Comment 4: The SARs do a good job of addressing PBR and human-
caused mortality and serious injury.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 5: ``Other Mortality'' sections of the SARs do not
comprehensively address projections for many activities (e.g., military
and commercial activities, scientific research, climate change,
decreases in fish stock size).
Response: The ``Other Mortality'' sections in SARs report only
direct human-caused mortality, and the reported levels reflect only the
known or estimated levels of mortality and serious injury. The
activities included in these sections include only those for which
mortality estimates or reports are available.
Comment 6: The reported mean annual takes do not reflect the
projected increases in impacts or address preservation or stewardship
aspects of many actions that could affect marine mammals.
Response: This comment is correct. The SARs do not report on
everything that is known, projected, or suspected about each stock of
marine mammals. Rather, the SARs are limited to emphasize the key
elements required by MMPA section 117, which form the scientific basis
supporting implementation of the regime to govern interactions between
marine mammals and commercial fishing operations in MMPA section 118.
Comment 7: The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling
Commission should be provided an opportunity to review the SARs and
comment on them.
Response: The Scientific Committee has an opportunity to review the
SARs during the 90-day public comment period; however, NMFS does not
plan to add an additional step in the SAR process by requesting a
formal review by the Scientific Committee. Many of the scientists on
the U.S. delegation to the Scientific Committee meetings are NMFS
staff, and these scientists prepare, provide input to, or review the
SARs. In addition, the SARs are prepared by NMFS experts, reviewed by
additional experts within NMFS and on regional SRG, and subjected to
public review and comment. Furthermore, much of the information
contained in the SARs is extracted from the peer-reviewed literature.
An additional review step is unnecessary.
Comment 8: NMFS should invest in the development of technologies
and methods that will help address questions about population status
and habitat use and, therefore, guide management strategies,
particularly those aimed at avoiding adverse human effects.
Response: NMFS invests, to the extent appropriations allow, in such
technologies and methods.
Comment 9: NMFS should work with other agencies conducting research
related to marine mammals for the purposes of coordinating scientific
efforts and sharing data and results.
Response: NMFS and other agencies (state and Federal) generally
coordinate marine mammal-related research so that efforts are not
duplicated and existing information is shared. NMFS reviews surveys
conducted by other entities for potential incorporation into SARs and
will continue to use the best available information to prepare SARs.
Comment 10: NMFS should work with Federal and state fisheries
management agencies and industry to develop a funding strategy that
would support more effective observer programs for collecting data on
incidental fisheries-related mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals.
Response: NMFS established a National Observer Program in 1999 to
combine program-specific observer effort for efficiency and to promote
sustainable funding for a comprehensive marine resource observer
program. The National Observer Program has been working with fishery
management agencies and the fishing industry to meet these objectives
and will continue to do so. The National Observer Program, in
coordination with all six NMFS regions, is completing a National
[[Page 19532]]
Bycatch Report to compile species- and fishery-specific bycatch
estimates for fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds. This
initiative will incorporate the development of fishery improvement
plans to improve the collection of bycatch data and bycatch estimation
methodologies. These improvement plans will also provide a
comprehensive assessment of resources required to improve bycatch in
U.S. commercial fisheries.
Comment 11: NMFS should develop and implement a systematic and
comprehensive approach for incorporating and considering all risk
factors, including those that directly affect marine mammals and those
that affect habitat, into the SARs.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The description of SARs included in MMPA
section 117 indicates that SARs should focus primarily on the
information necessary to evaluate the impact of direct human-caused
mortality and serious injury. Such information includes abundance and
productivity estimates, calculations of PBR, and estimates of human-
caused mortality and serious injury by source. In some cases (where
other factors may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of
strategic stocks), SARs contain a discussion of other factors.
Expanding the SARs to include substantially more information on a wide
variety of potential risk factors would detract from their main
purpose, which is to be a concise summary of the information needed to
implement the regime to govern interactions between marine mammals and
commercial fishing operations.
