Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 29039-29052 [2017-13369]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29039-29052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13369]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE783


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 2016 marine mammal 
stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability 
of the final 2016 SARs for the 86 stocks that were updated.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as 
regional compilations and individual reports at the following address: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.
    A list of references cited in this notice is available at 
www.regulations.gov (search for docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0101) or upon 
request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-427-8402, Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov; Marcia Muto, 206-
526-4026, Marcia.Muto@noaa.gov, regarding Alaska regional stock 
assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362, 
Elizabeth.Josephson@noaa.gov, regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, 
Jim.Carretta@noaa.gov, 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 Exclusive Economic 
Zone. 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 from all 
sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, 
and the status of the stock. Initial reports were first 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; (B) which, based on the best 
available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be 
listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened 
species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are 
required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can 
be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, 
Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), 
reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised 
reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new 
information.
    NMFS updated SARs for 2016, and the revised draft reports were made 
available for public review and comment for 90 days (81 FR 70097, 
October 11, 2016). Subsequent to soliciting public comment on the draft 
2016 SARs, NMFS was made aware that due to technical conversion errors, 
the Atlantic SARs contained incorrect information in some instances. 
NMFS

[[Page 29040]]

corrected these errors and the revised draft Atlantic 2016 SARs were 
made available for public comment through the end of original 90-day 
comment period (81 FR 90782, December 15, 2016). NMFS received comments 
on the draft 2016 SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This 
notice announces the availability of the final 2016 reports for the 86 
stocks that were updated. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site 
(see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2016 SARs 
from the Marine Mammal Commission; six non-governmental organizations 
(The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological 
Diversity, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Maine Lobstermen's 
Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and Friends of the 
Children's Pool); and three individuals. Responses to substantive 
comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not 
included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying 
changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in 
the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses 
state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future 
revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 
2016 SARs.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society 
Legislative Fund, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Whale and 
Dolphin Conservation (Organizations) relayed that the SARs continue to 
have missing, outdated and/or imprecise information regarding 
population abundance and trends. The comment states that a recent 
review by the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) found that, as of 
the 2013 SARs, only 56 percent of stocks nationwide had estimates of 
minimum abundance; this includes only 58 percent of stocks in the 
Atlantic, 53 percent of stocks in Alaska, and, in the Gulf of Mexico (a 
subset of the Atlantic SARs) only 35 percent of stocks had a timely and 
realistic minimum estimates of abundance. The Atlantic region also was 
found to have low precision in many of the estimates that were 
provided. The Commission report identifies a number of weaknesses in 
the SARs including low precision surrounding most abundance estimates, 
inappropriately pooling estimates for stocks that are similar in 
appearance but that are actually different species or stocks (e.g., 
beaked whales), survey design that is inappropriate for the stock's 
likely range, and missing trend data that could result in some stocks 
experiencing a significant decline without detection. Moreover, with 
regard to setting a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level as 
required by the MMPA, the Commission analysis found that ``[o]f the 248 
stocks evaluated, 134 (54 percent) had PBR estimates, 51 (21 percent) 
had outdated PBR estimates, 59 (24 percent) had no estimates . . .'' 
These PBRs are critical for determining how to appropriately manage 
anthropogenic impacts, and a lack of a valid PBR hampers the agency's 
ability to comply with MMPA mandates. Recognizing that the Commission 
analysis was based on SARs that were released several years ago (2013), 
little improvement in this situation is evident in the current draft 
SARs. The Organizations recommend that NMFS recognize and fill gaps in 
population abundance and trends so that the SARs more accurately 
reflect the current status of populations.
    Response: We acknowledge and appreciate this comment and are 
actively working to address these gaps to the extent that resources 
allow. To this end, we are continuing to partner with other Federal 
agencies to collaborate on our common needs to better understand the 
distribution, abundance, and stock structure of cetaceans and other 
protected species. For example, since 2010, we have been working with 
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Navy, and the FWS, to 
assess the abundance, distribution, ecology, and behavior of marine 
mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds in the western North Atlantic Ocean. 
One of the objectives of this joint venture, the Atlantic Marine 
Assessment Program for Protective Species (AMAPPS), is to address data 
gaps that are essential to improving population assessments. In 2015, 
we launched the joint AMAPPS II, which will continue through 2019. 
Modeled after the successes of AMAPPS, we are planning to launch two 
similar joint research programs this year for the Gulf of Mexico 
(GoMMAPPS) and the Pacific Ocean (PacMAPPS). These multi-year, multiple 
agency programs will provide data to help us meet our mandates under 
the MMPA.
    See our responses to comments on Regional Reports below where we 
address issues related to specific stocks.
    Comment 2: The Organizations note there are discrepancies in the 
choice of recovery factors used for distinct population segments (DPS) 
of humpback whales among the various regions. There should be more 
consistent application of recovery factors across regions for mixed or 
de-listed DPSs given that these newly defined populations share many of 
the same certainties and uncertainties in data on abundance, trend and 
range. The Pacific region re-assessed the California/Oregon/Washington 
stock of humpback whales, retaining the recovery factor of 0.3 from the 
prior SAR (when these humpbacks were still ESA-listed), based on NMFS 
guidelines for setting PBR elements that allow flexibility in use of 
recovery factors for listed stocks based in confidence in the data. 
However, the Alaska region has apparently not been consistent in its 
use of recovery factors in the PBR formula. Humpbacks in the Western 
North Pacific retained a recovery factor of 0.1 even though some 
portion of the feeding stock was de-listed. However, the Central North 
Pacific stock of humpbacks was assigned a recovery factor of 0.3 even 
though the SAR for the Central North Pacific stock acknowledges that 
there is a ``known overlap in the distribution of the Western and 
Central North Pacific humpback whale stocks [and] estimates for these 
feeding areas may include whales from the Western North Pacific 
stock.'' The mixing of both ESA-listed and unlisted stocks in the same 
feeding area seems likely and in the interest of consistency, 
conservation, and judicious management of resources, the region should 
keep the more conservative recovery factor of 0.1 for both Western 
North Pacific and Central North Pacific stocks that vary in ESA listing 
status but intermix with other stocks in the Alaskan feeding grounds. 
The Atlantic region has used a recovery factor of 0.5 in its PBR 
formula, despite data uncertainties.
    Response: As described in our Federal Register notice requesting 
comments on the Draft 2016 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (81 
FR 70097, October 11, 2016), we are currently conducting a review of 
humpback whale stock delineations under the MMPA to determine whether 
any humpback whale stocks in U.S. waters should be realigned with the 
ESA DPSs. Until we have completed our review, we will continue to treat 
the Western North Pacific, Central North Pacific, and California/
Oregon/Washington stocks as depleted because they partially or fully 
coincide with ESA-listed DPSs. As such, we have not changed the 
recovery factors for these three stocks from the values reported in the 
2015 SARs; any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 
elements (such as PBR, strategic status,

[[Page 29041]]

