Notice2021-15701
2020 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 23, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has considered public comments for revisions of the 2020 marine mammal stock assessment reports (SAR). This notice announces the availability of 80 final 2020 SARs that were updated and finalized. NMFS also announces the availability of a revised final 2019 North Atlantic right whale SAR that includes a typographic correction.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38991-39005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XA349]
2020 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 2020 marine mammal
stock assessment reports (SAR). This notice announces the availability
of 80 final 2020 SARs that were updated and finalized. NMFS also
announces the availability of a revised final 2019 North Atlantic right
whale SAR that includes a typographic correction.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the internet as
regional compilations and separated by individual species/stocks at the
following addresses, respectively: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region</a> <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Zachary Schakner, Office of
Science and Technology, 301-427-8106, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9f3c8cac1c8dbd087facac1c8c2c7ccdbe9c7c6c8c887cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="134972707b72616a3d40707b72787d7661537d7c72723d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>; Marcia
Muto, 206-526-4026, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c38ea2b1a0aaa2ed8eb6b7ac83adaca2a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c588a4b7a6aca4eb88b0b1aa85abaaa4a4eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>, regarding Alaska regional
stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60250c091a01020514084e2a0f13051008130f0e200e0f01014e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aaefc6c3d0cbc8cfdec284e0c5d9cfdac2d9c5c4eac4c5cbcb84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>, regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672d0e0a492406151502131306270908060649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="347e5d591a7755464651404055745a5b55551a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>, regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments
for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports must contain information regarding
the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates
and trends, estimates of annual human-caused Mortality and Serious
Injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with
which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports
were completed in 1995.
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information
is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic
stocks. The term ``strategic stock'' means a marine mammal stock: (A)
For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the
potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (OSP)); (B) which,
based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is
likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed
as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and
the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock
[[Page 38992]]
has changed or can be more accurately determined.
Prior to public review, the updated SARs under NMFS' jurisdiction
are peer-reviewed within NMFS Fisheries Science Centers and by members
of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups (SRG),
established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS on information
and uncertainties related to the status of marine mammals.
The period covered by the 2020 SARs is 2014-2018. NMFS reviewed all
strategic stock SARs and others as appropriate and updated 80 SARs
representing 84 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to
incorporate new information. The 2020 revisions to the SARs consist
primarily of updated or revised estimates of human-caused M/SI new
stock names, new methodology and updated abundance estimates. Four
stocks changed status from ``non-strategic'' to ``strategic'' (Eastern
Bering Sea beluga whale, Gulf of Mexico spinner dolphin, Gulf of Mexico
striped dolphin, and Gulf of Mexico Clymene dolphin).
The revised draft 2020 SARs were made available for public review
and comment for 90 days (85 FR 78307, December 4, 2020). NMFS received
comments on the draft 2020 SARs through March 8, 2021 and has revised
the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of 80
final 2020 reports, which are available on NMFS' website (see
ADDRESSES). The Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR was not finalized
because of a technical error; the corrected report will be published in
a subsequent SAR cycle. NMFS also announces the availability of the
revised final 2019 NARW SAR that includes a typographic correction.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2020 SARs
from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); Department of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (DFO); Makah Indian Tribe (Makah); Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC); Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC); two fishing industry associations (Hawaii Longline
Association (HLA) and Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA)); and a
coalition comment letter from four non-governmental organizations
(Center for Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin Conservation,
Conservation Council for Hawai'i, and Conservation Law Foundation,
referred to hereafter as ``the Coalition''). 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 2020 SARs.
Comments on National Issues
Comment 1: The Coalition notes that the MMPA requires that NMFS
revise stock assessments for strategic stocks annually and comments
that the public is not able to timely contribute to the SARs. For those
stocks, which are especially important to conserve, the public is not
able to timely contribute to the SARs. The publication of the draft
SARs is same month as the Scientific Review Groups are reviewing the
draft 2021 marine mammal SARs and the coalition commented that
undermines the public's ability to participate in a meaningful manner.
Response: The MMPA requires NMFS to review, not revise, SARs at
least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant
new information is available. Following this review, NMFS revises SARs
as necessary. We acknowledge and agree with this comment regarding the
importance of following the SAR process timeline so the current year's
draft SARs do not overlap with the final SARs from the previous year.
Unfortunately, the publication of the draft 2020 SARs was delayed until
the end of the year, largely due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. The public comment period of 90 days, however, remained
unchanged.
Comment 2: The Commission continues to be concerned about NMFS'
performance in meeting several of the requirements of Section 117 of
the MMPA. Without a minimum abundance estimate (Nmin) derived from
recent data, PBR cannot be calculated and is considered ``unknown.''
Including the revised 2020 draft SARs, the Commission comments that an
Nmin estimate is lacking for 81 of the 252, or 32 percent of identified
stocks. The lack of data for over one third of the stocks recognized by
NMFS is a serious shortcoming in meeting statutory obligations. The
Commission reiterates its recommendation that NMFS continue its efforts
to prioritize and coordinate requests to secure the necessary survey
resources across regions.
Response: We acknowledge 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 3: The Commission notes that in a few of the individual
SARs (e.g., Eastern North Pacific gray whale, CA/WA/OR fin whale, and
all of the Northeast stocks), M/SI data are lumped for the five-year
analysis period. The Commission feels strongly that M/SI data should be
presented individually for each year of the analysis period, and
comments that the detection of short-term trends or extreme events
affecting M/SI are difficult to discern if five-year averages are the
only data available. The Commission recommends that NMFS present
estimates for each year of a five-year analysis period for all SARs
with M/SI data.
Response: For two of the stocks highlighted by the Commission
(Eastern North Pacific gray whale and CA/WA/OR fin whales), the number
of observed bycatch events in the most-recent five-year period (one and
zero respectively) are highlighted in the SAR bycatch table for the
California swordfish drift gillnet fishery that is observed annually.
For the sake of visual simplicity in the SAR (rather than parsing out
five zeros or four zeros and a one), these data are pooled into a five-
year time frame and individual annual totals may be found in supporting
citations (bycatch and serious injury reports). In cases where there
has been a large spike in bycatch, or major changes in fishery effort
or observer coverage, these details are reflected in the SAR text.
Where MS/I data are collected opportunistically from strandings or at-
sea sightings, the five-year sum of observed totals is assessed against
PBR and individual year data is published in annual serious injury
reports. We agree that in some cases where observer coverage is
sporadic or highly-variable within a five-year period, parsing out such
annual data may be useful to highlight potential data gaps or changes
in bycatch levels. However, these benefits are outweighed by the costs
of parsing and presenting annual data that is prone to high levels of
statistical noise.
Comments on Alaska Issues
Comment 4: Over the past decade, the Commission has repeatedly
recommended that NMFS, in collaboration with its co-management
partners, improve its monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting
in Alaska. While there have been improvements in the number of
communities reporting take levels for some ice seals in the SARs in
recent years, the majority of communities that hunt or may hunt ice
seals are still unaccounted for. Therefore, the
[[Page 38993]]
Commission continues to recommend that NMFS pursue additional
mechanisms to gather reliable information on the numbers of marine
mammals taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes, including by
securing adequate funding for comprehensive surveys of subsistence use
and Native hunting effort in collaboration with 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 limited number of villages or a subset of years.
The Commission has previously recommended that NMFS include all
available data about harvest numbers, including struck and lost, in the
SARs for beluga whales, and that NMFS work with the Alaska Beluga Whale
Committee to improve the completeness of and consistency in reporting
harvest data, with a focus on struck and lost information for these
stocks. The Commission understands that, in response to a
recommendation from the Alaska SRG, struck and lost numbers will be
included in the final 2020 SARs and the Commission looks forward to
seeing those numbers.
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; thus, 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.
Comment 5: The Coalition emphasizes that, in the Humpback Whale,
Central North Pacific Stock SAR, the section on habitat concerns should
include Currie et al. (2021), which showed that in the presence of
vessels, humpback whales increase swim speed and respiration rate and
decrease dive times, which has been shown to be an energetically
demanding avoidance strategy. In order to ensure recovery to OSP, the
Coalition comments that the SARs must include non-lethal effects of
human disturbance, as described in Currie et al. (2021) and believes
that recording those interactions is a first step toward assessing and
mitigating the severity of impact. The Coalition also requests that the
Habitat Concerns section include the increasing overlap between whales
and high concentrations of marine debris.
Response: NMFS has added information on (1) the behavioral
responses of humpback whales to vessel presence in Southeast Alaska and
Hawaii (Schuler et al. 2019, Currie et al. 2021), and (2) the overlap
between humpback whales and high concentrations of marine debris
(Currie et al. 2017) to the Habitat Concerns section of the final 2020
Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR.
Comments on Atlantic Issues
North Atlantic Right Whale, Western Atlantic Stock
Comment 6: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) notes
that Entanglement Mortality #3893 (1/22/2018) was discovered on a U.S.
beach (1/22/2018) with no gear recovered but was assigned to Canada.
DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence to support this death being
attributed to Canada.
Response: NMFS thanks the reviewer for the detailed examination of
individual cases. Gear was recovered from #3893 and identified as
Canadian snow crab fishing gear.
Comment 7: DFO comments on Entanglement Prorated Injury #3312,
which was sighted in Canadian waters (7/13/2018) with no gear recovered
and then assigned to Canada (CN). Entanglement Prorated Injury #3843
was sighted in Canadian waters (7/30/2018), also with no gear
recovered, and it was unassigned as a first sighting in Canada (XC).
DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence to suggest that #3312 would
reasonably be assigned to Canada. Moreover, a seemingly similar case of
Entanglement Prorated Injury in U.S. waters (12/20/2018, #2310,
Nantucket, MA), where there was also no gear recovered but was first
sighted in the United States, is marked as unassigned (XU).