Comments on Alaska Regional Reports
Comment 12: Given the observed and projected impacts of sea-ice
loss on ice-dependent pinnipeds, NMFS should declare all the ice-
dependent seals under its jurisdiction to be strategic stocks.
Response: Observed or projected impact of sea-ice loss is not among
the criteria in the MMPA for determining whether or not a stock is
strategic. Accordingly, such impacts are not considered in the
determination. Also, see response to Comment 3.
Comment 13: The SARs must address the most important threats to a
given species. For ice-dependent seals, the Habitat Concerns section
should be expanded to include more than a single sentence.
Response: The SARs for ribbon seals, ringed seals, spotted seals,
and bearded seals are scheduled to be reviewed, and updated if
appropriate, in the 2009 SARs. The Habitat Concerns sections for these
stocks will be updated if appropriate. The Habitat Concerns section is
optional, not a requirement of the SARs; see response to comment 27.
Comment 14: The draft SAR includes beluga whales in Yakutat as part
of the Cook Inlet stock although the ESA listing rule notes the Yakutat
belugas are genetically and geographically isolated from Cook Inlet
belugas. Given their small population size, Yakutat belugas should be
designated a depleted stock.
Response: Although the preamble to a rule promulgated under the ESA
states that beluga whales occupying Yakutat Bay are discrete from
beluga whales in Cook Inlet (72 FR 62919, October 22, 2008),
regulations promulgated under the MMPA (50 CFR 216.15(g)) explicitly
include beluga whales occupying Yakutat Bay as part of the depleted
Cook Inlet stock. Accordingly, the beluga whales occupying Yakutat Bay
are depleted under the MMPA. Designating the beluga whales in Yakutat
Bay as a stock separate from those in Cook Inlet would require notice-
and-comment rulemaking following a review of the status of these
animals in accordance with MMPA section 115.
Comment 15: The abundance estimate for beluga whales, Eastern
Chukchi Sea stock, is outdated, and the PBR was changed to
``undetermined''. In three of the past six years, subsistence harvest,
which do not include struck-and-loss corrections, has met or exceeded
the PBR of 74. Furthermore, the recovery factor of this stock should be
reduced from 1.0 to 0.5, which is the appropriate recovery factor for a
stock of unknown status. If the proper recover factor were used, the
PBR would be 37, which is below annual human-caused mortality for five
of the last 6 years. In light of the high level of harvest, combined
with the impacts of global warming and increasing oil industry activity
in its range, this stock should be considered strategic.
Response: NMFS' guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports
provide guidance for determining status in situations where
insufficient information is available for a comparison of human-caused
mortality and serious injury to PBR. The guidelines state, ``If the
human-caused mortality is believed to be small relative to the stock
size based on the best scientific judgment, the stock could be
considered as non-strategic. If human-caused mortality is likely to be
significant relative to stock size (e.g., greater than the annual
production increment) the stock could be considered as strategic.''
NMFS scientists have determined that human-caused mortality is likely
less than the annual production increment and presented this
determination to the Alaska SRG in January 2008 before the SAR was made
available for public review and comment. The 5-year mean mortality/
serious injury estimate was below the former PBR of 74. Accordingly,
the stock retains a status of ``non-strategic''. Also, see response to
Comment 3.
Comment 16: NMFS should proceed with formal recognition of 12
stocks of harbor seals in Alaska and proceed with research and
management of those stocks as set forth in the MMPA.
Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007,
Comment 16) and 2007 (73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008, Comment 23). As in
the past, NMFS continues its commitment to work with its co-managers in
the Alaska Native community to evaluate and revise stock structure of
harbor seals in Alaska.
Comment 17: Given the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of
a plan for oil and gas lease sales in the range of North Pacific right
whales, Eastern North Pacific stock, 2007-2012, the SAR should include
more than ``recent interest'' in oil and gas exploration and
development to reflect the more formal evaluation for leasing.