or recovery factors) will be reflected in future stock assessment 
reports, and the Scientific Review Groups and the public will be 
provided opportunity to review and comment.
    Comment 3: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) asserts that the 
SAR administrative process be improved; it is confusing, inefficient, 
and produces final SARs that are not based upon the best available 
scientific information. Because of the inefficient process used to 
produce SARs, the draft SARs fail to rely upon the best available data 
(i.e., the most current data that it is practicable to use), contrary 
to the MMPA. For example, the draft 2016 SAR only reports data 
collected through the year 2014, even though 2015 data are readily 
available; there is no credible justification to continue the present 
two-year delay in the use of information.
    Response: As noted in previous years, the marine mammal SARs are 
based upon the best available scientific information, and NMFS strives 
to update the SARs with as timely data as possible. In order to develop 
annual mortality and serious injury estimates, we do our best to ensure 
all records are accurately accounted for in that year. In some cases, 
this is contingent on such things as bycatch analysis, data entry, and 
assessment of available data to make determinations of severity of 
injury, confirmation of species based on morphological and/or molecular 
samples collected, etc. Additionally, the SARs incorporate injury 
determinations that have been assessed pursuant to the NMFS 2012 Policy 
and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of 
Marine Mammals (NMFS Policy Directive PD 02-038 and NMFS Instruction 
02-038-01), which requires several phases of review by the SRGs. 
Reporting on incomplete annual mortality and serious injury estimates 
could result in underestimating actual levels. The MMPA requires us to 
report mean annual mortality and serious injury estimates, and we try 
to ensure that we are accounting for all available data before we 
summarize those data. With respect to abundance, in some cases we 
provide census rather than abundance estimates, and the accounting 
process to obtain the minimum number alive requires two years of 
sightings to get a stable count, after which the data are analyzed and 
entered into the SAR in the third year. All animals are not seen every 
year; waiting two years assures that greater than 90 percent of the 
animals still alive will be included in the count. As a result of the 
review and revision process, data used for these determinations 
typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS develop a strategy 
and plan to collaborate with other nations to improve and/or expand 
existing surveys and assessments for trans-boundary stocks. Priority 
should be given to those stocks that are endangered or threatened, 
hunted, or known to interact significantly with fisheries or other 
marine activities in international or foreign waters. The goal should 
be to manage human impacts on trans-boundary stocks using a potential 
biological removal level calculated for the entire stock, as has been 
suggested in the proposed revisions to the stock assessment guidelines.
    Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment and agree that 
collaboration with other countries for assessments of trans-boundary 
stocks is a worthy goal. For example, for the Gulf of Mexico, we are 
investigating whether GoMMAPPS could encompass a Gulf-wide approach to 
include collaborative international surveys. For the northwestern 
Atlantic Ocean, we recently convened a joint Ecosystem Based Management 
Science Workshop with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in 
St. Andrews, Canada, to discuss how to develop sustained funding 
opportunities for collaborative research projects that advance 
ecosystem based management science in our transboundary waters. Some of 
the ongoing and potential collaborative research projects discussed 
include AMAPPS, aerial and ship surveys (e.g., gray seals, right 
whales), autonomous glider surveys, and long-term passive accoutic 
monitoring of whale presence.
    In the North Pacific, the SPLASH (Structure of Populations, Levels 
of Abundance and Status of Humpbacks) surveys conducted during 2004 
through 2006, represent one of the largest and most successful 
international collaborative studies of any whale population to date. 
SPLASH was designed to determine the abundance, trends, movements, and 
population structure of humpback whales throughout the North Pacific 
and to examine human impacts on this population. This study involved 
over 50 research groups and more than 400 researchers in 10 countries. 
It was supported by a number of U.S. agencies and organizations, the 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation with additional support from a number of 
other organizations and governments for effort in specific regions.
    The only current international assessment survey in the North 
Pacific is the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Pacific Ocean 
Whales & Ecosystem Research (POWER) cruise, which runs annually and 
sequentially surveys set areas of the North Pacific. These cruises have 
been run for several years across much of the North Pacific Ocean and 
in 2017-19 will be focused on the Bering Sea. The survey always 
includes at least one U.S. researcher. Reports and data are submitted 
annually to the IWC Scientific Committee. The survey employs line-
transect methods and is designed to calculate abundance of all large 
whale species. Whether the estimates possess sufficient precision to be 
used for calculating PBR is likely to vary by species, and the huge 
areas being surveyed may in some cases mean low precision. The surveys 
also take time for photo-id and biopsy sampling, and in 2017 they will 
for the first time include acoustic monitoring via sonobuoys.
    With the exception of the POWER cruise (which is possible largely 
because of funding and the provision of a vessel by the Government of 
Japan, together with support from the IWC) the challenge of 
implementing the Commission's recommendation is the considerable 
expense involved in conducting trans-boundary surveys. The SPLASH 
project on North Pacific humpback whales was very successful but 
involved funding by multiple nations (including the U.S.). Given the 
current budget environment, it is unlikely that funding would be 
available for an assessment survey of similar international scope.
    Regarding the management of human impacts on trans-boundary stocks 
using a PBR level calculated for the entire stock, we note that we 
included clarifications in the 2016 revised Guidelines for Assessing 
Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS). For transboundary stocks, the best 
approach is to compare the total (U.S. and non-U.S.) M/SI to the range-
wide PBR whenever possible. For non-migratory stocks where estimates of 
mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ) cannot be determined, PBR calcuations are based on the abundance 
within the EEZ and compared to mortality within the EEZ. For cases 
where we are able to estimate the entire population size, such as the 
transboundary Californa coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins, we 
prorate the PBR to account for the time that animals spend outside of 
U.S. waters.

[[Page 29042]]

Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 5: The Organizations point out that the Commission's review 
of SARs found that only approximately one third of stocks in the Gulf 
of Mexico have valid information on minimum population and/or have a 
current estimate of PBR. For the Gulf of Mexico, ``of the 36 stocks 
without a PBR in the 2013 assessments, 33 are due to outdated survey 
data and 3 are due to no data.'' The outdated estimates for stocks in 
the Gulf of Mexico are generally not just a year or two out of date, 
many have not been assessed since the 1990s--over two decades ago. The 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster impacted many of these poorly 
assessed stocks.
    For example, the Organizations note the lack of population data 
available for the small stocks of Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and 
Estuary (BSE) bottlenose dolphins--many of which were adversely 
impacted by the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon well. As a result 
of aging data and lack of survey effort, population estimates are now 
only available for 3 of the more than 30 bay, sound and estuarine 
stocks whereas there were estimates for 6 in the last SAR. The 
Organizations recommend that new population estimates be generated.
    Response: We recognize that many of the Gulf of Mexico stocks do 
not have abundance estimates. Together with our partners at the 
National Center for Coastal Ocean Science and the Texas Marine Mammal 
Stranding Network, we are currently conducting photo-ID mark-recapture 
surveys to estimate abundance of common bottlenose dolphins in St. 
Andrew Bay, West Bay, Galveston Bay, Sabine Lake, and Terrebonne and 
Timbalier bays. We anticipate completing additional estuarine photo-ID 
mark-recapture surveys in collaboration with partners throughout the 
Gulf as resources become available. During 2017 and 2018, we have 
planned vessel and aerial surveys under the proposed GoMMAPPS that will 
provide updated abundance estimates for coastal, shelf and oceanic 
stocks.
    Comment 6: The Organizations comment that the Atlantic SARs and 
their iterative edits are often difficult to follow. In general, the 
SARs have become confusing, contradictory, and disorganized to an 
extent that it is often difficult to discern critical information, 
which was noted by the Atlantic SRG in its 2016 letter to NMFS. They 
noted no evidence in the current draft SARs for this region that any 
significant attempt was made to address the sub-standard content or 
readability of many of the SARs.
    Response: The language contained in the Atlantic SARs was discussed 
in depth at the 2016 Atlantic SRG meeting. We hightlighted four 
Atlantic SARs (coastal common bottlenose dolphin SARs and the Northern 
North Carolina and Southern North Carolina Estuarine System Stock SARs) 
for major revision. Given the comments and discussion at the 2016 
meeting, we decided to retract these SARs from the 2016 cycle as it was 
not possible to make major revisions given the timeframe necessary for 
publishing the draft 2016 SARs in the Federal Register for public 
comment. Thus, these four SARs were not included in the draft 2016 SARs 
published in the Federal Register for public review. These retracted 
SARs were the only Atlantic SARs that were identified during the 2016 
Atlantic SRG discussion for major revision. For the 2017 SAR cycle, we 
will restructure seven Atlantic common bottlenose dolphin SARs, 
including the four retracted SARs.
    Comment 7: The Organizations comment that the Atlantic SRG was 
asked to review a number of SARs that do not appear in this edited 
draft of NMFS' SARs. For example, the Atlantic SRG was asked to review 
and provide comments on SARs for four bottlenose dolphin stocks that do 
not appear available for public review either online in the draft SARs 
or as part of the Federal Register notice. NMFS has proposed no changes 
to these dolphin SARs, nor is the public asked to comment on them. It 
is not clear why this occurred. NMFS should provide an explanation for 
discrepancy in the number of stocks reviewed and commented on by the 
Atlantic SRG as opposed to the abbreviated list of SARs provided in the 
documents for public review and comment.
    Response: See response to Comment 6.
    Comment 8: The Organizations note the initial sentence under the 
Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphin report of takes in shrimp trawls 
states, ``During 2010-2014, there were no documented mortalities or 
serious injuries of common bottlenose dolphins from Gulf of Mexico BSE 
stocks by commercial shrimp trawls; however, observer coverage of this 
fishery does not include BSE waters.'' It is misleading to say ``there 
were no documented mortalities,'' as this implies that mortalities that 
occurred would and could have been documented by independent fishery 
observers when, in fact, there is no observer coverage to document any 
mortalities. The Organizations recommend omitting that sentence and 
simply stating something like: ``No data are available on fishery-
related mortalities for the period 2010-2014, as there was no observer 
coverage of the fishery in BSE waters.''
    Response: To provide clarity, we have modified the sentence to 
read: ``During 2010-2014, there were no documented mortalities or 
serious injuries of common bottlenose dolphins from Gulf of Mexico BSE 
stocks by commercial shrimp trawls because observer coverage of this 
fishery does not include BSE waters.''
    Comment 9: The Organizations recommend that much of the information 
on the Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphins in the narrative section 
on ``Other Mortality'' can be reduced to a table, particularly the 
listing of animals that were shot or otherwise injured by humans (i.e., 
providing the likely stock identity, date, location, weaponry 
involved). The lengthy narrative discussion that is provided in some, 
but not all, cases is unnecessarily descriptive.
    Response: We shortened or removed the narrative descriptions for 
many of the mortalities and moved the descriptions of the at-sea 
observations and research takes to a table.
    Comment 10: The Organizations note the section on Status of the 
Gulf of Mexico BSE bottlenose dolphin stock contains this sentence 
``The relatively high number of bottlenose dolphin deaths that occurred 
during the mortality events since 1990 suggests that some of these 
stocks may be stressed.'' The Organizations point out that stressed is 
an ambiguous word that may refer to any number of things and with no 
information on the severity of impact. ``Stress'' can mean 
physiological stress (as in the autonomic nervous system responses and 
elevated cortisol levels that may be highly detrimental) but could 
refer to a challenge to the stock's persistence. The Organizations 
suggest that NMFS consider use of a more appropriate descriptor for the 
importance of the information on impacts of the ``high number'' of 
deaths than is conveyed by the vague word ``stressed.''
    Response: We removed the subject sentence in the final SAR.
    Comment 11: The Commission points out that in the North Atlantic 
right whale SAR, the second paragraph of the ``Current and Maximum 
Productivity Rates'' section states that right whale per-capita birth 
rates have been highly variable but lack a definitive trend. While that 
is true, the data presented in Figure 2 suggest that the pattern of 
variability shifted around 2000.