Response: Entanglement Prorated Injury #3312 was sighted in Canada
earlier in the day on 7/13/2018 gear free. NMFS determined the
entanglement occurred within a 2-hour window that day, thus it was
assigned to CN. The other two whales sighted as examples had pre-
entanglement sighting histories >1 month; therefore, there was much
more uncertainty about when and where the entanglement may have
occurred.
Comment 8: DFO comments on the summary in Table 3. Confirmed human-
caused M/SI records of right whales: 2014-2018a assigns a 1.55 average
M/SI over 5 years due to entanglement to Canada. Looking at the
incidents in the table marked EN (entanglement) CN (Canada) there are
6.75 incidents (4 mortalities + 2 serious injuries + 0.75 prorated
injury), resulting in an average of 1.35 per year rather than 1.55. The
discrepancy is carried over from the 2019 draft SAR, when #3694
mortality was assigned to Canada. However, in response to DFO's comment
related to the mortality assignment of #3694 (published 85 FR 149;
August 3, 2020.), the entry for #3694 was changed from CN (assigned to
Canada) to XC (Unassigned first sighted in Canada) in the final 2019
North Atlantic right whale Stock Assessment Report. DFO points out that
the total counts have not been updated in the summary for the 2020
draft SAR.
Response: Right whale #3694 was changed from XU (unassigned, first
sighted in US) to CN in the 2019 draft that went out for public comment
based on identification of the gear as Canadian snow crab gear. In the
conversion from draft to final, this was inadvertently changed to XC
(unassigned, first sighted in Canada). A correction has been issued and
we have made the changes to the final 2019 report which is now
available. Summary statistics have also been corrected in the final
2020 report.
Comment 9: DFO is not aware of any conclusive evidence used in
assigning the following to Canada: Serious Injury #4057 (8/13/2016) and
Serious Injury #4094 (07/19/2017).
Response: The gear involved with Serious Injury #4057 (8/13/2016)
was identified as Canadian crab pot by DFO. For Serious Injury #4094
(07/19/2017), the gear was identified as Canadian crab pot in Daoust et
al. (2018).
Comment 10: The Coalition recommends that the section ``Stock
Definition and Geographic Range'' be changed to reflect the current
habitat use of right whales. As written, it is confusing to discern
between historic and more recent data. For example, the introduction
states that foraging habitat is in New England and Canadian waters,
which does not address the year-round use of waters south of Cape Cod
as a foraging habitat as reflected in the NOAA Expert Working Group
Report, or the detections in all seasons of right whales in the near
shore waters of New Jersey during which right whales were documented
skim feeding. The Coalition comments that the mid-Atlantic is
increasingly used by the species as more than a migratory corridor,
which should be reflected in the SAR. The current references to the
mid-Atlantic in the draft SAR precede 2010, the time when a significant
shift in right whale habitat use was first noted. More recent sightings
of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the
[[Page 38994]]
Canary Islands should also be included. The Coalition also notes that
it is important to consider that population demographics may dictate
habitat use, which could impact associated risks to those individuals.
Response: Although NMFS considers the description of the right
whale range and habitat use to be an accurate reflection of published
findings to date, we acknowledge that new observations indicate
additional changes in the species' seasonal distribution. We also agree
that demographics are an important consideration. Several studies have
been recently completed; but, until published, our ability to utilize
this information in the SAR is limited. In addition, we have no
evidence to suggest that ``changing habitat use'' has settled into a
new stable state. Still, we endeavor to consider all significant
changes in habitat use. When it comes to management decisions based on
habitat use, the agency uses the most current habitat use models
available including those from the Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab at
Duke University, which does reflect an increase in habitat use in the
mid-Atlantic region.
Comment 11: The Coalition comments that the ``Population Size and
PBR'' section is outdated and does not reflect the most recent analysis
indicating that the Nmin for 2019 is 347. Even considering 2018, the
value in the SAR is higher than the best population estimate of 383
based on the Pace method (Pace et al. 2021). As such, PBR is below 0.8.
Response: NMFS strives to update the SARs with as timely data as
possible, to ensure the SARs are based upon the best available
scientific information. As noted in previous years, as a result of the
review, revision, and assessment of available data, the data used
typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR. The agency
recognizes the lags in SAR processing time, but this is necessary to
achieve the appropriate peer review. To that extent, we are finalizing
a NMFS technical memorandum to provide up-to-date population estimates.
We expect to include these data and information in the 2021 SAR.
Comment 12: The Coalition appreciates NMFS' inclusion of cryptic
mortality as calculated by Pace et al. (2021). The current reference in
the document should be updated from submitted to reflect its
publication.
Response: Now that Pace et al. (2021) is published, we have updated
the reference.
Comment 13: The Coalition asks NMFS to update the ``Fishery-Related
Mortality and Serious Injury'' section to include Hamilton et al.
(2019), from which NMFS determined that ``11.04 percent of the right
whale population is entangled annually in U.S. federal fishing gear.''
The Coalition requests that NMFS include its findings that an average
of 6.724 right whales are seriously injured or killed in U.S. fishing
gear each year.
Response: We have updated language in the final 2020 SAR
referencing observations by Hamilton et al. (2019) that 30.25 percent
of the population was entangled annually between 2010 and 2017. We
recognized in the text of the document that MS/I is likely much higher
than observed. However, the estimates above are based on a NMFS 2021
analysis that is still a draft and was not reviewed by the Atlantic SRG
at the time of writing. Approaches to these issues were discussed with
recommendations made by the Atlantic SRG in 2021 that will be
considered in the 2021 SAR.
Comment 14: The Coalition asks NMFS to include the findings in the
recently published North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)
Vessel Speed Rule Assessment, which concluded that voluntary measures
did not have a meaningful impact on reducing vessel collisions, small
vessel collisions can seriously injure right whales, and that the
current SMAs should be modified.
Response: We appreciate this comment; the implications of the
Vessel Speed Rule Assessment are being considered for the 2021 SAR.
Comment 15: The Coalition requests that the 2018 prorated injuries
for the following whales be changed to a value of 1 against PBR to
reflect NMFS' determination that these individuals meet the criteria of
Seriously Injured, as reflected on the Agency's Unusual Mortality Page:
#3312 (entanglement), #3843 (entanglement), and #2310 (entanglement).
Response: NMFS' Unusual Mortality Event (UME) web page is currently
tallying prorated injuries and serious injuries together; but, for the
SARs, NMFS follows the assessment guidelines here: <a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/02-238-01.pdf">https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/02-238-01.pdf</a>.
Comment 16: NRDC requests that NMFS revise the draft North Atlantic
right whale SAR to reflect the most up-to-date estimate of population
size. The best population estimate for the end of 2019 is now just 356
individuals, representing a more ``precipitous drop [in the population
size] than previous years.'' Moreover, the best population estimate for
the end of 2018 has been revised down from 409 individuals to 380
individuals. NRDC comments that the new 2019 and revised 2018 estimates
indicate a significant decrease in survivorship during the last three
years as a result of the ongoing unusual mortality event. NRDC
emphasizes that NMFS should update the draft SAR according to the best
available scientific information on North Atlantic right whale
population size.
Response: See our response to comment 11.
Comment 17: NRDC requests that NMFS revise the PBR level downward
for the NARW. The updated population size estimate has implications for
the calculation of the PBR level for the North Atlantic right whale.
NMFS' draft SAR states that PBR for the species is currently 0.8;
however, the agency has acknowledged in other fora that the most recent
population estimate has further reduced PBR to 0.7. NMFS must revise
the PBR level in the draft SAR downwards to reflect the best available
scientific information.
Response: We appreciate this comment; please see our response to
comment 11.
Comment 18: NRDC comments that NMFS must accurately account for
cryptic mortalities in its calculation of ``total'' estimated human-
caused mortality and serious injury. The number of observed mortalities
is a significant underestimate of actual deaths. A scientific study
published this year by Richard Pace and colleagues (Pace et al. 2021)
concludes only 29 percent (2 standard errors = 2.8 percent) of right
whale carcasses were detected from 2010 to 2017. The same study found
that entanglements accounted for the ``vast majority'' of detected
serious injuries (87 percent), but only about half of detected deaths
(49 percent) from 1990 to 2017. Thus, ``cryptic deaths due to
entanglements significantly outnumbers cryptic deaths from vessel
collisions or other causes.'' NMFS must update the estimates of
``total'' mortality included in the draft SAR based on the findings of
the new Pace et al. (2021) model.
Response: NMFS appreciates this request. While Pace et al. (2021)
make reference to the regime period of 2010-2017, the SARs--which work
on 5-year rolling averages--make use of the time period 2013-2017. As
such, the numbers in the SAR are not in disagreement with the estimates
in Pace et al. 2021. Recognizing the significance of the population
decline, we intend to publish a NMFS Technical Memorandum (Pace, in
press) to provide an update on these estimates, as resources allow. We
expect to reference
[[Page 38995]]
this NMFS Technical Memorandum in a future SAR.
Comment 19: NRDC notes that NMFS must include the best available
scientific information on sublethal impacts of entanglement.
Entanglement remains the leading cause of North Atlantic right whale
mortality and a major factor in reproductive loss. NRDC notes the
pervasive sub-lethal effects of entanglement, including impaired
reproductive potential and negative health effects, currently undermine
any opportunity for the species to recover and may eventually lead to
individual mortalities. NRDC emphasizes that NMFS must include, and
should more thoroughly consider, the best available scientific
information on sub-lethal effects of entanglement and the implications
for the survival of the North Atlantic right whale in the draft SAR.