Response: At this time, previously-proposed lease sales are being
reevaluated. Given that there is considerable uncertainty about whether
lease sales will occur, it is currently unnecessary to expand on what
lease sales may occur within the range of the North Pacific right
whale.
Comment 18: The maps and stock descriptions of humpback, fin, and
minke whales should be changed to include recent sightings in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
Response: NMFS will review the recent sightings of humpback, fin,
minke, and gray whales in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and update the
maps and geographic range information in the 2009 SARs accordingly.
Comment 19: NMFS should include the narwhal in its Alaska SARs due
to apparent increasing sightings and take authorizations issued for the
species.
Response: In accordance with the MMPA, NMFS prepares SARs for
species or stocks that occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction and
interprets this requirement to exclude those species or stocks for
which there is a remote likelihood of occurring in U.S. waters (e.g.,
stocks for which only the margins of the range extends into U.S. waters
or that enter U.S. waters only during anomalous current or temperature
shifts). NMFS is currently
[[Page 19533]]
collecting and reviewing available narwhal sightings information and
will consider whether a future SAR is appropriate after the review is
complete.
Comment 20: The SAR for humpback whales, Central North Pacific
stock, must use the recently released data from the Structure of
Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of Humpbacks (SPLASH)
project, which represents the best population data available. The SAR
appropriately rejects the abundance estimates based upon 1993 survey
data as being outdated; however, it incorrectly states that the PBR is
undetermined. The SPLASH data indicate a significant population
increase, resulting in more than doubling of the stock's population
estimate.
Response: The final SPLASH report was released in May 2008
(Calambokidis et al., 2008), after the draft 2008 SARs were prepared.
NMFS will be using the data provided in this report to partially update
the draft 2009 SARs and plans a full update of the Pacific humpback
whale SARs in 2010.
Comments 21 through 27 refer to the SAR for gray whales, Eastern
North Pacific stock.
Comment 21: The SAR for gray whales does not properly consider the
findings of Alter et al. (2007). The SAR concludes their analysis is
irrelevant because an estimate of the abundance 1100-1600 years ago
does not necessarily represent current carrying capacity (K); however,
the SAR cites no authority for this conclusion. Wade's (2002) analysis
supports the conclusion in Alter et al. (2007) through the inability to
reconcile the catch history from the 1800s with the recent time series
of abundance data. Uncertainties regarding this stock's long-term
response to climate change support a precautionary approach to
management, and NMFS should designate the stock as depleted.
Response: As noted in responses to comments on the 2007 SARs (73 FR
21111, April 18, 2008), NMFS considered the findings of Alter et al.
(2007), in addition to publications in response to Alter et al. (2007)
(e.g., Palsboll et al. 2007) and concluded these findings do not
indicate the stock is depleted. Furthermore, the MMPA does not include
uncertainties regarding a stock's long-term response to climate change
among the criteria within the definition of ``depleted''.
Neither the MMPA nor its legislative history defines K. NMFS
interpreted the use of K within the MMPA to mean current carrying
capacity in a legislative proposal submitted to Congress after
extensive internal and interagency review and two separate
opportunities for public review and comment. Accordingly, an abundance
of the population more than 1,000 years ago cannot be a reasonable
proxy for K.
Comment 22: The draft SAR has not used or reported the best
scientific information available. For example, many of the estimates in
the SAR are older than those in NMFS' draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on the Makah's request for a limited waiver of the
MMPA's moratorium to allow them to continue their treaty right of
hunting for gray whales. NMFS should explain why two different sets of
data are presented in these documents.
Response: The abundance estimate of 18,813 reported in the draft
2008 SARs is based on the mean of the 2000/01 and 2001/02 abundance
estimates. The abundance estimate of 20,110 reported in the DEIS is
based on the results of the 2006/07 census. The draft 2008 SARs were
prepared and updated prior to the availability and publication of Rugh
et al. (2008), which analyzed the results of the 2006-2007 census of
the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales. This information will
be included in the gray whale SAR in a future revision.