[[Page 29043]]

    Between 1990 and 2000, the per capita birth rate was substantially 
higher than the long-term mean in three (27 percent) of those years, 
close to the mean in two (18 percent) of the years, and substantially 
lower in six (55 percent) of the years. In contrast, between 2001 and 
2012, the rate was substantially higher in four (33 percent) of those 
years, close to the mean in 6 (50 percent) of the years, and 
substantially lower in just one (17 percent) of the years. In other 
words, the mean rate increased substantially from the first to the 
second period. In addition, one study has pointed to a substantial 
decline in the birth rate from 2010 on, which coincides with an 
apparent decline in the population growth rate (Kraus et al. 2016). 
Those declines have been coincident with sharp declines in right whale 
numbers at several major feeding habitats, an increase in the 
occurrence in severe entanglement injuries (Knowlton et al. 2012, 
Robbins et al. 2015), and declines in animal health-based assessments 
of blubber thickness, skin lesions, and other health assessment 
parameters (Rolland et al. 2016). The Commission recommends that NMFS 
undertake a thorough statistical/modeling analysis of these data to 
determine whether any of these apparent/possible trends are significant 
and what effect they are having on the recovery of the stock.
    Response: The North Atlantic right whale population is very small 
with few (~100) adult females. Per capita reproduction is expected to 
be highly variable as a result of many females becoming synchronized in 
their calving and resting periods. Estimating trends as suggested has 
questionable statistical validity because individual females' cycles 
are not independent (Rosenbaum et. al. 2002, McLaughlin et al. 1994). 
NMFS will further examine the potential to model the volatility of 
observed calf production and its effects on stock status. However, the 
multiple consecutive years of fewer births than deaths, as documented 
in the SAR, suggests a declining population.
    Comment 12: The Commission recommends that NMFS, in consultation 
with independent experts familiar with assessing right whale health, 
re-examine information on the deaths and injuries of several North 
Atlantic right whales (including #3705, #3360, #3946, #2160, #1311, 
#3692, #2810, [#unidentified], and #4057) to determine whether they 
should be added to the list of M/SI cases in Table 1.
    Response: The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff 
reviewed all these cases and their determinations regarding serious 
injury were later reviewed by experienced staff at another Fisheries 
Science Center, the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regional Offices, 
and the Atlantic SRG, per NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing 
Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. NMFS staff looks for 
evidence of significant health decline post event. We do not currently 
have a method to address sublethal effects or more subtle/slow health 
decline. Most of the recommended cases fall into this category. In 
addition, several of the cases mentioned simply did not have enough 
information to make a determination of human interaction (see below).
    Regarding whale #1311, this whale was an unrecovered carcass filmed 
floating off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, by a fisherman in August 
2013. Line was caught in the baleen, and it had rostrum and head wounds 
apparently due to line wraps. Staff reviewing the injuries were unable 
to determine the extent of human interaction from footage provided. The 
event did not meet any of the four entanglement mortality criteria as 
listed in NMFS M/SI documents (Henry et al. 2016), was classified as a 
mortality due to unknown cause, and was not included in the SAR as a 
human-caused mortality.
    We have no data on the unidentified whale described as being 
sighted in September 2014 by an aerial survey team in Cape Cod Bay, 
Massachusetts, and none was provided upon request from commenters. 
Therefore, this event was not included in Table 1. It could be a 
resight of an animal with an earlier injury date.
    Comment 13: The Maine Lobsterman's Association (MLA) notes the 
North Atlantic right whale SAR determines the minimum population to be 
440 whales, which is a census of those known to be alive. Using a 
census is not an adequate methodology to assess this population given 
that much of the population's distribution is unknown during the 
winter, and recent shifts in habitat use patterns have resulted in 
fewer right whales being detected in known habitats. Right whale 
patterns and behaviors will continue to change; thus, this mark-and-
recapture approach to determine the minimum population is not adequate. 
This approach also ignores science such as Frasier (2005), which 
concluded based on genetic testing matched to known calves that the 
population of right whale males has been underestimated. The SAR offers 
little to explain why patterns of habitat use are shifting or 
adequately determine the population size.
    This problem is further exacerbated by the new methodologies used 
to count serious injury and mortality: Whales with unknown outcomes are 
now counted on a pro[hyphen]rated basis. Given the critical status of 
the species, it is imperative that NMFS develop a new method of 
assessing the right whale population that does not rely solely on 
sightings and photo[hyphen]identification of these whales. The MLA 
recommends that NMFS convene a workshop of independent scientists to 
review the best available science and potential modelling approaches to 
assess this stock. This task should not be delegated to Science Center 
staff but rather should involve scientists from a variety of marine 
mammal, modelling, climate change and other fields to objectively 
recommend the best approach to assessing North American right whales.
    Response: Currently, we use an index of abundance that is more 
sophisticated than a simple census in that it pools within-year 
sightings of individual right whales and does not rely on any 
particular season to represent the count of whales (so, if a whale is 
not seen in a particular season, it does not affect the count). 
Further, the method includes not just the individuals seen in the 
target year, but those seen before and after the target year, plus 
calves in the target year. Because right whale re-sighting rates have 
been extremely high for many years (greater than 85 percent), the 
method is relatively robust and produces an abundance value that is 
very much like a census. However, the recent decline in sighting rates 
has led the agency to explore different methodologies for abundance 
estimation, and we may move toward a mark-recapture statistical 
approach for future abundance characterizations. This new method will 
continue to rely on photo-identification data. Assessments based on 
individual capture histories, when properly constructed, have proven 
far superior both in regard to precision of abundance estimates and 
added demographic data than any simple abundance-based assessment 
procedure developed for other wildlife. This is especially true for 
marine mammals that range over vast areas and for which estimating 
density is costly. This new approach will also allow for an estimate of 
entanglement mortality and avoid issues with undercounting, even after 
changes to the serious injury categorizations. In regard to the Frasier 
(2005) work, the thesis put forward a position based on incomplete 
genetic sampling of the observed adult male population and included 
only a single hypothetical breeding model.

[[Page 29044]]