Response: This is a valid point, and sub-lethal effects of
entanglement was acknowledged in the ``Current and Maximum Net
Productivity Rates'' section. NMFS had not yet cited the work by
Christiansen et al. (2020), so we added that reference in the final
2020 SAR.
Comment 20: The Commission is hopeful that its recommendations and
those of other experts will compel NMFS to take decisive and effective
steps toward enabling right whales to recover. In that effort, it is
imperative that NMFS apply the best available data and science to its
estimation of population size and the M/SI rate. The best available
population estimates are provided by the population model developed by
Pace et al. (2017), and NMFS is making use of those estimates. NMFS has
always done an excellent job of estimating the number of known M/SI due
to entanglement in fishing gear and due to vessel strikes. However, a
secondary finding of the Pace et al. (2017) population model was that
only 60 percent of the total mortality estimated by the model was
accounted for by the known M/SI. It was long suspected that some
mortalities were going undetected, and the Pace et al. (2017) model
suggested that the undetected proportion was 40 percent. Therefore, the
Commission recommends that NMFS immediately take steps to include the
best available science by incorporating the Pace et al. (2021)
estimates of undetected mortalities in its estimates of total human-
caused mortality and serious injuries of right whales in the final 2020
SAR.
Response: Please see NMFS response to comment 18.
Comment 21: MLA comments that the draft SAR must include more
information regarding NARW entanglements in fishing gear. The draft SAR
contains none of the statutorily required information on commercial
fisheries that interact with the stock (16 U.S.C. 1386(a)(4)). 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.
This information must be included in the final SAR.
The draft SAR presents only M/SI entanglement data--non-serious
injury entanglements are omitted. This highly important information is
relevant to assess the effectiveness of the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan (TRP). For example, the TRP requires certain measures
that are intended to reduce the severity of fishery interactions,
rendering them non-serious injuries. MLA emphasizes that a comparison
of M/SI and non-serious injury data over time, by area, and by fishery,
is relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of measures intended to
reduce the severity of fishery interactions. This information must be
included in the final SAR.
Response: Because there are multiple species interactions with
multiple fisheries, the fisheries are summarized in Appendix 3--Fishery
Descriptions. They are also available online <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables</a> with focus on Table II category I and II
fisheries. The SAR reports to the extent possible what information is
available for describing commercial fisheries that interact with the
stock, in accordance with Section 117 of the MMPA (i.e., M/SI levels by
fishery, seasonal/area differences in M/SI, and M/SI rates calculated
using standardized fishing effort). However, because only a small
fraction of entanglements have gear recovered and a smaller fraction of
that is traceable to the fishery, the agency has not been able to
estimate the annual MS/I to the resolution of fishery/region. Given new
recommendations from the Atlantic SRG meeting in 2021, and additional
analysis resulting from Pace et al. (2021), NMFS is working to improve
our reporting of this issue in future SARs. For now, this topic is
addressed to the extent that data can support it in the SAR's Table 3.
The issue of non-serious injuries is discussed in the third paragraph
of the section titled ``Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious Injury.''
The draft SAR cites Knowlton et al. (2016) and more recently Hamilton
et al. (2019), which have consistently tracked 26 percent to now 30
percent of the population receiving non-serious injuries annually,
which is an increasing trend. Despite roughly 100 injuries per year in
recent years, injuries are almost never observed at the time they
occur, but the wounds persist for periods of weeks to months/years,
during which time animals may travel thousands of miles. 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.
Comment 22: MLA requests that the SAR include data on the severity
of entanglements. The New England Aquarium (2020) reports that from
2010 to 2017, the annual average serious entanglement rate ranged from
1.4 percent to 3.8 percent, and that from 2014-2018 the majority of
NARW entanglements were minor (62 percent), with less than half either
moderate or severe (19 percent and 19 percent, respectively). None of
this important information is reported in the draft SAR, but it should
be.
Response: Table 3 of the NARW SAR provides considerable detail on
each entanglement case that merited a prorated serious injury or
greater. The New England Aquarium applies different criteria than
defined in NMFS' Serious Injury Policy (NMFS 2014). While there is
often agreement between institutions, inconsistencies occur based on
different criteria. The ``rates'' quoted above are based upon observed
events. However, Pace et al. (2021) stated, ``We used an abundance
estimation model to derive estimates of cryptic mortality for NARW and
found that observed carcasses accounted for only 36 percent of all
estimated deaths during 1990-2017. We found strong evidence that total
mortality varied over time, and that observed carcass counts were poor
predictors of estimated annual numbers of whales dying.'' As such,
focusing on the rates above would amount to `cherry picking' and
misleading conclusions that under-represent the true scale of the
entanglement problem, given that Pace et al. (2021) indicate only 36
percent of mortalities have been observed since 1990, and given the
bias that most serious injuries are entanglements (vs. ship strikes)
that are never seen again. This indicates hundreds of entanglement
mortalities have gone undetected even in just the past decade.
Comment 23: MLA points out that the Guidelines for Assessing Marine
Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) instruct authors to include in the SAR ``[a]
summary of mortality and serious injury incidental to U.S. commercial
fisheries . . . presented in a table, providing the name of the fishery
and, for each appropriate year, observed mortality
[[Page 38996]]
and serious injury, estimated extrapolated mortality and serious injury
and associated CV, and percent observer coverage in that year, with the
last column providing the average annual mortality and serious injury
estimate for that fishery.'' Although the draft SAR presents a table of
entanglements showing ``country'' and ``gear type,'' this falls well
short of the detailed and well-organized table recommended by GAMMS
(and included in numerous other SARs). MLA notes that such a table
should be included in the SAR. This information is important for
assessing individual fisheries, which has even more significance given
that NMFS' revised ``negligible impact determination'' policy includes
a process for assessing individual fisheries.
Response: Table 3 provides all known information on injuries. The
requested table is not provided because the data are not available to
populate it. Appendix 3 describes the U.S. fisheries and their observer
coverage level (or the complete lack thereof, in the case of the
lobster fishery). 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.
Comment 24: With respect to the lobster fishery, MLA requests that
the SAR include data showing that there has been a 90 percent decline
in instances where lobster gear was removed from entangled NARW since
2010. There were four known cases of lobster gear removed from NARW
from 1997 to 2000, six from 2000-2010, and one from 2010 to 2019. MLA
notes that the only confirmed M/SI resulting from entanglement in
lobster gear occurred in 2002 and none of this is reported in the draft
SAR.
Response: The right whale SAR provides summaries of all available
data relating to right whale serious injury and mortalities during
2014-2018, including all identified fisheries. NMFS has included in the
narrative the primary points and statistics. Because right whale
injuries are rarely witnessed, we have relied on opportunistic reports
to build our understanding of impacts to the population and provide a
minimum number of deaths. However, 11 opportunistic records since 1997,
as cited by the commenter, are insufficient to assess trends in
entanglement rates, especially without context on fishing effort during
the same time period. Specifically, gear was only retrieved from 13
percent of the right whale entanglement incidents from 2010 to 2018
(22/167). Of those, most (73 percent) are identifiable to a fishery.
However, the work by Pace et al. (2021) shows there is no evidence of
observed rates/causes of mortality corresponding to cryptic mortality
rates. As such, the reporting of ``trends'' for observed cases is
misleading.
Comment 25: MLA comments that the draft SAR omits data and
information collected by NMFS showing that more entanglements occur
with Canadian fishing gear. The draft SAR is virtually silent on the
outsized role of Canadian fisheries in a significant spike in M/SI
incidents since 2017, even though relevant data, scientific
observations, and expert analyses are available to NMFS. This should be
included in the final SAR in order to provide a full and accurate
picture of the known and/or probable origin of entanglements outside
U.S. waters.
Response: The final SAR assigns fishing gear to fishery type, e.g.,
pot/trap and country of origin, when sufficient data are available.
Given the low frequency at which such data are available, and the lack
of a statistical relationship between observed and actual mortalities
(Pace et al. 2021), no annual serious injury and mortality statistics
are derived on a `by fishery' basis. All confirmed Canadian mortalities
were identified in Table 3. Differences in survey effort between Canada
and the United States need to be considered when attempting to compare
incidents of M/SI. The apparent increase in M/SI incidents in Canadian
fisheries since 2017 is influenced in part by the increased detection
of mortalities that happened within the confines of a relatively closed
body of water that had several aircraft surveying it beginning in 2017,
and as many as 5 aerial survey platforms conducting regular surveys
since then. Increased Canadian monitoring efforts were in response to
this being an area of significant mortality. However, the coastal
waters of New England represent a similar length of area, with a
similar number of vertical lines. The lack of fishery observers, much
more limited aerial survey capacity over an open section of coast with
currents that can carry carcasses offshore, and gear that is heavy
enough to anchor whales below the surface contributes to making coastal
New England waters an area where the odds of detecting mortality are
quite low. However, spatial models suggest a high risk of mortality in
this area. As above, we note that many of these comments recommend
placing strong correlation value on limited observations, which is ill
advised based upon the findings of Pace et al. (2021).
Comment 26: MLA comments that although the draft SAR acknowledges
that ``[a]n Unusual Mortality Event was established for North Atlantic
right whales in June 2017 due to elevated st[r]andings along the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean coast, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
region of Canada,'' it omits discussion of significant relevant
information showing that a large number of NARW have altered their
migratory patterns because their preferred prey has responded to
altered oceanographic conditions by moving into the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, where NARW are at very high risk of entanglement in snow crab
gear that is heavier and more lethal than gear fished in U.S. waters.
This relates directly to the severity of injury resulting from
entanglement, as noted in previous MLA comments. This information
provides important insights into the source of entanglement risk and
severity of entanglement for North Atlantic right whales, and MLA
requests NMFS include the best available scientific information.
Response: NMFS has addressed this comment in the ``Stock
Definition/Geographic Range,'' ``Current Population Trend,'' and
``Habitat Issues'' sections.
Comment 27: MLA suggests that the draft SAR should be revised to
incorporate the best available scientific information regarding the
increasing proportion of M/SI from Canada as a result of altered North
Atlantic right whale migratory patterns to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
These data are critical to understanding the increase in M/SI.