Comment 23: The ramifications of calculating a PBR based upon a
highly inflated recovery factor and minimum abundance (Nmin) are
unknown. The recovery factor for all other large whales is set at 0.1,
and that for gray whales is 1.0. NMFS cannot claim the population is
healthy. Nmin has not been adjusted to account for the population
collapse in 1999 and 2000 in which a third or more of the population
was lost.
Response: Most large whale species are listed as ``endangered''
under the ESA and, thus, have been assigned a recovery factor of 0.1 as
indicated in NMFS' guidelines for assessment marine mammal stocks. The
eastern North Pacific gray whale stock was removed from the list of
endangered species in 1994 and is currently within its optimum
sustainable population (OSP) (Wade and Perryman 2002; Punt et al.
2004). A major purpose of the recovery factor is to allow a portion of
net annual production to be used for recovery to OSP. Because this
stock is within its OSP, no recovery is necessary.
Nmin was calculated from an abundance estimate based on surveys
after the 1999-2000 stranding event. Therefore, the current value of
Nmin incorporates effects of this stranding event.
Comment 24: There is substantial inconsistency among documents
produced by NMFS scientists on estimates of K; therefore, the value of
K in the draft SAR has no validity.
Response: NMFS has produced documents with a range of estimates
for K because NMFS has used alternative models for analyzing data and
because new information has become available since the first estimate
of K was published. Wade's (2002) analysis included multiple models and
identifying the ``best'' model for interpretation of the results.
Therefore, the calculation of alternative estimates for K was an
integral part of the analytical process, which produced a more robust
estimate of K than would occur from using a single model. As new
information has been obtained (e.g., additional abundance estimates or
revisions to the models used in estimating abundance), the entire data
set is re-analyzed using the approaches in Wade (2002). Furthermore,
the various estimates of K are in general agreement.
Comment 25: The extent of orca predation on gray whales has been
ignored in the draft SAR. Scientists from Monterey and Alaska are
documenting mortality rates of up to 30 percent in the gray whale
population in some years.
Response: The SARs report a variety of information on marine
mammals, including abundance, distribution, trends, and human-induced
mortality and serious injury. Some information on threats may be
included in certain SARs when the estimated severity of the threat
significantly affects the stock's status (e.g., killer whale predation
is mentioned in the SAR for the Cook Inlet beluga stock). NMFS is not
aware of 30-percent mortality rates of gray whales due to killer whale
predation.
Comment 26: There are several key issues for the PBR in the gray
whale SAR. These are as follows:
(a) PBR is no substitute for comprehensive assessments;
(b) Maximum sustainable yield is a limit rather than a target;
(c) The value of Nmin is highly dubious;
(d) There is no adequate explanation for setting the recovery
factor at 1.0;
(e) The harvest information is not good, as suggested by the
inability to reconcile the historical population size to current data;
(f) It is not clear why the PBR is constant when NMFS claims the
population is increasing;
(g) No papers explicitly review methodology;
(h) The locations for abundance estimates were changed; and
(i) Calving figures do not show an exploding population.
[[Page 19534]]
Response: The subheadings below correspond to the subheadings in
the comment:
(a) PBR is not used as a substitute for a comprehensive
assessment. Rather, it is included as a requirement of the MMPA;
(b) NMFS agrees, and MSY is not used within the MMPA;
(c) The value of Nmin is based on the best available information on
abundance and the variance of the abundance estimates.
(d) A recovery factor of 1.0 is appropriate. See response to
Comment 23.
(e) Wade (2002) included an additional variance term in the model
to account for potential underestimated harvest during the whaling
years; thus, his estimates of population parameters incorporate this
uncertainty. NMFS is confident that good information is available for
the past 5 years, which is the relevant time period for estimating the
effect of current human-caused mortality and serious injury.