Further, we do not ignore the Frasier hypothesis, but we recognize its 
uncertain nature that aligns poorly with NMFS precautionary management 
strategies. Regarding explanations of why patterns of habitat use are 
shifting, this is not yet well understood, and, for this reason, it 
would be premature to include information on this factor in the SAR 
(see response to Comment 14).
    With regard to the suggestions for a workshop, we are working on an 
approach very much like the one suggested by the commenter. Discussions 
will likely build on the findings from the North Atlantic right whale 
panel at the Commission's 2017 annual meeting and the outcomes from the 
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team meeting. Both meetings were 
held in April 2017.
    Comment 14: The MLA notes the North Atlantic right whale SAR raises 
concern about a potential decline in the population beginning in 2012, 
the most recent year of the assessment but also notes that 
``productivity in North Atlantic right whales lacks a definitive 
trend.'' The SAR dedicates the majority of its discussion on Current 
Population Trend to research from the early 1990s through the early 
2000s, documenting a decline during that time. In discussing the recent 
population growth spanning more than 10 years (2000 through 2011), the 
SAR offers only one sentence, ``However, the population continued to 
grow since that apparent interval of decline [ending in 2000] until the 
most recent year included in this analysis.'' The SAR provides no 
discussion of conditions during this recent 10[hyphen]year period of 
growth in the population and does little to inform what may have driven 
either the former decline or recent growth.
    Response: We recognize the lack of balance given to fluctuating 
period-specific growth patterns in right whale abundance. The causes of 
fluctuation are poorly understood. NMFS is presently engaged in 
analysis to examine the relative contributions of fecundity and 
mortality to fluctuating abundances; the outcome from our analysis will 
be reflected in future stock assessment reports.
    Comment 15: The MLA notes that the data on the confirmed 
human[hyphen]caused mortality of North Atlantic right whales continue 
to be difficult to interpret. Of the 24 interactions attributed to 
entanglement from 2010-2014, only 0.4 were confirmed to be U.S. fishing 
gear from a pot/trap fishery. Twenty[hyphen]two of the entanglement 
cases have no definitive information on the fishery involved or where 
the gear was set. Data implicating the fishing industry at large sours 
fruitful discussion and makes it very difficult for the individual 
fisheries to find effective solutions to the entanglement problem.
    Response: Known, observed mortalities are a (likely biased) subset 
of actual mortality. The SAR attempts to report these data with as much 
information as is available. There may be other, incidental deaths not 
fully known or attributable to specific areas, fisheries, or gear 
types. Forensic efforts are made of all recovered gear to identify 
specific fisheries (target species, region, nation of origin, etc.). 
However, insufficient data exist to assign specific levels of 
resolution in most cases, and we are only able to report the cause of 
death as fishery-related entanglement. The inability to distinguish 
whether impacts are due to the scale of fishing effort versus one or a 
few areas that have disproportionate impact and could be strategically 
targeted by management actions presents significant management 
challenges. New gear marking requirements developed under the Atlantic 
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan are showing promise in improving gear 
attribution to specific fisheries. We welcome suggestions as to how to 
reduce entanglement, improve forensic analysis, or to better mark gear 
for source identification.
    Comment 16: The Organizations point out that the chart showing 
North Atlantic right whale M/SI omits any mention of M/SI from 2015, 
though the agency has already acknowledged and accounted for a number 
of such occurrences in a separate document. Since the agency has 
incorporated and ``coded'' this more recent information from 2015 in a 
separate reference document, these events should be added to the SARs, 
which should themselves reflect the most recent information available.
    Response: The period covered by the 2016 SAR is 2010-2014. M/SI 
events from 2015 will be included in the 2017 SAR. Limiting the reports 
to the 5-year period is not only important for consistency, but also 
for completeness. M/SI cases are assembled and reviewed by fall of the 
year following the event in order to be included in the draft SARs by 
the next January.
    Comment 17: The Organizations comment that the Gulf of Maine stock 
humpback whale revised SAR inappropriately uses a recovery factor of 
0.5 in calculations of the PBR. The NMFS GAMMS state: ``The recovery 
factor of 0.5 for threatened or depleted stocks or stocks of unknown 
status was determined based on the assumption that the coefficient of 
variation of the mortality estimate (CV) is equal to or less than 0.3. 
If the CV is greater than 0.3, the recovery factor should be decreased 
to: 0.48 for CVs of 0.3 to 0.6; 0.45 for CVs of 0.6 to 0.8; and 0.40 
for CVs greater than 0.8.'' In its section on fishery-related 
mortality, the Gulf of Maine humpback whale report acknowledges that 
entanglements and entanglement-related mortality are likely under-
reported. Citing recent literature, just prior to the mortality table, 
the SAR states in part that ``[w]hile these records are not 
statistically quantifiable in the same way as observer fishery records, 
they provide some indication of the minimum frequency of 
entanglements.'' There is uncertainty surrounding estimates of 
anthropogenic mortality with no CV provided, and NMFS itself 
acknowledges that it is under-reported. This raises the question of the 
CV surrounding the mortality estimate.
    Response: As a result of the humpback whale ESA listing rule (81 FR 
62259, September 8, 2016), the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales 
is no longer considered ESA listed or depleted. Therefore, the recovery 
factor changed from 0.1 (the default recovery factor for stocks of 
endangered species) to 0.5, the default value for stocks of unknown 
status relative to optimum sustainable population (OSP). As a result, 
the GAMMS' discussion of reducing the recovery factor based on the CV 
of the mortality estimate is not relevant here; in addition to there 
being no CVs associated with the abundance or death-by-entanglement 
metrics reported in the SAR, CVs are a measure of the precision of the 
estimate, while the likely undercount of humpback whale mortalities is 
an issue of bias. We are collaborating on ways to improve estimates of 
entanglement mortality to reduce the bias.
    Comment 18: The Organizations note the minimum population estimate 
(Nmin) for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock that was used for 
calculating PBR was higher than the actual survey estimate. The survey 
estimate was said to be 335 animals with a CV of 0.42; however, that 
estimate of population was increased to 823 based on mark-recapture and 
an outdated survey estimate from 2008--an estimate that has no CV 
associated. The GAMMS state clearly that ``the Nmin estimate of the 
stock should be considered unknown if 8 years have transpired since the 
last abundance survey'' and the last survey was 8 years ago. If NMFS 
does not wish to default to ``unknown'' for an abundance estimate, then 
the SAR should use an estimate derived from a recent survey, and NMFS 
should devote funds to

[[Page 29045]]

obtaining a more reliable estimate if it considers the 335 to be 
negatively biased. Given uncertainties in both estimates of abundance 
and mortality, a recovery factor of 0.5 appears inappropriate for the 
Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock. Clearly the stock may not require a 
recovery factor of 0.1 since it was delisted, but The Organizations 
believe it warrants using a recovery factor lower (more conservative) 
than 0.5.
    Response: The 2016 SAR references the time frame 2010-2014. Hence, 
data collected in 2008 are not regarded as being out-dated and are 
included in the calculation of Nmin. NMFS recognizes that the general 
line transect surveys conducted in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 
Zone have proven problematic in informing abundance of this stock 
because of poor precision. For this reason, we avoid line-transect 
estimates for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock when possible. See 
response to Comment 17 regarding recovery factor.
    Comment 19: The Organizations note that if the calculations of 
Robbins (2011, 2012) cited in the Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR are 
reasonable, then, as the SAR acknowledges, ``the 3 percent mortality 
due to entanglement that she calculates equates to a minimum average 
rate of 25, which is nearly 10 times PBR.'' Even if NMFS increases the 
PBR to 13 (as suggested in the draft), an average of 25 mortalities per 
year would be almost twice the new PBR. They maintain that this stock 
was inappropriately changed to non-strategic given that the actual 
level of anthropogenic mortality is acknowledged in the SAR to be 
higher than the incidents detailed in the SAR tables and may be well 
over the PBR.
    Response: See response to Comment 17. We agree that a simple count 
of the known mortalities is a poor measure and very likely a serious 
undercount of entanglement mortality. We are collaborating on ways to 
improve estimates of entanglement mortality.
    Comment 20: The Organizations note that NMFS has compiled more 
recent data on mortality of Gulf of Maine humpback whales than 2014, as 
these data are based on individual animals sighted dead or entangled 
(rather than having to extrapolate from observed take rates as is done 
for fishery interactions with small cetaceans). Nine additional 
humpbacks in 2015 were documented as M/SI by NMFS that are greater than 
zero and should be added to the tally in the table in this SAR.
    Response: See response to Comment 16 regarding the time period of 
data covered in the 2016 SAR.
    Comment 21: The Organizations recommend that NMFS update the Gulf 
of Maine humpback SAR with regard to habitat use in the mid-Atlantic 
region. While the SAR correctly notes sightings off Delaware and 
Chesapeake Bays, there is no reference to the increasing sightings and 
reliable anecdotal reports of humpback whales off Northern New Jersey 
and New York.
    Response: We have updated the Gulf of Maine humpback final SAR to 
include recent sightings in the New York area.
    Comment 22: Based on NMFS' recent global status review of humpback 
whales, the MLA supports the use of the default recovery factor used in 
this draft assessment of 0.5, rather than the former 0.1, because the 
Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is no longer considered endangered. 
The MLA suggests that NMFS broaden the assessment of humpback whales in 
the draft 2016 SAR to reflect the West Indies DPS, including 
population, productivity rates, and assessing human[hyphen]caused 
injury and mortality. With regard to human[hyphen]caused interactions, 
the MLA notes that they have long been concerned with the former status 
quo approach, which attributed all of these interactions to the Gulf of 
Maine stock simply because these whales could not be confirmed to 
another stock. The global status review provides the best available 
science on humpbacks. They assert that by using the West Indies DPS as 
the assessment unit, it will no longer be necessary to make assumptions 
about which smaller[hyphen]scale feeding or breeding areas were used by 
the whale when analyzing human[hyphen]caused impacts.
    Response: NMFS is in the process of reviewing stock structure for 
all humpback whales in U.S. waters, following the change in ESA listing 
for the species. Until then, we are retaining the current stock 
delineation.
    Comment 23: The Organizations comment that the strike-outs render 
key portions of the fin whale SAR unreadable. For example, in the 
section on Annual Human Caused Mortality and Serious Injury, there are 
a series of strike-outs that are difficult to follow, though it appears 
that the final tally of mortality is an average of 3.8 (modifying what 
was 3.55 with what looks like 32.8 but with the ``2'' apparently struck 
as well but in the same faint color). They suggest that NMFS simplify 
its editing and provide an easily readable document. They also note 
that this mortality rate exceeds the PBR of 2.5, and there is a coded 
Serious Injury for 2015 in the NMFS draft appendix reviewed by the 
Atlantic SRG. The most up-to-date information should be used.
    Response: In order to improve readability in future draft SARs, we 
will reconcile edits from multiple people into a single color. See the 
response to Comment 16 regarding the time period of data covered in the 
2016 SAR.
    Comment 24: The Organizations note that NMFS has compiled more 
recent data on mortality of minke whales than 2014. These data are 
based on individual animals sighted dead or entangled. Because the 
mortality and serious injury data in SARs for large cetaceans are based 
solely on what might be termed ``body counts'' (rather than having to 
extrapolate to the entire fishery from a subset of mortality obtained 
from federal fisheries observers) there is little justification for a 
multi-year delay in reporting. Six additional minke whales were 
accounted as dead from fishery-related injuries in 2015 (and one 
vessel-related fatality) and should be added to the tally in the table 
in this SAR in order to provide the most up-to-date information.
    Response: See the response to Comment 16 regarding the time period 
of data covered in the 2016 SAR.
    Comment 25: The Organizations comment that the current combined 
estimate of abundance of 11,865 for both long-finned and short-finned 
pilot whale species is from a 2011 aerial and ship-board survey that 
only covered a portion of the seasonal range of the species. The SARs 
state that ``[b]ecause long-finned and short-finned pilot whales are 
difficult to distinguish at sea, sightings data are reported as 
Globicephala sp.;'' however, estimates of abundance for each species 
were derived from this using a model based on ``genetic analyses of 
biopsy samples'' and this model is said to be ``in press.'' Given the 
management implications of pilot whales being caught in elevated 
numbers in both trawl and longline gear, it is vital that there be a 
valid and reliable species-specific estimate for each/both species. 
Given that prior SARs have often stated that papers are ``in press'' 
for several annual iterations, the Organizations hope that this 
important model is soon published. They are concerned that the citation 
is to a science center document that is not peer-reviewed and the 
citation is tentative and incomplete. The long-finned and short-finned 
pilot whale SARs contain multiple editors striking and amending in a 
manner that challenges the readability of the SARs in key sections 
including the reporting of estimates of longline-related mortality.