Specifically, MLA requests the inclusion of data concerning the country
of origin of NARW entanglements during the relevant time period, taking
into account scientific observations of entangling gear, depicting
differentiating attributes of that gear (such as rope diameter and
strength) which make it so lethal, and describing the differences
between the conservation programs and relative effectiveness of
measures to protect NARW in each country.
Response: NMFS has applied the best available science to the
narrative of right whale distribution and entanglement rates, but the
scientific understanding of right whale movement in the western North
Atlantic is limited. Also, the timeline of mortality data for this SAR
is through 2018. As future data become available and statistically
meaningful trends emerge, they will be discussed in future SARs as
resources allow. Although roughly a third of the population currently
visits the Gulf of St. Lawrence, their residency in
[[Page 38997]]
surveyed areas appears to be highly variable, and we have little idea
where the other two-thirds of the population is residing. We do not
know the relationship between detected entanglement and mortality and
what the levels are for the population as a whole. We know that
mortality rates are significantly higher than the number of observed
cases, but currently do not have sufficient evidence to support
apportioning undetected mortality to one country or another.
Comment 28: MLA states that the draft SAR omits best available
scientific information about NARW behavior that affects its risk of
harm from fishing gear. MLA suggests that NMFS has not taken account of
significant variances in North Atlantic right whale behavior across its
migratory range. MLA requests that NMFS provide greater detail on these
known foraging areas, including the number and proportion of North
Atlantic right whales sighted in these areas in recent years, to ensure
adequate protections are in place.
To address seasonal or area differences in incidents of M/SI, MLA
requests the final SAR incorporate information such as that described
above detailing geographic shifts in NARW and differing behavior in
these habitats in response to oscillating oceanographic conditions
across their migratory range, which places North Atlantic right whales
at varying levels of risk from gear entanglement.
Response: NMFS agrees that risk is elevated where high right whale
density overlaps with fishing gear. Higher gear densities also elevate
risk, and heavier gear likely increases injury severity. The SAR
presents our current understanding of right whale distribution and
population assessment for the public and management decisions. It also
describes our level of understanding of entanglement risk. Although
more than 80 percent of right whales bear evidence of entanglement,
there are few events where the location or depth that the whale
encountered the gear is known. All reported entanglement events from
2014 to 2018 are presented in Table 3.
Comment 29: MLA notes that the draft SAR must reincorporate deleted
text and include supplemental information to provide a full
appreciation of the status of the North Atlantic right whale
population. On page 42, the draft SAR strikes text indicating that
``the existence of important habitat areas is not presently well
described,'' but nonetheless states that ``long-range matches indicate
an extended range for at least some individuals'' and ``the location of
much of the population is unknown during the winter.'' In the absence
of new data, the MLA recommends that the deleted text remain in the
document to help the reader understand that much of North Atlantic
right whale habitat remains poorly understood.
Response: The new text represents NMFS' evolving understanding of
right whale habitat. We continue to close knowledge gaps. Some blanket
statements retained from previous versions of the SAR are no longer
accurate. We endeavor to provide the most pertinent information for the
reader.
Comment 30: MLA comments that on page 42, NMFS has removed language
stating that the majority of right whale sightings occur within 90
kilometers (km) of the shoreline of the southeastern United States.
However, at page 43, the draft SAR states that ``telemetry data have
shown rather lengthy excursions, including into deep water off the
continental shelf (Mate et al. 1997; Baumgartner and Mate 2005).'' Has
NMFS received new data that warrants noting North Atlantic right whale
excursions into deeper water but not that North Atlantic right whales
are known to occur within 90 km of the shoreline? The MLA recommends
that both are important to include in the final SAR, and NMFS should
provide additional details on the number of North Atlantic right whales
known to use these habitats.
Response: The SAR includes both text and a figure that describes
the distribution of sightings. The statement that the majority of
sightings occur within 90 km of the shoreline was misleading because it
does not account for effort; most right whale sightings occur close to
shore because that is where most people are present to see and report
the sightings. The excursions into deep water are not otherwise well
represented. Telemetry data provide another dimension to NMFS'
understanding and are important to note.
Comment 31: MLA noted that, on page 43, the draft SAR states that
``New England waters are important feeding habitats for right whales,
where they feed primarily on copepods (largely of the genera Calanus
and Pseudocalanus).'' MLA believes the best available information
allows NMFS to be more specific in this statement. Given the pending
regulatory focus on offshore Maine, MLA believes it would be
appropriate to distinguish where these feeding grounds occur.
Response: The narrative in the SAR is meant to provide only a
general description of right whale distribution. NMFS is providing
other products with detailed information on right whale densities
throughout the right whales' range for management and Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Team consideration.
Comment 32: On page 44, the draft SAR states: ``In 2016, the
Northeastern U.S. Foraging Area Critical Habitat was expanded to
include nearly all U.S. waters of the Gulf of Maine (81 FR 4837, 26
February 2016).'' MLA requests that NMFS clarify that critical habitat
is designated because it contains at least one physical or biological
feature to support foraging, and not necessarily because NARW have been
observed to forage in all designated areas throughout the entire Gulf
of Maine. Some readers may not understand the regulatory criteria for
designating critical habitat, which are not dependent upon whale
presence.
Response: NMFS agrees with this distinction, and language has been
added to this point in the final 2020 NARW SAR.
Comment 33: MLA noted, on page 44, the draft SAR states: ``An
important shift in habitat use patterns in 2010 was highlighted. . .
The number of individuals using Cape Cod Bay in spring increased, (Mayo
et al. 2018). In addition, right whales apparently abandoned the
central Gulf of Maine in winter (see Cole et al. 2013), but have since
been seen in large numbers in a region south of Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket Islands. . . . Aerial surveys of the Gulf of St. Lawrence
during the summers of 2015, 2017, and 2018, documented at least 34,
105, and 131 unique individuals using the region, respectively (NMFS
unpublished data).'' MLA believes NMFS should provide as much detail as
possible to help the public understand the spatial distribution of
North Atlantic right whales. MLA requests the inclusion of the number
of North Atlantic right whales and proportion of the population sighted
in Cape Cod Bay (as noted in previous MLA comments), clarify what is
meant by central Gulf of Maine (which MLA interprets to be the portion
of the Gulf of Maine located off the Maine coast), and include the
proportion of North Atlantic right whales represented by Gulf of St.
Lawrence sightings.
Response: Clarification has been added to text regarding the
central Gulf of Maine location. Describing the proportion of
individuals sighted in various habitats may provide a false impression
of our level of knowledge of right whale use of these areas.
Photographic capture of individuals and maximum likelihood models of
these data indicate considerable immigration
[[Page 38998]]
and emigration of individuals. A tally of individuals seen in a habitat
does not accurately convey the spatial distribution of right whales, or
potential risk. There is a significant difference in risk levels if 10
whales occupy an area for a day versus 10 whales occupying an area for
100 days. NMFS' level of understanding is evolving and is currently
better in some areas than others. The text is an accurate reflection of
our current understanding when considering the combined effects of
sightings, survey effort, and potential residency of right whales.
Comment 34: MLA commented that, on pages 44-45, the draft SAR
strikes the language: ``an additional interpretation of paternity
analyses is that the population size may be larger than was previously
thought. Fathers for only 45 percent of known calves have been
genetically determined; yet, genetic profiles were available for 69
percent of all photo-identified males (Frasier 2005). The conclusion
was that the majority of these calves must have different fathers that
cannot be accounted for by the unsampled males, therefore the
population of males must be larger (Frasier 2005).'' MLA comments it is
unclear why this text citing data from Frasier (2005) is struck from
the SAR and why Fitzgerald (2018) now represents the best available
information?
Response: NMFS has determined that Fitzgerald (2018) best
represents the current understanding of pedigree-informed abundance
estimation; however, Frasier (2005) has not been conclusively refuted.
We have restored Frasier (2005), and added Frasier et al. (2007), to
the text and references.
Comment 35: MLA points out that on page 56, the draft SAR states:
``Whales often free themselves of gear following an entanglement event,
and as such scarring may be a better indicator of fisheries interaction
than entanglement records.'' As noted previously, this statement falls
short of providing a useful and complete understanding of scarring data
for the relevant time period. As described above, the New England
Aquarium (2020) states that the majority of entanglements between 2014
and 2018 are minor (62 percent).
Response: This is a valid point, and NMFS will include more
detailed results from entanglement scar-coding research in a future
draft NARW SAR, as resources allow.
Comment 36: MLA noted, on page 56, the SAR cites three studies
concluding that North Atlantic right whales mitigation measures
implemented prior to 2009 have not worked, and that the effectiveness
of measures implemented since 2009 have not yet been evaluated. NMFS
has reported on multiple occasions in conversations with the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Team that the 2009 groundline rule has been
effective, citing data that no groundlines have been identified as the
primary entangling gear on right whales since its implementation, yet
the SAR states that the effectiveness of these measures has yet to be
evaluated. In addition, as noted above, the SAR should report data
showing that there has been a 90 percent decline in instances of
lobster gear removed from entangled North Atlantic right whales since
2010. There were four known cases of lobster gear removed from North
Atlantic right whales 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.
Response: In this instance, the SAR is reporting on the population
level effect of the groundline rule, that is, if the 2009 rule has
significantly reduced entanglement rates. The absence of groundline as
primary entangling gear is a positive result, but a comprehensive
evaluation of effectiveness of the rule requires a long time series for
a statistically robust analysis. Opportunistic records cannot provide
any rate change information, such as injury rate relative to fishing
levels, because the variables affecting detection are largely unknown.