(f) The PBR level is updated only when there is new information on
abundance available. The abundance estimate used in the SARs in both
2005 (the last time the gray whale SAR was scheduled to be updated) and
2008 both use a mean estimate of the abundance estimates from 2000/01
census and 2001/02 census. Therefore, because the abundance estimated
calculated from the mean estimates over these years is the same, the
PBR level has not changed.
(g) The methodologies for key parameters in the SARs (e.g., those
used for PBR) were described in peer-reviewed literature. The
guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks were subjected to peer
and public review three different times (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1995;
62 FR 3005, January 21, 1997; and 69 FR 3005, November 18, 2004).
Therefore, NMFS maintains that important methodologies used in SARs
have been thoroughly reviewed.
(h) Gray whale shore-based counts were conducted from Yankee Point
from 1967/1968 to 1973/1974 and then from Granite Canyon in all
subsequent years. The two sites are 3 miles apart, and aerial surveys
have shown similar distributions of gray whales relative to shore at
these sites. The only other time an alternate site was used for a
survey was at the end of the migration in 1997/1998; from 11-24 Feb
1998 counts were made from Point Lobos, 5 miles north of Granite
Canyon. This change was necessary because the road to Granite Canyon
was washed out in a storm. Besides these minor differences in sites,
all within a few miles, NMFS has consistently used the Granite Canyon
research station for the past 3 decades.
(i) The population is within its OSP, likely near K. Consequently,
the rate of population growth is expected to be low because K
represents an equilibrium abundance (when birth and death rates are
approximately equal). The SAR reflects published information on calving
rates, which indicates the calf production indices (calf estimate/total
population estimate) from 1994-2000 were between 1.1 percent and 5.8
percent annually (Perryman et al. 2002), and in 2004 the index was 9
percent (Perryman et al. 2004). Gray whale calf counts from shore
stations along the California coast have indicated significant
increases in average annual calf counts near San Diego in the mid- to
late-1970s compared to the 1950s and 1960s, and near Carmel in the mid-
1980s through 2002 compared to late-1960s through 1980 (Shelden et al.
2004). This increase may be related to a trend toward later migrations
over the observation period (Rugh et al. 2001, Buckland and Breiwick
2002), or it may be due to an increase in spatial and temporal
distribution of calving as the population increased (Shelden et al.
2004).
Comment 27: The Habitat Concerns section should be expanded to a
more comprehensive list of factors that could be affecting gray whale
habitat (e.g., wave energy projects, terminals for liquid natural gas
shipments, oil and gas lease sales, exploration and development, and
noise).
Response: Although there are various activities underway or planned
that could affect gray whale habitats, none of these factors is likely
``causing a decline or impeding recovery of'' (MMPA section 117(a)(3)).
Accordingly, they are not included in the SAR. Also, see response to
Comment 1.
Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports
Comment 28: The 2007 and 2008 Atlantic Ocean SARs do not cite
potential risks to Kogia species from sonar sound, even though data in
the published literature support the concern that military sonar may
affect Kogia much like it affects beaked whales, and concern has been
expressed about the vulnerability of Kogia to oil and gas industries in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: The Kogia species reports were not updated in 2008.
However, the ``Other Mortality'' discussions in the 2007 reports for
the Western North Atlantic stocks of both Kogia species note that
potential risks due to anthropogenic noise is of concern. NMFS is also
concerned about potential effects of anthropogenic noise of Kogia
stocks in the Gulf of Mexico and is reviewing the literature for
evidence related to this concern. If appropriate, NMFS will address
such concern in future revisions of these SARs.
Comment 29: NMFS needs to better update bottlenose dolphin stock
structure in the Gulf of Mexico. Given the difficulty in assigning
fisheries-related mortality to the appropriate stock, all such stocks
should be designated as strategic stocks.