[[Page 29046]]

    Response: We conducted combined aerial and vessel surveys during 
summer 2011 that included mid-Atlantic waters where there is expected 
overlap between short-finned and long-finned pilot whales. The 
resulting abundance estimate of 11,865 was partitioned between the two 
species. We combined this estimate with the results from our summer 
2011 survey of the southern Atlantic to produce the best species-
specific abundance estimate of 21,515 for short-finned pilot whales 
over their entire range within U.S. waters. For long-finned pilot 
whales, the best estimate of 5,636 includes results from surveys 
conducted in all U.S. Atlantic waters. The Science Center document 
(Garrison and Rosel 2016) providing the details of the methodology for 
partitioning the species for both abundance estimation and bycatch 
estimation has gone through Science Center review and is available upon 
request. Starting with the 2017 SARs, we will reconcile edits from 
multiple people into a single color to improve readability.
    Comment 26: The Organizations point out that large numbers of 
harbor seals are seen alive but with notable entanglement injuries. 
This should be discussed in the SAR. They note that the federally 
funded and permitted stranding response organizations are required to 
keep records of their responses and this source should be queried. They 
were unable to find non-gray (or agency) literature documenting 
incidence but the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has 
documented that between 2000-2010 ``412 harbor seals were reported 
stranded, among them HI [human interaction] was 8 percent (n=35).'' 
Moreover, the authors noted with regard to various seal species to 
which IFAW responded: ``In the instances of fisheries-related HI, 67 
percent had gear presently on the animal at the time of stranding. 72 
percent of the entanglements were of monofilament of varying mesh size. 
15 percent were multifilament netting, 9 percent were pot/trap gear, 
and 4 percent were random (mooring lines, dock gear). Most entangled 
animals were juveniles and sub-adults, which might indicate that the 
entanglements are lethal to animals, preventing them from reaching 
adult size.''
    Gray seals are also being entangled and data are kept on stranding 
response, including either documenting or freeing animals entangled in 
fishing gear. IFAW documented that, between 2000-2010, ``305 gray seals 
were reported stranded, among them 22 percent (n=68) were HI, and 75 
percent of those (n=51) were fisheries related.'' Moreover, the authors 
noted that, with regard to the various seal species to which IFAW 
responded: ``In the instances of fisheries-related HI, 67 percent had 
gear presently on the animal at the time of stranding. 72 percent of 
the entanglements were of monofilament of varying mesh size. 15 percent 
were multifilament netting, 9 percent were pot/trap gear, and 4 percent 
were random (mooring lines, dock gear). Most entangled animals were 
juveniles and sub-adults, which might indicate that the entanglements 
are lethal to animals, preventing them from reaching adult size.'' It 
would seem worth adding a section to the SAR to discuss entanglements 
noted in living or dead-stranded animals.
    Response: We have added the following text to the harbor seal SAR 
that was included in the gray seal SAR: ``Analysis of bycatch rates 
from fisheries observer program records likely underestimates lethal 
(Lyle and Willcox 2008), and greatly under-represents sub-lethal 
fishery interactions.''
    Comment 27: The Organizations comment that the gray seal SAR is 
almost impossible to read in parts and/or has text that was newly added 
in this draft and then struck. For example, Table 2 has counts through 
2014 that are continued from the prior final SAR--though the years 
2008-2014 continued to say that the ``surveys took place but have not 
been counted'' and additional text for the years 2014-2015 was added 
for Muskeget Island. However, all of these estimates (2008-2015), even 
those newly added to the draft, are in red and were struck. It makes no 
sense to add a new year of uncounted data that is then itself struck. 
It would seem more germane simply to state that data from 2008-2015 are 
not yet available rather than adding new text and then striking without 
a providing a rationale.
    Response: The 2015 data were added mistakenly by a new author who 
did not understand that the time period covered by the 2016 SAR was 
2010-2014, and so were removed by an editor. In the future, we will 
better synthesize edits to present in the track-change version.
    Comment 28: The Organizations comment that in the gray seal SAR, 
the section on mortality in Canada for the years 2011-2015 was struck 
in its entirety (new edits and all) and moved/replaced later in the SAR 
under ``Other Mortality'' with a header reading ``Canada.'' However, 
the re-located ``new'' section does not provide the updated information 
from the struck section and, in some cases, the information included is 
actually older. For example, this newer section states that human-
caused mortality data in Canada are for 2010-2014 whereas the earlier, 
struck, section had data through 2015. These 2010-2014 data account for 
lower levels of mortality (136 deaths for the period 2010-2014) than 
was accounted in text in the section that was struck for the more 
current years (i.e., 353 deaths for 2011-2015). The later data, which 
show a notable increase in mortality, should be used.
    Response: We will include data from 2015 in the 2017 SAR. The time 
period for the 2016 SAR is 2010-2014 (See response to Comment 16).
    Comment 29: Two individual commenters expressed concern about the 
propagation of gray seals in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. They note that 
the 2016 stock assessments do not highlight increasing populations in 
expanded territories and lack recent pup production data.
    Response: We appreciate the concerns expressed and are working 
toward publishing recent pup count and haul out survey data. We will 
include those count data in the 2017 SARs.

Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 30: The Commission appreciates NMFS' efforts to 
consolidate, update, and standardize the presentation of data and 
information in its stock assessment reports. Previously, the tables 
presenting data on fisheries-caused M/SI provided data for each of the 
last five years of available data. However, in the draft 2016 Pacific 
SARs only summary statistics for the five years are provided. 
Understanding the impact and potential mitigation of fisheries 
interactions on marine mammal populations, as well as trends, requires 
data not only on the mean bycatch rate, but also on its year-to-year 
changes (e.g., Carretta and Moore, 2014). The Commission recommends 
that, at a minimum, NMFS continue to report the annual ``Percent 
Observer Coverage'' and ``Observer Mortality and Serious Injury'' data 
in the `Human-Caused Mortality and Serious Injury' sections of its 
stock assessment reports.
    Response: We recognize the importance of access to the annual 
observed or documented M/SI data to assess year-to-year changes; thus, 
we reinstated annual-level details in the final 2016 SARs for those 
fisheries and stocks where there were takes. However, for some species 
where takes in a specific fishery have perennially been zero, we think 
that a consolidated summary that presents a range of observer coverage 
for a multi-year time period may be sufficient (see Table 5 in Wade and 
Angliss 1997). We will continue to assess the most appropriate level of 
detail on observer coverage and

[[Page 29047]]