Comment 37: MLA comments that the draft SAR contains errors in
Table 3. First, the entanglement that occurred on 9/23/2016 (ID 3694)
has been confirmed to have involved Canadian trap/pot gear since the
draft SAR was published. The country code in Table 3 for this entry and
the M/SI for entanglement by country of origin should be updated
accordingly. Second, there is a minor clerical error that should be
corrected for consistency. The entanglement that occurred on 7/30/2018
(ID 3843) is miscoded as ``-''. The correct coding for this entry is
``GU''.
Response: The gear retrieved from #3694 was identified as Canadian
snow crab in April 2018. It was previously reported as XU with unknown
gear but has been updated to CN pot/trap in the final 2020 SAR. The
coding for 7/30/2018 (ID 3843) has been updated to ``GU'' in the final
2020 SAR.
Comment 38: MLA requests that the draft SAR disclose the current
limits of the Pace model. MLA comments that the draft SAR (p. 46) could
be construed by the public to mean that Pace et al. (2017) fully
accounts for changes in capture probability. However, the Pace model is
relatively new and highly sensitive to additional years of data, in
part because subsequent re-sightings influence the probability of
recapture and estimate of mortality.
Response: The Pace model does account for changes in capture
probability (see Figure 3 in the final 2020 SAR), and builds on the
full sighting history of all individual right whales to provide
population estimates that are robust to changes in whale distribution
and survey effort. This approach, coupled with high levels of effort to
photographically capture individuals each year, provides relatively
precise estimates and the ability to detect small changes in the
population from year to year.
Comment 39: MLA comments that the draft SAR should make clear that
while Pace et al. (2017) assumes no natural mortality, natural
mortality has been documented by Taylor et al. (2013) and Curtis et al.
(2014). The fact that there is a significant amount of neonate
mortality (see draft SAR, p. 55) is critical for the public to
understand. By ignoring neonate mortality, as done by the Pace model,
MLA believes the below-expected number of individuals recruited into
the population could be construed as a reflection of the NARW calving
rate when, in fact, natural mortality is occurring. The appropriate
regulatory and management responses to an anomalously low calving rate
are different from elevated neonate mortality from natural predators.
MLA requests the SAR cite relevant literature on natural mortality and
put it in the context of studies such as Pace et al. (2017).
Response: First, the Pace et al. (2017) model does not assume any
particular cause of death (natural or human-caused); it simply allows
one to estimate total mortality using sighting histories as described
in the draft SAR. Second, we agree that there are likely neonate
mortalities that go undetected, some of which may due to natural
causes. However, since these undetected neonates would not have a
sighting history, including these instances would only add to the total
mortality derived from the Pace et al. (2021) method and would not
change the findings of Sharp et al. (2019) that all non-calf mortality
for which cause of death could be determined was human-caused. To date,
only one neonate mortality was determined to be from white shark
predation. Pre-mortem shark attack was determined to be a contributing
cause of death of two other calves that were entangled in fishing gear
(Taylor et al. 2013). In general, calving rate in this population is
determined by extensive survey effort along the coast of the
[[Page 38999]]
Southeastern United States, with very few individuals found to ``enter
the population'' without having been detected as calves in recent
years.
Comment 40: MLA points out that the SAR concludes 100 percent of
the estimated mortality of 18.6 animals per year is assumed to be
human-caused and comments that this 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 Sharp et al. (2019). The draft SAR ignores
the underlying data that of 124 whales examined, 42 percent were
confirmed to be anthropogenic (26 due to vessel strikes, 26 due to
entanglement), and 58 percent were due to natural or unknown cause (18
neonates died of natural causes, while 54 died of unknown causes). With
natural causes constituting a total of 14.5 percent of all examined
individuals and 25 percent of those incidents where cause was
confirmed, it is not a ``slight overestimate'' and the best available
scientific information does not support attributing all mortalities of
unknown cause to human activity. MLA reiterates that the SAR must be
revised to accurately reflect the best available science.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that Sharp et al.
(2019) does not support the assignment of all estimated mortality to
human causes. Only 6 deaths of the 124 (2 percent) documented between
1970 and 2018 were attributed to natural causes, and all 6 were calves.
For one calf, shark predation was implicated; the other natural deaths
were determined to have been stillbirth, dystocia, or malnutrition.
Conversely, 100 percent of all examined, non-calf carcasses for which
cause of death could be established were determined to have died from
either entanglement or vessel collision. Cause of death could not be
verified for the remaining carcasses due to either decomposition or
logistical constraints, such as distance from shore or poor field
conditions. While it is possible that some of these unexamined deaths
were due to natural causes, existing evidence indicates right whales
rarely die of natural causes. Also see response to comment 39.
Comment 41: MLA states that the report by Kenney (2018) is
fundamentally flawed and should not be cited in the SAR. The draft SAR
cites Kenney (2018) to support the statement that ``[p]rojection models
suggest that the [maximum net productivity rate] could be 4 percent per
year if female survival was the highest recorded over the time series
from Pace et al. (2017).''
Response: The Kenney (2018) reference is a relevant, peer-reviewed
study that helps provide context for the impacts of fishery-related
mortality on the right whale population. The study does account for
other mortality, removing only confirmed fishery-related deaths.
Several scenarios are provided with varying levels of hypothetical
entanglement mortality rates corresponding to degrees of compliance
with MMPA regulations. While the paper presents a very simple
representation of complex processes, the model parameters are
reasonable and the results are valid.
Gray Seal Western North Atlantic
Comment 42: The Commission requests improved reporting of serious
injury data for gray seals. Human-caused serious injury data are
reported by source within the SARs, including both observations and
extrapolations, if possible. Summaries of observations of human-caused
injuries may include some uncertainty of the specific source, but the
Commission believes these should still be included in the total M/SI
summaries reported in the Status of the Stock section relative to PBR
level.
The Commission is concerned that numerous observations of
potentially serious injuries of gray seals are not being accounted for
in the SAR. Based on unmanned aerial surveys of gray seals hauled out
on shore, Martins et al. (2019) reported the minimum total number of
entangled gray seals could range from 192 to 857 (or 0.83 percent to
3.7 percent of the population in U.S. Atlantic waters). It appears that
these seriously injured animals are not being counted in either the
commercial fisheries observer M/SI data or the stranding data. Zero
serious injuries were reported for 2014-2018 in the commercial
fisheries observer data (for both gillnet and trawl fisheries in which
mortality is known to occur), and only mortalities are being reported
in the human-interaction stranding table. Further, because no serious
injuries are reported in fisheries observer data, these injured animals
are not accounted for in the extrapolated M/SI estimates either.
The Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that these observations
of injured seals are being accurately quantified and included in the
SAR, consistent with the agency's 2012 guidelines on injury
determinations (including consultation with staff from other Science
Centers). The Commission also believes NMFS should continue to
collaborate with the Northwest Atlantic Seal Research Consortium,
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, and regional stranding responders
on efforts to better photo-document and identify injured and dead
seals.
Response: NMFS is actively collaborating on this issue both
internally and externally with the Northwest Atlantic Seal Research
Consortium. NMFS plans to address how to better document the number of
animals living with fisheries entanglements in order to account for
them in the SAR, via a standardized system for data collection and
entry into the National Stranding Database. The Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, in partnership with other organizations, has also
submitted a proposal to utilize artificial intelligence to identify
specific individuals with entanglements from photographs, which is
necessary to avoid double reporting of animals that may live with
serious entanglements for several years.
Humpback Whale, Gulf of Maine
Comment 43: The Coalition appreciates the inclusion of cryptic
mortality in this analysis, which appropriately elevates the stock to
strategic as a result. The Coalition reiterates their comments from
last year that the distribution map, while based on NOAA survey data,
does not accurately depict the distribution of humpback whales,
particularly in the near shore mid-Atlantic areas.
Response: There is a technical error with the Gulf of Maine
humpback whale SAR and, as a result, this report has not been
finalized. An updated draft report will be published in a subsequent
SAR cycle.
Bryde's Whale, Gulf of Mexico Stock
Comment 44: The Coalition appreciates the extensive updates to the
Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale SAR and reminds NMFS that, as an ESA-
listed species, the SAR for these whales should be updated every year.
The Coalition also reiterates their introductory comments on the
general timing of review and comment for the 2020 SARs and the
substantial delay in including new information, as it is now known that
these whales have been designated as a new species: Rice's whales. The
Coalition requests that this new designation be recognized and the 2021
SAR updated accordingly.
Response: Section 117 of the MMPA requires NMFS to review annually,
and update as necessary with any new information, SARs for strategic
stocks, which would include stocks of ESA-listed species. NMFS will
review the Bryde's whale SAR annually to ensure
[[Page 39000]]
that applicable updates are incorporated.
The 2021 SARs were drafted in fall of 2020, prior to the
publication of the new species recommendation, and the Gulf of Mexico
Bryde's whale SAR is not being updated in the 2021 cycle. In order to
change the name of the species listed under the ESA, NMFS must update
the common and scientific name of this species in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR; see 50 CFR 224.101) by publishing a technical
correction in the Federal Register (FR), a process that is currently
underway. After the CFR has been updated, we will make the name change
in the SAR. Prior to initiating this technical correction, NMFS awaited
notification from the Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine
Mammalogy that they had reviewed the new publication recommending
recognition of the Bryde's whales in the Gulf of Mexico as a different
species, and that they agreed with the findings and would place the new
species on the accepted list of taxonomic names. NMFS received that
notification on March 4, 2021. Importantly, the name of the species
does not affect the protections it receives under the ESA or the MMPA.
Comments on Pacific Issues
Hawaiian Monk Seal
Comment 45: The Coalition states that the Harting et al. (2020)
analysis provides important information to guide recovery planning by
comparing the impact of multiple threats, and should be cited. Their
analysis demonstrates that anthropogenic causes of death of Hawaiian
monk seals have a larger impact than either natural or disease causes
of death. The Coalition also requests that the recent decision by NMFS
that the two monk seals found dead off Kauai in late 2020 likely
drowned in lay nets be included in the SAR.