Response: Research to update stock structure of bottlenose dolphins
in the Gulf of Mexico is being conducted on a small scale, and a
research plan has been developed to implement more wide-ranging stock
structure research as resources become available.
For bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, the 33 Bay, Sound
and Estuarine Stocks and the 3 Coastal Stocks are designated as
strategic stocks because for each stock, the abundance is unknown and
human-related mortality and serious injury has been reported but the
levels of such takes are unknown. This is not the case for the
Continental Shelf Stock and the Oceanic Stock where for each stock,
there are estimates of abundance and fishery-related mortality and
serious injury, and for each, fishery-related mortality and serious
injury do not exceed PBR.
Comment 30: Atlantic white-sided dolphins should be designated as a
strategic stock due to increasing bycatch trends.
Response: Increasing bycatch trends is not a criterion for
strategic status according to the MMPA. The bycatch of Atlantic white-
sided dolphins exceeded PBR in the 2000 SAR, and, therefore, the stock
was strategic in that report. In subsequent reports, including the 2008
report, bycatch levels have been below PBR, and, therefore, Atlantic
white-sided dolphins have not been designated as strategic.
Comment 31: Abundance and mortality estimates for short-finned and
long-finned pilot whales should be separated based on recent genetic
and survey data. These stocks should be designated as strategic stocks.
In addition, NMFS should collect sufficient information to determine
the abundance, trend, and mortality rates of this stock and determine
whether the stock may warrant designation as a depleted stock.
Response: NMFS is currently analyzing data collected between 2004
and 2007 to evaluate the spatial distribution and habitats of short-
finned and long-finned pilot whales during the summer months. Based
upon preliminary results, it is likely that the abundance estimates of
the two species
[[Page 19535]]
can be separated to develop specific estimates of PBR for each.
However, additional data collection is required to separate the
mortality and serious injury estimates for the two stocks associated
with pelagic longline and other fisheries. As resources become
available, NMFS will continue its work to improve the assessment and
understanding of the status of these two species.
Comments on Pacific Regional Reports
Comment 32: Mortality estimates for blue whales should be updated
to include recent ship strikes in the Santa Barbara ship channel.
Response: At the time the draft 2008 report was prepared, complete
data on 2007 ship strikes were unavailable. The SAR for blue whales for
2009 will be updated to include 2007 ship strike data, and a brief
narrative of the NMFS response to the ship strikes will also included.
Comment 33: All SARs for stocks in the range of the Hawaii-based
longline fisheries should separate potential interactions with the
deep-set fishery from the shallow-set fishery.
Response: In the draft 2008 SAR, all false killer whale
interactions were evaluated separately for deep and shallow-set
fisheries by NMFS, although some information is presented jointly.
Table 1 (footnote 2) in the 2008 SAR indicates that all reported
mortalities and serious injuries of false killer whales took place in
the deep-set fishery and that no false killer whales were observed
killed or injured in the shallow-set fishery. Following the 2009 List
of Fisheries, which formally separates deep-set and shallow-set
fisheries, the draft 2009 false killer whale SAR will be further
modified to discuss and list each fishery separately in both the text
and the table.
Comment 34: Significant uncertainties and errors continue in the
SAR for false killer whales. The SAR incorrectly identifies false
killer whales in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean into three stocks
based upon boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). This incorrect
stock structure results in an underestimate of the abundance of false
killer whales that interact with the deep-set longline fishery. NMFS
must address concerns or acknowledge in the SAR the uncertainties that
underlie its conclusions.
Response: NMFS recognizes that all marine mammal stock assessments
have elements of uncertainty. NMFS' assessment framework explicitly
takes this uncertainty into account. Uncertainty in abundance and
mortality/serious injury estimates is reported in terms of a
statistical measure, the coefficient of variation (CV). The high CVs
reported in the SARs explicitly acknowledge the underlying
uncertainties. These uncertainties have already been incorporated into
the SAR, as requested by the commenter.