M/SI to include in fishery tables in the SARs.
    Comment 31: The Commission notes that the dynamics of some stocks 
display considerable heterogeneity in time and/or space. In those 
situations, a complete review of the SAR requires access to the data 
describing the variability over time or across the stock's 
distribution. The Commission recommends that NMFS provide data, in 
tables and graphs, specific to different years, areas, and sub-
populations, as appropriate, when a stock exhibits important variation 
along those dimensions. When there is uncertainty, NMFS should err on 
the side of providing more information.
    Response: We appreciate this comment and recognize the possibility 
for variability in data relative to a marine mammal stock over time 
and/or space. However, we strive to strike the correct balance between 
providing enough detail in the SARs and relying on citations of 
published papers. Where deemed necessary, we will include such 
information as the Commission recommends, but we are unable to do so in 
all cases. The issue has been discussed with the three regional SRGs 
over the years, and they have generally supported this approach and 
continually ask the agency to keep the SARs succinct.
    Comment 32: The Organizations state that Guadalupe fur seals are of 
particular conservation concern because of the high rate of stranding 
along the U.S. West Coast in an ongoing unusual mortality event that 
started in January 2015. From 2015-2016, over 175 have stranded, but 
the number stranded may indicate that there may be a larger number of 
unseen mortalities. Because the SARs are a reference for making 
management decisions, many of which require quantitative information, 
the SARs should specify the number of strandings or provide a clear 
reference point rather than saying that stranding rates ``were 8 times 
the historical average.'' With respect to the geographic range of the 
stock, there is recent evidence of this threatened species expanding 
its breeding range into U.S. waters. The draft SAR confirms this on the 
initial page with a reference to NMFS' unpublished data. NMFS has 
publicly identified purported breeding colonies of Guadalupe fur seals 
along the U.S. West Coast, so this information should be incorporated 
into the SARs. Providing more details about the stock's range in the 
United States is especially important at this time because the SARs 
have not been updated since 2000.
    Response: We have added the number of animals that stranded during 
the unusual mortality event to the final Guadalupe fur seal SAR. 
Regarding the expansion of geographic range of the stock, we have 
already included information in the Guadalupe fur seal SAR reporting 
observations of pups born on San Miguel Island, including both 
published (Melin and DeLong 1999) and unpublished information.
    Comment 33: The Organizations recommend that the Guadalupe fur seal 
SAR provide additional information about the type and likely sources of 
fishing gear that entangles Guadalupe fur seals. Additional details 
should be provided on the reported mortalities such as the mesh size, 
gear, and the location of the entanglement to help identify fisheries 
that may have been involved. The vast majority of fishery entanglements 
are said to be due to unidentified gear, which might be informed by 
better gear marking. The failure to better identify gear can hamper 
NMFS' ability to address the potential need for modification of gear or 
fishing method's to reduce mortalities.
    Response: We agree that the ability to identify gear is crucial. 
However, records of Guadalupe fur seals that are observed entangled in 
fishing gear almost always lack sufficient information to identify the 
fishery origin of the gear. When details on the gear type are known, we 
provide that information in the annual human-caused M/SI reports and 
the respective SARs. We welcome suggestions as to how to better mark 
gear for source identification.
    Comment 34: The Organizations note the in the Guadalupe fur seal 
draft SAR, PBR is specified but without assignment of portion of the 
PBR to Mexico versus the United States. For example the SAR states that 
the ``vast majority of this PBR would apply towards incidental 
mortality in Mexico as most of the population occurs outside of U.S. 
waters.'' It is not clear how to analyze the significance of M/SI in 
the United States if the vast majority of the PBR should apply to 
Mexico. For example, the fourth page says that the U.S. fishery M/SI 
for this stock (3.2 animals per year) is less than 10 percent of the 
calculated PBR and, therefore, can be considered to be insignificant 
and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. But because the 
SARs does not specify the portion of PBR assigned to the United States, 
it is impossible to independently verify this conclusion.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that it is difficult to 
assess the significance of human-caused M/SI in U.S. waters because a 
prorated PBR is lacking. However, we are unable to prorate Guadalupe 
fur seal PBR between Mexico and U.S. waters due to a lack of data on: 
(1) The fraction of the population that utilizes U.S. waters and (2) 
the amount of time that animals are in U.S. waters. This transboundary 
stock is unique because a vast majority of the reproductive rookeries 
occur in Mexico and the stock that has undergone significant increases 
in population size, despite continued anthropogenic threats in Mexican 
and U.S. waters. To address the commenter's concern, we have modified 
the ``Status of Stock'' language in the final SAR to read: ``The total 
U.S. fishery mortality and serious injury for this stock (3.2 animals 
per year) is less than 10 percent of the calculated PBR for the entire 
stock, but it is not currently possible to calculate a prorated PBR for 
U.S. waters with which to compare serious injury and mortality from 
U.S. fisheries. Therefore, it is unknown whether total U.S. fishery 
mortality is insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious 
injury rate.''
    Comment 35: The Organizations recommend NMFS adopt a methodology to 
estimate cryptic mortality for pinnipeds similar to Caretta et al. 2016 
that stated: ``the mean recovery rate of California coastal bottlenose 
dolphin carcasses [is] 25 percent (95 percent CI 20 percent-33 percent) 
. . . [therefore] human-related deaths and injuries counted from beach 
strandings along the outer U.S. West Coast are multiplied by a factor 
of 4 to account for the non-detection of most carcasses (Carretta et 
al. 2016a).'' This methodology would seem pertinent to apply in the 
Guadalupe fur seal SAR as well.
    Response: We have developed a methodology to estimate cryptic 
mortality for coastal bottlenose dolphins and are working towards 
developing such correction factors for other taxa. The carcass recovery 
factor we developed for coastal bottlenose dolphins provides a best-
case scenario for delphinoid carcass recovery along the U.S. west 
coast, and we have used this correction factor for other dolphin and 
porpoise stock assessment reports in the Pacific region. We will 
continue to work with the regional SRGs to help address the negative 
biases associated with carcass recovery for all taxa.
    Comment 36: One individual points out that the California sea lion, 
harbor seal, and northern elephant seal reports were not revised in the 
draft 2016 SARs nor updated for the 2015 SARs. The commenter asserts 
that California is suffering from an inadvertent ecological disaster of 
sea lion and harbor seal overpopulation; further, the data have shown 
over-population for a decade or

[[Page 29048]]