Response: Since these human-caused mortalities are outside the time
period for the final 2020 SAR (2014-2018), Harting et al. (2020) will
be cited in the draft 2021 SAR. Human-caused deaths that occurred in
2020 will be reported in the 2022 SAR.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Comment 46: The Coalition suggests there are several studies about
bottlenose dolphin population abundance and health that should be
included in the SARs. First, Van Cise et al. (in press) observed a
decline in abundance in three out of four stocks and lower-than-
expected survival rates in all stocks. For these small populations that
experience concentrated anthropogenic disturbances, the authors
recommended closely monitoring trends in abundance. Second, Stack et
al. (2019) encouraged the use of bent dorsal fin observations as an
indicator of population health for odontocetes. In the case of 164
bottlenose dolphins sighted during the study, none included a bent
dorsal fin. The study noted that one bottlenose dolphin with a bent
dorsal fin in Hawaii was reported in Alves et al. (2018). The Coalition
encourages the SARs for these species to include an account of
sightings of bent dorsal fins. Third, in a study of coastal waters and
marine debris, bottlenose dolphins had the largest area of interaction
risk out of all odontocete species (Currie et al. 2017). The SARs
should include this study as a high-concern threat to bottlenose
dolphin habitat.
Response: NMFS is aware of the new abundance estimates for
bottlenose dolphins of the Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex presented in
Van Cise et al. (in press). These estimates will be included in the
2022 draft SARs along with appropriate caveats about the potential
influence of sampling variability and bias on the estimates and
associated trends. We appreciate the work done by Stack et al. (2019),
although we interpreted their conclusions as calling for a
consideration of the impacts of bent dorsal fins on population health
given the potential for long-term effects on individuals, as opposed to
suggesting that bent dorsal fins should be used as an indicator of
population health. As the authors note, bent dorsal fins are also
extremely rare, which makes them less reliable as a measure of
population health compared to an attribute such as body or skin
condition that could be readily measured across individuals. That said,
bent dorsal fins can be indicators of impacts such as fishery
interactions. When bent dorsal fin observations are made and linked to
human-caused injuries, these could be cited in the SARs of relevant
species, as is currently done with other information that provides
evidence of potential threats. In that respect, we agree that the
threat posed by marine debris described in Currie et al. (2017) should
be considered for inclusion in the SARs of relevant species.
Killer Whale, Southern Resident Stock
Comment 47: The Coalition reiterates previous comments that the
change in return timing and overall use of core summer habitat
complicates the established census schedule that the SAR relies on. The
Coalition requests that NMFS use the most recent population estimate
for Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) and urges NMFS to include
the most recent full count from the Center for Whale Research in the
SAR, regardless of the date that count was reached. The Coalition asks
that NMFS clearly state the decline observed following the ``peak
census count of 99 animals in 1995,'' with average decrease per year,
and specifically for the time period included in this SAR. Recent
Population Viability Assessments completed in both the U.S. and Canada
should be used to describe the current population trend as well as
future outlook.
Response: NMFS has helped support the Center for Whale Research's
annual Southern Resident killer whales census since 2004. The census
technically ends on 1 July of each year (that date continues to be used
in order to maintain comparability to prior years). We note that that
Center for Whale Research does not provide their 1 July results until 1
October of that year, hence they have the benefit of two additional
months, in particular September (for which SRKW still have a relatively
high occurrence rate in inland waters), to confirm if animals are
missing or assess the survivability of calves. In recent years NMFS has
been providing additional support to the Center for Whale Research for
surveys outside inland waters to allow them to complete the census by 1
July. As well, in recent years DFO has been working at the west
entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca from mid-July to mid-August and
has provided the Center for Whale Research with photo-identifications
from their fairly frequent encounters. However, given that mortalities
are relatively rare events (e.g., 4 mortalities in 2019, or
approximately one every 3 months), a delay of a month or two in the
Center for Whale Research's ability to complete the census only
fractionally raises the likelihood that a mortality that occurred after
1 July would be inappropriately ``assigned'' to the prior year census.
Section 117(2) of the MMPA specifies that SARs shall include
information on the current population trend. The Population Viability
Assessments for SRKW are only projections of the population size, and
reporting this information herein has no statutory requirement
associated with the SAR and is not included. Language on the
population's annual rate of decline following the peak census count in
1995 is included in the SAR, along with the current census value. In
addition, Figure 2 displays the population census since 1974, including
how the population has increased and decreased in size
[[Page 39001]]
following the peak census in 1995. Originally, the caption of Figure 2
provided the citation to Center for Whale Research 2019. However, given
the Coalition's comment, we have corrected this citation to be Center
for Whale Research 2020, which provides annual census values since 1974
from which specific annual changes in population abundance can be
easily calculated if desired.
Comment 48: The Coalition notes that growth rates and productivity
in different Resident killer whale populations may be affected by
variability in diet, environmental conditions, and habitat range. The
Coalition points out that Alaskan Resident killer whales consume
Chinook salmon, similar to Northern Resident killer whales (NRKW) and
SRKW but appear to have a more diverse diet and benefit from larger and
healthier salmon runs. The maximum net productivity rate for NRKW has
been updated and is now estimated to be 2.9 percent. The Coalition
recommends using the same rate for SRKW, which yields a PBR of 0.11 (1
animal every 9 years) for a population level of 73 whales, as included
in this SAR.
Response: NMFS raised this issue with the Pacific SRG in 2020. The
Pacific SRG recommended the continued use of Rmax = 0.035 until a
better estimate is available for review. We agree with this assessment
and will continue to use this Rmax, reviewing it when new information
is available.
Humpback Whale, California/Oregon/Washington Stock
Comment 49: The Coalition urges NMFS to revise the CA/OR/WA stock
to reflect that the Central America distinct population segment (DPS)
is a demographically independent population (DIP) separate from the
Mexico DPS and to provide abundance estimates for both.
The Coalition requests the inclusion of the record of two dead
humpback whales caught in Pacific whiting midwater trawl nets in
separate incidents in July 2020. Seen only on electronic monitoring
(EM), the whales could neither be identified to DPS nor necropsied to
determine cause of death. The Coalition notes that as EM programs
continue to expand, and more vessels opt to use EM instead of
observers, it will be increasingly difficult to track marine mammal
interactions as cameras are not currently designed to monitor marine
mammal interactions. This will in turn decrease the amount of data on
marine mammal interactions with commercial fisheries and increase
uncertainty in M/SI estimates in several marine mammal stock
assessments. The Coalition recommends NMFS improve the quantity and
quality of information collected on marine mammal interactions.
Response: NMFS appreciates this recommendation regarding
designating humpback whale stocks. In late 2019, NMFS finalized a new
Policy Directive: Reviewing and Designating Stocks and Issuing Stock
Assessment Reports under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS 2019).
This directive established that DIP delineation and stock designation
are separate processes. DIP delineation is the process of interpreting
the scientific lines of evidence supporting whether groups of animals
are demographically independent, including determining the geographic
range of the groups. DIP delineation occurs outside the SAR process,
and is described in Martien et al. (2019). Stock designation is the
process of officially classifying a stock as a management unit that
will then be described and assessed in SARs and considers whether
individual DIPs can be effectively managed as stocks. In light of the
2016 ESA humpback whale DPS listings, the MMPA humpback whale stock
designations are currently being re-evaluated according to the process
laid out in NMFS (2019). NMFS is reviewing the best available science
on humpback whale population structure in the Pacific and evaluating
the lines of evidence to, where possible, delineate humpback whale DIPs
as guided by Martien et al. (2019). This review and evaluation is
currently underway and following its completion, we will follow the
process to revise stock designations following NMFS (2019) as resources
allow.
Both the humpback whale incidents referred to in the comment were
outside the time frame of this SAR. Regarding EM technologies, NMFS
believes these can provide valuable supplementary data in addition to
traditional fisheries observers for collecting data on fishing effort
and catch (landings and discards), including bycatch of protected
species. While we have made significant strides in assessing the
technology and potential applications of EM, there are continuing
policy and data-related challenges that come with new technologies.
These include how to process and store the enormous amount of
electronic data, enforcement of compliance issues, privacy concerns of
fishery participants, costs, and image processing. As research and
development efforts continue, we are actively working to include
protected species in those efforts. In time, we expect to see EM
technologies available for wider applications, including select
fisheries for monitoring bycatch of protected species.
False Killer Whale, Hawaiian Island Stock Complex
Comment 50: HLA appreciates that NMFS has updated the False Killer
whale SAR to incorporate the results of the line transect survey that
occurred in 2017, as well as NMFS' associated modeling work. For future
surveys, HLA requests that the results be processed and reported in the
SAR more promptly. HLA comments that it is not consistent with the
MMPA, or otherwise acceptable, to update a SAR with key information
four years after the data has been gathered. HLA believes the results
presented in the draft SAR, which reflect the best available scientific
information, demonstrate that the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate for the
Hawaii Pelagic False Killer whale Stock (Pelagic Stock) is far below
the stock's PBR. Specifically, the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate in the
U.S. EEZ (6.5) is less than half of the PBR for the Pelagic Stock in
the EEZ (16), and the fishery's overall Pelagic Stock M/SI rate (35.3
[combining inside and outside the EEZ]) is less than 15 percent of NMFS
estimated PBR for the central Pacific (259). These results confirm the
positions HLA has taken since the False Killer whale Take Reduction
Team formed in 2009--i.e., that NMFS has consistently underestimated
the abundance of the Pelagic Stock and that the deep-set fishery's M/SI
rate does not exceed, and has never exceeded, the PBR for that stock.