The establishment of EEZ-based stocks is consistent with national,
peer-reviewed guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks of species
that occur in U.S. and international waters. The guidelines state,
``For situations where a species with a broad pelagic distribution
which extends into international waters experiences mortalities within
the U.S. EEZ, PBR calculations should be based on the abundance in the
EEZ.
The abundance and fishery interaction data presented in the SAR
have undergone rigorous scientific peer-review, and have been published
in scientific journals and technical reports. The abundance estimate is
based on over 5 months of survey effort using methodology that is
widely accepted by experts to provide unbiased abundance estimates.
During this survey, many sightings of a variety of less conspicuous
cetaceans were made. The single false killer whale sighting
demonstrates and confirms the rarity of this species in the Hawaiian
EEZ. Fishery mortality and serious injury estimates have consistently
been reported to be underestimates, not exaggerations, because not all
cetaceans can be identified and many of the unidentified cetaceans were
reported to be ``false killer whales or short-finned pilot whales''.
These unidentified cetaceans have not been included in the assessment
calculations. For these reasons, NMFS disagrees that the false killer
whale population estimate is underestimated and that the importance of
rare interactions with the fishery are exaggerated. The stock
assessments are based on the best available, peer-reviewed science and
will continue to be refined as new data are analyzed and results become
available.
Comments 35 through 37 refer to false killer whales, Hawaii Insular
stock or Hawaii Pelagic stock.
Comment 35: The conclusion that insular animals are not taken in
the long-line fishery is inappropriate, and the insular stock should be
considered strategic. A precautionary approach would place the boundary
between the insular and pelagic stocks at 51 nmi (the maximum recorded
distance to land for a satellite-tagged insular false killer whale).
Response: The SAR states that NMFS used sightings information and
genetics data to show there were at least two separate stocks (insular
and pelagic) within the Hawaii EEZ and that the boundary between the
two stocks may change as new information became available. The
rationale for locating the stock boundary was explained in an
administrative report (Chivers et al., 2008. Rationale for the 2008
revision to Hawaiian stock boundaries for false killer whales,
Pseudorca crassidens. Administrative Report LJ-08-04.) NMFS recognizes
(1) uncertainty in the stock boundary, (2) there is some overlap
between the insular and pelagic stocks, and (3) there is potential for
the Hawaii-based longline fisheries to interact with the insular stock
of false killer whales when the fishery operates within 75 nmi of the
main Hawaiian Islands.
However, a strategic designation is defined in the MMPA to indicate
that the documented mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR, and no
mortality or serious injury of the insular stock in fisheries has been
documented. (Also, see response to Comment 3.) Furthermore, the
satellite telemetry information on false killer whale movements was not
available when the 2008 SARs were drafted and will be incorporated in
the 2009 SARs.
NMFS continues to evaluate false killer whale stock boundaries and
stock-specific mortality and serious injury as new data become
available and are peer-reviewed. NMFS includes such new information
into the SARs as appropriate.
Comment 36: New information is available from recently published
studies on population trends, persistent pollutants, and telemetry data
and should be included in the SAR.
Response: The information identified by the commenter was not yet
published or peer-reviewed when the 2008 SARs were drafted. It will be
added to the 2009 draft SAR.
Comment 37: As the draft SAR for the insular stock indicates, there
is no documented mortality of these whales incidental to shallow-set
longline fishing. If, however, such fishing is increased as indicated
in a proposed change to the fishery management plan, there is likely to
be increased bycatch of insular and pelagic stocks of false killer
whales.
Response: The shallow-set fishery has had 100 percent observer
coverage since the implementation of new regulations in 2004 and would
continue to have 100 percent coverage under the proposed new plan.
Incidental mortality and serious injury of false killer whales in this
fishery in the future would be recorded by on-board observers and
included in future stock assessments.
[[Page 19536]]
Dated: April 24, 2009.
David Cottingham,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9812 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S