more, and OSP has been exceeded in both species at least in Southern 
California.
    Response: Section 117 of the MMPA requires us to review stock 
assessments at least annually when significant new information on a 
given stock becomes available or the stock is considered ``strategic.'' 
We must review all other stocks at least once every three years. If our 
review indicates that the status of the stock has changed or can be 
more accurately determined, we must revise the SAR. The three pinniped 
stocks noted by the commenter are not strategic stocks, nor has an OSP 
determination been made for any of them.
    Comment 37: The Organizations note that because the short-beaked 
common dolphin stock's range extends out to 300 nautical miles off the 
coast, consideration should be given to attributing capture of this 
species to the fisheries operating in high seas in the eastern Pacific 
Ocean. Specifically in 2014, one short-beaked common dolphin was 
injured in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishing east of 150 degrees 
W longitude--the boundary for the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
Commission's jurisdiction. It would seem reasonable to attribute this 
injury to the CA/OR/WA stock. Hawaii pelagic longline effort appears to 
be shifting toward the U.S. West Coast in recent years, and it seems 
reasonable to consider attributing some portion of this and perhaps 
other U.S. West Coast marine mammal stocks to this fishery. For this 
reason, the Organizations recommend that pelagic longlines be 
identified as a potential interacting fishery in the introduction of 
the SAR, which currently mentions only tuna purse seine and gillnet 
fisheries.
    Response: We appreciate being alerted to this oversight in the 
draft short-beaked common dolphin SAR and have added two Hawaii 
shallow-set longline injury records (one in 2011, one in 2014) of 
short-beaked common dolphin to the final SAR.
    Comment 38: The Organizations note that there has been no observer 
coverage in the California squid purse seine fishery since 2008, and 
request that NMFS maintain in Table 1 the record of the interaction 
observed in this fishery in 2005 but omitted from the short-beaked 
common dolphin draft SAR. Without that record, Table 1 implies that the 
fishery no longer interacts with short-beaked common dolphin, which 
seems unlikely.
    Response: We have reinstated the portion of the fishery table in 
the short-beaked common dolphin final SAR that includes historic purse 
seine takes to better represent fishery risks to this stock.
    Comment 39: The Organizations suggest that the short-finned pilot 
whale SAR would benefit from additional clarity about the southern 
extent of the range of the stock. This would help guide management 
actions that affect short-finned pilot whales off the U.S. West Coast. 
The stock definition and geographic range for short-finned pilot whales 
was heavily edited, and, in the process, the edits struck the prior 
reference to the stock's range being continuous, with animals found off 
Baja California. This seems relevant to reinstate since, later in the 
SAR, NMFS retained and added information about Mexican gillnet 
fisheries and the lack of bycatch data. In addition, given the 
uncertainty surrounding the stock's range, which seems likely to extend 
into Mexico, the draft SARs should note the stranding deaths of 24 
short-finned pilot whales in 2016 in Mexico. Given the SAR's 
observation of the ``virtual disappearance of short-finned pilot whales 
from California'' following the 1982-83 El Ni[ntilde]o, improving the 
information about the range, stock status and population trends is 
critical for proper and conservative management of this stock.
    Response: The draft SAR contains language that states the range of 
the CA/OR/WA short-finned pilot whale stock extends into the eastern 
tropical Pacific, which includes Mexican waters. This represents an 
improvement of our understanding of pilot whale distribution compared 
with previous iterations of the SAR: ``Pilot whales in the California 
Current and eastern tropical Pacific likely represent a single 
population, based on a lack of differentiation in mtDNA (Van Cise et 
al. 2016), while animals in Hawaiian waters are characterized by unique 
haplotypes that are absent from eastern and southern Pacific samples, 
despite relatively large sample sizes from Hawaiian waters.'' 
Information on the 27 pilot whales that stranded in the Gulf of 
California in 2016 is not included in the SAR because the stranding was 
not linked to any anthropogenic factors; the stranding does not 
significantly contribute to knowledge of the stock's range, and, given 
that the CA/OR/WA short-finned pilot whale stock represents only a 
small portion of a larger eastern tropical Pacific population, the 
stranding is unlikely to affect the long-term abundance of the CA/OR/WA 
stock.
    Comment 40: The Organizations recommend that the section in the 
Southern Resident killer whale SAR on ``habitat issues'' should discuss 
the potential risk from oil spill and/or from commercial shipping 
traffic and should also include at least a brief acknowledgement of 
risk from increased noise and vessel traffic resulting from Naval 
activity in the Northwest Training and Testing program.
    Response: We have added language addressing oil spill risks to the 
final Southern Resident killer whale SAR. Increased noise and vessel 
traffic resulting from Naval activity in the Northwest Training and 
Testing program is not considered to be a significant change in the 
habitat of this stock and thus is not included in the SAR.
    Comment 41: The Organizations note that the Southern Resident 
killer whale stock is recognized to be especially reliant on Chinook 
salmon (which comprise up to 80 percent of their summer diet) and may 
be adversely affected by fishery management decisions. Contaminant 
levels of Persistent Organic Pesticides are high, and differ between 
pods but may be contributing to the precarious status of this 
population. For example, DDT levels are higher in K and L pods, 
indicating that those pods spend more time than J pod feeding on salmon 
from California rivers; PBDEs are higher in J pod, as they spend more 
time in Salish Sea waters. NMFS acknowledges the risks from these 
pollutants in the draft SAR for the California stock of common 
bottlenose dolphins, stating ``[a]lthough the effects of pollutants on 
cetaceans are not well understood, they may affect reproduction or make 
the animals more prone to other mortality factors (Britt and Howard 
1983; O'Shea et al. 1999).''
    Response: We have added language to the final Southern Resident 
killer whale SAR detailing some of the potential risk factors related 
to PCBs that are also reflected in the recovery plan for Southern 
Resident killer whales.
    Comment 42: The HLA encourages NMFS to make additional improvements 
to the draft 2016 false killer whale SAR, by eliminating the five-year 
look-back period and reporting only data generated after the False 
Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP) regulations became effective. 
For example, the draft 2016 SAR should report M/SI values based on 
2013, 2014, and 2015 data, and the data prior to 2013 should no longer 
be used because it is no longer part of the best available scientific 
information.
    Response: If there have been significant changes in fishery 
operations that are expected to affect incidental mortality rates, such 
as the 2013 implementation of the FKWTRP, the GAMMS (NMFS 2016) 
recommend

[[Page 29049]]

using only the years since regulations were implemented. The SAR 
contains information preceeding and following the FKWTRP, 2008-2012 and 
2013-2014 respectively, and reports M/SI for these two time periods as 
well as the most recent 5-year average. Although the estimated M/SI of 
false killer whales within the U.S. EEZ around Hawaii during 2013 and 
2014 (6.2) is below the PBR (9.3), this estimate is within the range of 
past, pre-take reduction plan estimates, so there is not yet sufficient 
information to determine whether take rates in the fishery have 
decreased as a result of the FKWTRP. Finally, fishery-wide take rates 
in 2014 are among the highest recorded, suggesting FKWTRP measures may 
not be effective, and the change in fishery operation may not be 
significant enough to warrant abandoning the five-year averaging 
period. For these reasons, the strategic status for this stock has been 
evaluated relative to the most recent five years of estimated mortality 
and serious injury.
    Comment 43: The HLA asserts that the draft 2016 false killer whale 
SARs inappropriately relies on a ``preliminary'' PowerPoint 
presentation to report speculative conclusions. NMFS has adopted a 
policy that non-peer-reviewed information should not be included in the 
SARs. All references to information from the 2015 PowerPoint 
presentation (Forney 2015) are inappropriate and should be stricken 
from the SAR.
    Response: The presentation provided to the False Killer Whale Take 
Reduction Team is the most current assessment of the effectiveness of 
the FKWTRP. However, we acknowledge that it has not undergone formal 
peer-review, and as such, references to the presentation will be 
removed from the SAR. Even so, we believe it is still appropriate to 
pool five years to data to determine the stock's status, as described 
in the Status of Stock section of the Hawaii pelagic stock's report.
    Comment 44: The HLA notes that for a decade, NMFS has reported a M/
SI rate for the deep-set fishery that exceeds PBR for the Hawaii 
pelagic false killer whale stock (``pelagic stock''). However, the best 
available information suggests that the number of false killer whales 
in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the 
supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring. The HLA disagrees 
with the M/SI levels reported in the draft SAR and with NMFS' 
conclusion that the vast majority of all fishery interactions with the 
pelagic stock cause injuries that ``will likely result in mortality.'' 
If that were the case, then after a decade or more of allegedly 
unsustainable levels of take, there would be some evidence of a 
declining pelagic stock abundance. No such evidence exists. The HLA 
recommends that the draft SAR expressly recognize this discrepancy, and 
NMFS should revisit the manner in which it determines M/SI for false 
killer whale interactions.
    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR 
19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014, 
comment 26; 80 FR 50599, August 20, 2015, comment 34; and 81 FR June 
14, 2016, comment 44). The comment contends that the stock abundance 
has not declined in over a decade and attributes this persistence of 
false killer whales despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS' 
improper assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from 
fisheries interactions, improper assessment of population abundance and 
trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under NMFS' 2012 serious 
injury policy has been discussed in numerous previous comment responses 
and is based on the best available science on whether a cetacean is 
likely to survive a particular type of injury. Further study of false 
killer whales would certainly better inform the assigned outcomes; but, 
until better data become available, the standard established in the 
NMFS 2012 policy on distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries 
will stand.
    Further, assessments of pelagic false killer whale population trend 
are inappropriate for several reasons: (1) The entire stock range is 
unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, such that the 
available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size; (2) 
there have been only 2 surveys of the entire Hawaii EEZ, an 
insufficient number to appropriately assess trend; and (3) the 
available survey data were collected with different protocols for 
assessing false killer whale group size, a factor that will 
significantly impact the resulting abundance estimates. A robust 
assessment of population trend will require additional data and 
inclusion of environmental variables that influence false killer whale 
distribution and the proportion of the population represented within 
the survey area during each survey period.
    Comment 45: The HLA incorporates by reference its more specific 
comments on the draft 2014 SAR related to the 2010 Hawaiian Islands 
Cetacean Ecosystem and Assessment Survey (HICEAS) and the assumptions 
made by NMFS based upon the data from that survey. In addition, it 
emphasizes its repeated requests that NMFS publicly disclose 
information regarding the acoustic data acquired in the 2010 HICEAS 
survey. Substantial acoustic data was acquired during that survey, but 
NMFS still has not provided any meaningful analysis of that data or, 
for example, any basic indication of how many false killer whale 
vocalizations have been identified in the acoustic data. The acoustic 
data from the 2010 HICEAS survey contains information directly relevant 
to false killer whale abundance, and it must be analyzed by NMFS and 
reported in the false killer whale SAR, which must be based on the best 
available scientific information.
    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 
50599, August 20, 2015, comment 35; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 
45). Analysis of the acoustic data is a labor intensive and time-
consuming process, particularly as automated methods for detection, 
classification, and localization are still improving. There were many 
changes in array hardware during the survey, further complicating 
streamlined analyses of these data. Portions of the data have been 
analyzed to verify species identification, assess sub-group spatial 
arrangements, or other factors. A full-scale analysis of this dataset 
for abundance is therefore not appropriate at this time. However, NMFS 
may consider analyzing the 2010 acoustic dataset in full or part 
following the planned 2017 HICEAS survey, when the most recent 
automated detection and classification approaches may be available.
    Comment 46: The HLA notes that the draft SAR assigns a recovery 
factor of 0.5 to the pelagic stock of false killer whales, 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 pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status 
unknown. Since NMFS began estimating Hawaii false killer whale 
abundance in 2000, as more data have been obtained, more whales have 
been observed, and the population estimates have increased from 121 in 
2000 (a recognized underestimate for all false killer whales in the 
EEZ) to 268 in 2005, 484 in 2007, 1,503 in 2013, and 1,540 at present. 
Similarly, the incidence of fishery interactions with the pelagic stock 
has not decreased, nor has the rate of false killer whale depredation 
of fishing lines decreased (if anything, it has increased). All of the 
available data contradict any hypothesis that false killer whales in 
the Hawaii EEZ are decreasing. The HLA recommends that this status be 
accurately reflected with a recovery factor that is greater than 0.5 
(i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5).