HLA comments that it presented a detailed statistical analysis
performed by Dr. Ray Hilborn showing that NMFS had substantially
underestimated the population size of the Pelagic Stock in the Hawaii
EEZ. At that time, NMFS estimated the EEZ stock size to be 484 whales.
Dr. Hilborn's analysis concluded that a more accurate abundance
estimate was 2,066 whales in the EEZ. After HLA presented those
results, HLA believes NMFS wrongly criticized and discarded Dr.
Hilborn's analysis.
HLA comments that NMFS current estimate for the Pelagic Stock in
the EEZ is 2,086 whales (only 20 more than Dr. Hilborn estimated in
2009). HLA comments that the best available science, as reported in the
draft SAR, shows that the population size of the Pelagic Stock in the
EEZ has consistently been approximately 2,100 animals going back to
2002. Specifically, the draft SAR, based on Bradford et al. (2020),
estimates that the stock numbered 2,144 animals in 2010
[[Page 39002]]
and 2,122 animals in 2002. This demonstrates that 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. This also shows that
there was no basis, as HLA argued in 2009, to include the Pelagic Stock
within the scope of the False Killer whale Take Reduction Team.
Finally, HLA believes the best available science also shows that the
Pelagic Stock is either increasing or, at worst, remaining stable. If
NMFS' pre-2010 estimate of 484 whales for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ
is to be believed, then the stock has increased in size dramatically
over the ensuing years. Alternatively, based on the current best
available science (Bradford et al. 2020), the stock has remained stable
at a high abundance (of approximately 2,100 whales) within the Hawaii
EEZ since at least 2002. Either way, HLA believes there is no evidence
that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are having any noticeable
impact on the stock.
Response: NMFS agrees that the timely publication of results that
inform SARs is important. Surveys were completed at the end of 2017,
and the collected data were quality-checked and verified into 2018. New
data protocols designed to improve abundance estimates for this species
had to be integrated with existing line-transect methodology and
updated analysis approaches to obtain the most robust estimates of
abundance. After undergoing peer review, the final results were
published in 2020, with the time between data collection and
publication consistent with other studies using new approaches to
generate estimates of abundance.
False killer whale assessments are complex. We have learned a lot
about false killer whale social structure and behavior over the past
10-15 years that has significantly changed the way we collect and
analyze survey data for this species. While we have much greater
confidence in our 2002, 2010, and 2017 estimates now than we did when
the 2002 or 2010 estimates were originally formulated, the older
estimates were the best available estimates at the time they were
published and used in the SARs. We no longer refer to those estimates
in the SAR because they are no longer the best available. To refer to
them now as rationale for arguing the stock has increased is
inappropriate. The MMPA calls for using the best available scientific
data available at the time that the assessments are to be completed.
PBR is designed to deal with great uncertainty and is inherently
precautionary. Although it is coincidental that the Hilborn 2009
analysis produced an abundance estimate that is close to our current
estimate, our assessment of that analysis has not changed. There were
documented problems with the Hilborn analysis, and it used what are now
severely outdated data and parameter estimates, such that it is
inappropriate to compare the outdated Hilborn 2009 estimate with our
current estimate representing years of targeted improvements in data
collection, analytical approach, g(0) estimation, etc.
With regard to comparing the current PBR to fishery mortality, we
are clear within the SAR and in all other communications about our
pelagic stock abundance estimates that the full central Pacific
estimate provided in Bradford et al. (2020) and in the SAR represents
more than one stock of false killer whales. The Palmyra stock, Hawaii
pelagic stock, and any Eastern Pacific stocks are all also partially
included here. Since we do not presently have high-seas boundaries for
any of these stocks, we are not able to partition the full central
Pacific estimate to the Hawaii pelagic stock, and, therefore, cannot
meaningfully compare the full Hawaii pelagic stock abundance and PBR
with fishing mortality.
Comment 51: HLA comments that the draft 2020 SAR assigns a recovery
factor of 0.5 to the Hawaii pelagic stock, which is the value typically
assigned to depleted or threatened stocks or stocks of unknown status
with a mortality estimate CV of 0.3 or less. However, the Hawaii
pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status unknown.
This status should be accurately reflected with a recovery factor that
is greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5).
Response: A recovery factor of 0.5 is appropriate for the Hawaii
pelagic stock. There are no estimates of population trend for this
stock, and the model used to produce the new 2002, 2010, and 2017 could
not accommodate a trend term given the sparse dataset. Stable or
increasing levels of bycatch and depredation may be driven by a number
of factors, including increasing overlap in the occurrence of false
killer whales and fishing activity, learning by whales to approach
fishing boats, increasing false killer whale population, or changes in
the fishery that allow for higher rates of depredation or observed
bycatch.
Comment 52: HLA comments there have been no Hawaii-based deep-set
longline fishery interactions with the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI)
insular false killer whale stock and comments that the draft SAR
incorrectly attributes M/SI to the deep-set fishery in 2017 and in
2018. HLA requests that, if NMFS nevertheless proceeds to attribute M/
SI to the deep-set fishery (which HLA strongly disagrees with), then
HLA requests the draft SAR should at a minimum state that there are no
confirmed deep-set fishery interactions with the MHI insular stock, and
that no deep-set fishery interactions with the MHI insular stock have
occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might overlap
with the assumed range for the stock.
Response: NMFS has addressed this concern in previous responses to
comments on the 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. We agree that we
can more explicitly state that no confirmed MHI insular false killer
whales have been observed as taken in this fishery, though this needs
to be balanced by the fact that very few of the observed takes are
identified to stock due to the lack of tissue samples or adequate
photographs. 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.
Comment 53: HLA notes that the draft SAR estimates the MHI insular
stock abundance to be 167 animals, based upon Bradford et al. (2018),
which found that the population size of the MHI insular stock in
certain study areas has consistently ranged between 144 and 187 animals
over a 16-year period. HLA comments that the draft SAR's reported
abundance estimate of 167 animals underestimates the MHI insular
stock's abundance, perhaps to a very significant degree. HLA comments
that it is unscientific and contrary to the MMPA for NMFS to report the
estimated abundance for only a portion of the MHI insular stock. HLA
notes that the MMPA requires the SAR to ``describe the geographic range
of the affected stock'' and to provide minimum population estimates for
``such stock'' (not a ``portion of such stock''). HLA
[[Page 39003]]
states in its comments that NMFS has made no attempt to estimate the
abundance of the MHI insular stock across its range or to apply
``appropriate correction factors'' to do so. HLA notes that the draft
SAR is therefore legally deficient and must be corrected.
If NMFS nonetheless retains the MHI insular stock abundance
estimate of 167 animals, then HLA believes that number should be
considered the ``minimum population estimate.'' HLA notes that as
Bradford et al. (2018) acknowledges, the estimate of 167 animals is an
underestimate, so there is no need to apply an additional reduction
factor to this number for purposes of reporting the ``minimum
population estimate'' because NMFS already has a scientifically
published ``reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or
greater than'' 167 animals. HLA comments that to report an even lower
``minimum population estimate'' is arbitrary and contrary to the MMPA.
Finally, HLA believes should NMFS retain the MHI insular stock
population estimate of 167 animals with no additional information about
the actual population size, it must, consistent with its obligation to
report the best available scientific information, disclose what
specific portion of the MHI insular stock's range was surveyed in the
Bradford et al. (2018) study. HLA believes if NMFS is going to report
an abundance estimate for only a portion of an MMPA stock's range, then
at the very minimum it must disclose to the public what portion of the
range is at issue.
Response: The second excerpt from Bradford et al. (2018) was
incomplete. The remainder of the quoted paragraph is: ``However,
movement analyses of 2 of the 3 social clusters have shown that
individuals satellite-tagged by CRC [Cascadia Research Collective] on
the leeward sides of the MHI regularly use both leeward and windward
waters throughout the chain (Baird et al. 2010, 2012), which suggests
there are unlikely to be individuals in the population that never use
the predominantly leeward sampling areas [that were clearly identified
relative to the stock range in Figure 1 of the paper]. Therefore, it is
likely that all individuals in the population have been exposed to
sampling efforts at some point during the study period, although not
necessarily in each year.'' In general, this paper appropriately
acknowledges that unavoidable sampling biases led to some degree of
underestimation in the annual abundance estimates, but that all
supporting evidence indicates the population is small. Thus, there is
no basis to suggest that this underestimation is substantial. NMFS has,
and will continue to work towards understanding and addressing the
availability issues discussed at length in Bradford et al. (2018),
though we do not believe the underestimation is equal in all years or
that it is substantial in any year. We will continue to use the point
estimates and CV provided there to compute an Nmin.
Comment 54: WPRFMC comments that in the draft 2020 SAR, NMFS uses
only the most recent abundance estimate to calculate the PBR. WPRFMC
recommends that using a tiered approach for calculating PBR based on
data availability would allow for the use of all available abundance
estimates to estimate the minimum population estimate (Nmin) and
recovery factor, and reduce the uncertainty in the PBR estimates.
WPRFMC therefore requests that NMFS include all available abundance
estimates for the pelagic false killer whale stock using the approach
developed by Brandon et al. (2017).
Response: NMFS appreciates the request for more expediency in
generating false killer whale abundance estimates and reporting them in
the SARs. We understand the importance of these estimates and their
bearing on management, which underscores our commitment to ensure our
results are as robust and reliable as possible. Please see our response
to comment 50.
Regarding the tiered PBR approach, the MMPA calls for using the
best available scientific data available at the time that the
assessments are to be completed. The NMFS Guidelines for Assessing
Marine Mammal Stock (GAMMS 2016), provide guidance on the calculation
of Nmin to the 20th percentile of a log-normal distribution. This
approach is designed to deal with great uncertainty and is inherently
precautionary.
North Pacific Gray Whales
Comment 55: The Makah Tribe notes that the draft SAR compounds
contextual ambiguity by using the name Western Breeding Stock (WBS) to
identify the ``third unnamed stock'' in the description of the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee's stock
structure hypothesis 4a. They recommend that NMFS either name the third
implied stock based on its feeding and wintering grounds, e.g.,
Sakhalin Eastern Breeding Stock which will distinguish it from the WBS
and Eastern Breeding Stock (EBS), or use the same phrase as the IWC
Scientific Committee: ``WFG (Western Feeding Group) whales that
interbreed largely with each other while migrating to the Mexican
wintering ground'' (IWC 2020b).
Response: NMFS has aligned the stock hypothesis language used in
the IWC stock structure document (IWC 2020b) with that appearing in
both the Eastern North Pacific (ENP) and Western North Pacific (WNP)
gray whale SARs. This should eliminate the previously confounding
reference to the WBS for the implied third breeding stock. The unnamed
third breeding stock referenced by the IWC is now referred to as ``WFG
(Western Feeding Group) whales that interbreed largely with each other
while migrating to the Mexico wintering ground.''
Comment 56: The Makah Tribe comments that the new abundance
estimate for the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) was completed in
late 2019 and should be included in the 2020 SAR in the section on
Population Size, Potential Biological Removal, and other appropriate
sections to reflect current information (Calambokidis et al. 2019). The
SAR should also include the recently published abundance estimate for
the ENP stock based on the 2019-20 survey (Stewart and Weller 2021).
Also, the Makah Tribe recommends removing the description of the
stranded whales as emaciated in the description of the Unusual
Mortality Event (UME) in the Population Size section.
Response: NMFS appreciates reference to new documents that became
available during the public comment period for the draft 2020 SARs. New
abundance estimates for ENP and PCFG whales will be included the next
time the ENP SAR is revised. This will allow for thorough peer review
by the SRG and adequate public comment. Language has been changed in
the final 2020 SAR to better reflect the variable body conditions of
stranded whales during the UME. Figures that pertain to the UME have
been removed from the SAR and the reader is now pointed to the UME
website, which includes periodic updates to the UME status.
Comment 57: The Makah Tribe recommends the first sentence of the
Subsistence/Native Harvest Information section be modified to remove
the geographic limitation to the Bering Sea. Furthermore, the Makah
Tribe requests that the sentence should recognize that gray whales were
once hunted in Canada (Monks et al. 2001). Additionally, in the new
text describing NMFS' proposed waiver, the Makah Tribe recommends two
changes. First, in the reference to three annual strikes, the SAR
should explain that this is the maximum number of strikes allowed under
the proposed regulations, e.g.,
[[Page 39004]]
``based on the maximum allowed 3 strikes annually.'' Second, the
description of the post-hearing comment period should reflect that it
ended in March 2020, e.g., ``NMFS requested public comment.'' Also, the
description of the IWC's approval of a gray whale catch limit should be
revised to reflect current terminology, e.g, replacing ``quota'' with
``catch limit,'' and should reflect changes to the catch limit made in
2018.
Response: NMFS has included new language in the final 2020 SAR to
incorporate these suggestions.
Comment 58: The draft SAR refers to unpublished reports that have
since been published in peer-reviewed journals. The Makah Tribe
recommends that the following replacement citations for unpublished
reports be used where applicable: Lang et al. (2011b) should be updated
to Lang et al. (2014) and Mate et al. (2010) should be updated to
Lagerquist et al. (2019).
Response: These references have been updated in the final 2020 SAR.
Comment 59: Please see the Makah Tribe's recommended changes to IWC
stock structure hypotheses in the draft SAR for the ENP stock, as the
draft WNP SAR incorporates identical text.
Response: See response to comment 57.
Comment 60: The tribe comments that the draft SAR updates text
regarding the estimated probabilities of a Makah hunt taking a WNP gray
whale to reflect the conclusions of Moore and Weller (2018). However,
in making the update, the draft SAR fails to carry forward an
explanation of the probabilities that is helpful to laypeople reading
the SAR and makes clear that the estimated probability of such a take
is very low. The Makah Tribe recommends that an updated version of that
explanatory sentence (``This corresponds to an expectation of greater
than 1 WNP whale strike in one of every 83 to 167 years''), which is
stricken in the raft SAR, be included in the revision. NMFS also needs
to correct the 95 percent Bayesian Credible Interval (CRI) for the
probability for a 10-year hunt to ``(95 percent CRI 0.030-0.093).''
Because the same text is used in the draft ENP SAR, the changes above
should be made in revising that SAR as well.
Response: NMFS has added language to reflect statements from the
proposed rule (84 FR 13604; April 5, 2019) that provides details on the
WNP risk assessment by Moore and Weller (2018).
Comment 61: The Status of Stock section of the draft SAR begins
with the assertion that ``[t]he WNP stock is listed as `Endangered'
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and is therefore
also considered `strategic' and `depleted' under the MMPA.'' As with
previous SARs for the WNP stock, no explanation of the listing status
is provided, but the draft SAR does note an ongoing 5-year Status
Review initiated by NMFS in 2018. The Tribe believes NMFS never
addresses the crux of the issue, i.e., the agency's description of the
WNP stock in the 1994 ESA delisting decision as geographically and
reproductively isolated from the ENP stock is fundamentally
inconsistent with the draft SAR's classification of whales migrating
from Sakhalin to Mexico as part of the same WNP stock and, therefore,
``Endangered.''
In the draft SAR, intermittent observations of gray whales in Asian
waters are cited as evidence of continued migration to an Asian
breeding ground. Further, Cooke et al. (2019) found that up to 20
percent of WNP whales migrate to breeding grounds in Asian waters,
providing support for their conclusion that ``it is likely that a
western breeding population that migrates through Asian waters still
exists.'' At the same time, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed
stock structure hypotheses where in the most plausible hypotheses the
WBS, which in Makah's view corresponds to the WNP stock described in
the ENP stock's delisting documents, has either been extirpated (3a and
4a) or is extant but exists solely in Asian waters (5a). The same
hypotheses postulate that whales that feed at Sakhalin and migrate to
North America are either the WFG, which interbreeds with other whales
of the EBS (3a and 5a) or breeds largely with other WFG whales while
migrating to Mexico (4a). NMFS has never provided a rational
explanation for its treatment of WFG whales, i.e., those Sakhalin
whales that migrate to North America, as equivalent to the WBS, which
as described by the IWC matches the agency's 1994 description of the
geographically isolated, ``Endangered'' WNP stock. Indeed, the agency's
incorrect use of ``WBS'' for the unnamed, implied third breeding stock,
as discussed above, appears related to this lack of clarity in the
draft SAR. Absent an explanation in the SAR, NMFS' assertion that the
WNP stock described in the draft SAR is ``Endangered'' is untenable and
the Status of Stock should be changed to ``unknown'' until NMFS makes a
formal determination of the status of WFG whales.
The Tribe has commented at length on this issue in previous draft
SARs (2014 and 2018) and believes NMFS' response does not explain how,
if at all, the agency's view of stock structure corresponds to the
stock structure hypotheses of the Scientific Committee.
Response: We acknowledge that the stock structure of North Pacific
gray whales is an area of active investigation, internationally and
domestically, as evidenced by the IWC's Scientific Committee currently
recognizing three `high plausibility' stock structure hypotheses for
WNP gray whales (IWC 2020). Consistent with our responses to related
comments from the Makah on the 2018 SAR, we have relied on the best
available information to update the ``Stock Definition and Geographic
Range'' information in the final SAR. Also, NMFS has convened a Status
Review Team to evaluate this information and the ESA status of WNP gray
whales (83 FR 4032; January 29, 2018), including the delineation of any
distinct population segment (DPS). Results from this evaluation will be
incorporated as appropriate in future updates of the North Pacific gray
whale SARs.
References
Currie, J. J., S. H. Stack, J. A. McCordic, and G. D. Kaufman. 2017.
Quantifying the risk that marine debris poses to cetaceans in
coastal waters of the 4-island region of Maui. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 121:69-77. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.031">dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.031</a>.
Currie, J. J., J. A. McCordic, G. L. Olson, A. F. Machernis, and S.
H. Stack. 2021. The impact of vessels on humpback whale behavior:
the benefit of added whale watching guidelines. Frontiers in Marine
Science. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.601433">dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.601433</a>.
Daoust, P.Y., E.L. Couture, T. Wimmer, and L. Bourque. 2018.
Incident report: North Atlantic right whale mortality event in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Ottawa (CA): Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
Moore, J.E., and D.W. Weller 2018. Updated estimates of the
probability of striking a western North Pacific gray whale during
the proposed Makah hunt. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-605. 8 p. <a href="https://doi.org/10.25923/je72-t228">https://doi.org/10.25923/je72-t228</a>.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2012. National Marine
Fisheries Service Policy Directive 02-238. Process for
distinguishing serious from non-serious injury of marine mammals. 4
p. Available online: <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/02/02-238.pdf">http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/02/02-238.pdf</a>.
NOAA Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 19. January 29, 2018. Endangered
and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Reviews for the
Endangered Fin Whale, Endangered Gray Whale Western North Pacific
Distinct Population Segment, and Endangered Sei Whale.
Pace III, R. M., R. Williams, S. D. Kraus, A.
[[Page 39005]]
R. Knowlton, and H. M. Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North
Atlantic right whales. Conservation Science and Practice. 3:e346.
Pace III, R. M. 2021. Revisions and further evaluations of the right
whale abundance model: improvements for hypothesis testing. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-269.
Schuler, A. R., S. Piwetz, J. Di Clemente, D. Steckler, F. Mueter,
and H. C. Pearson. 2019. Humpback whale movements and behavior in
response to whale-watching vessels in Juneau, AK. Frontiers in
Marine Science 6: Article 710. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00710">dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00710</a>.
Dated: July 19, 2021.
Evan Howell,
Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15701 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 23, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.