[[Page 29050]]

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 
50599, August 20, 2015, comment 36; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 
46). Reanalysis of existing datsets to derive more precise estimates 
does not constitute an increase in population size. The commenter is 
incorrect in suggesting that the historical sequence of available 
abundance estimates are due to natural population increases, when they 
are in fact due to improvements in abundance estimation methods for 
this species, some of which have resulted from reanalysis of the same 
data. There are only two EEZ-wide estimates of abundance (484 from a 
2002 survey and 1,540 from a 2010 survey). These estimates may not be 
directly compared due to changes in group size enumeration methods 
between those surveys. For this reason the current status of pelagic 
false killer whales is unknown. This population may be reduced given 
fishing pressures within and outside of the EEZ over several decades. 
The status of Hawaii pelagic false killer whales is considered unknown 
because there are no trend data available to evaluate whether the 
population is increasing, stable, or declining. The recovery factor for 
Hawaii pelagic false killer whales will remain 0.5, as indicated, for a 
stock with a CV for the M/SI rate estimate that is less than or equal 
to 0.30.
    Comment 47: The HLA notes that, as with past draft SARs, the draft 
2016 SAR attributes M/SI by the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery 
to the Main Hawaiian Island (MHI) insular false killer whale stock 
(``insular stock''). For at least the following two reasons, these 
attributions are inappropriate and contrary to the best available 
scientific information. First, there has never been a confirmed 
interaction between the deep-set fishery and an animal from the insular 
stock. Although there is anecdotal evidence of insular stock 
interactions with nearshore shortline fisheries and other small-scale 
fishing operations, none of these are documented or reliably reported, 
and none implicate the Hawaii-based longline fisheries, which have been 
excluded from nearshore fishing grounds for many years.
    Second, as NMFS recognized in the draft 2015 SAR, the range for the 
insular stock is, appropriately, much smaller than was previously 
assumed by NMFS. When this new range is taken into account, along with 
the FKWTRP-based year-round closure of the area to the north of the 
MHI, there is only a very small area in which longline fishing may 
overlap with the assumed range of the insular stock. No false killer 
whale interaction by the deep-set fishery has ever occurred in this 
area. It is therefore incorrect, and contrary to the best available 
information, to state that the deep-set fishery, as currently 
regulated, is ``interacting with'' the insular stock. If NMFS persists 
with its contention that the deep-set fishery ``interacts with'' the 
insular stock, then NMFS should, at a minimum, state in the SAR that 
there are no confirmed deep-set fishery interactions with the insular 
stock and that no deep-set fishery interactions with the insular stock 
have occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might 
overlap with the assumed range for the insular stock.
    Response: As noted in previous years (see 80 FR 50599, August 20, 
2015, comment 37; and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 48), the commenter 
is correct that using the new MHI insular false killer whale stock 
range and the longline exclusion area required under the FKWTRP (in 
effect since 2013), there is little overlap between the MHI insular 
stock and the longline fishery. However, the commenter is mistaken that 
any take by the deep-set fishery is attributed to the MHI insular 
stock. The table for the Hawaii longline fisheries indicates 0.0 M/SI 
attributed to the MHI insular stock for 2013 and 2014. This 0.0 
attribution is because the overlap area is very small and because 
fishing effort in that region was also small. It is rare that the 
stock-identity of a hooked or entangled whale can be determined, and as 
such NMFS follows the GAMMS and apportions those false killer whale 
takes of unknown stock to all stocks within the fishing area. NMFS has 
carried out this apportionment based on the distribution of fishing 
effort in areas of overlap between stocks and the fishery.
    Comment 48: The HLA states that NMFS' assumption that the insular 
stock has declined is speculative.
    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 80 FR 
50599, August 20, 2015, comment 39 and 81 FR June 14, 2016, comment 
49). NMFS makes no assumption that MHI insular stock abundance has 
declined in recent years. The minimum estimate reflects the number of 
individuals enumerated during the stated period and may reflect not 
only changes in actual population abundance, but also changes in 
encounter rates due to survey location or animal distribution.

Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 49: Over the past several years, the Commission has 
repeatedly recommended that NMFS improve its monitoring and reporting 
of Alaskan subsistence hunting and harvest working in collaboration 
with co-management partners. The Commission recognizes and appreciates 
the related updates made by NMFS to the SARs and encourages NMFS to 
continue to provide updated information wherever it becomes available, 
even if it pertains only to a limited number of villages or subset of 
years. Although NMFS has stated its desire to establish a 
comprehensive, statewide subsistence hunting/harvest monitoring 
program, it has yet to achieve that goal. The Commission acknowledges 
the efforts of NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center and Alaska 
Regional Office to develop a list of research/monitoring priorities, 
solicit additional resources, and coordinate their efforts toward 
establishing the hunting/harvest monitoring program. Information on 
subsistence hunting and harvest is becoming increasingly important in 
the light of the pace of change in the Arctic. Therefore, the 
Commission recommends that NMFS continue to pursue the funding 
necessary for comprehensive surveys of Alaska native subsistence use 
and harvest of marine mammals. The Commission remains open to providing 
what support it can to NMFS' survey efforts and to helping address the 
lack of funding for such a program.
    Response: We acknowledge that we have limited monitoring and 
reporting of subsistence harvests. We will continue to provide the best 
available information about subsistence harvests in the SARs and will 
pursue opportunities to conduct comprehensive surveys of subsistence 
hunting as resources allow. We greatly appreciate the Commission's 
support and look forward to discussing ways forward to help facilitate 
NMFS' efforts.
    Comment 50: In the spring of 2012 and 2013, U.S. and Russian 
researchers conducted aerial abundance and distribution surveys for ice 
seals over the entire Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. The Commission was 
encouraged to see preliminary analyses of a subset of these surveys 
included in the 2015 SARs. Nonetheless, the lack of the complete 
analysis of these surveys and revisions of the abundance estimates for 
bearded and ringed seals in this year's draft SARs is disappointing. 
The Commission recommends that NMFS make it a priority to complete 
these analyses and ensure that revised abundance estimates for bearded, 
ringed, and ribbon seals, based on all available data, are included in 
the draft 2017 SARs.
    Response: We are continuing to analyze data from the 2012-2013 
aerial surveys of ice seals in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk; as 
soon as the data

[[Page 29051]]

analysis is complete and a citable publication is available, we will 
revise the applicable abundance estimates in the SARs. We will include 
an updated abundance estimate for spotted seals in the U.S. sector of 
the Bering Sea (from a preliminary analysis of the 2012-2013 survey 
data) in the draft 2017 spotted seal SAR (the only ice seal SAR to be 
revised in the 2017 SAR cycle).
    Comment 51: The Commission notes that the draft 2016 SAR for the 
Southeast Alaska stock of harbor porpoise includes new abundance 
estimates for two sub-regions based on stratified, line-transect 
surveys conducted from 2010 to 2012. The line-transect abundance 
estimates were computed with the assumption that g(0), the probability 
of detection on the trackline, was 1.0, although this is almost 
certainly not true. As reported in the SAR, estimates of g(0) from 
other harbor porpoise populations vary from 0.5-0.8. Thus, the true 
abundance of the population is likely to be 20-50 percent greater than 
the estimates reported in the SAR. Nonetheless, the estimates provide a 
frame of reference for comparisons to harbor porpoise bycatch in the 
portion of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery that was 
monitored in 2012-2013, for which the mean annual M/SI was at least 
double the corresponding PBR level. Further, the total M/SI, which was 
assumed to be a minimum as only a portion of all M/SI are typically 
observed, was nearly four times greater than PBR. Although a 
comprehensive trend analysis was not possible, the SAR reports that: `` 
. . . an analysis of the line-transect vessel survey data collected 
throughout the inland waters of Southeast Alaska between 1991 and 2010 
suggested high probabilities of a population decline ranging from 2 to 
4 percent per year for the whole study area . . . [but] when data from 
2011 and 2012 were added to this analysis, the population decline was 
no longer significant.'' Given this uncertainty and the apparent high 
levels of M/SI relative to PBR, the Commission recommends that NMFS 
conduct the necessary analyses to determine an appropriate g(0) to be 
used in the analysis of line-transect data for this stock, and revise 
the abundance estimates and PBR calculations accordingly for the draft 
2017 SARs. If the reanalysis finds that M/SI still exceeds PBR, then 
the Commission recommends that NMFS consider forming a take reduction 
team to address mitigation of bycatch of this stock in the Alaska 
salmon drift gillnet and related fisheries.
    Response: We recognize the importance of determining a value for 
g(0) for harbor porpoise, and on a recent survey in Southeast Alaska we 
collected some preliminary data in a g(0) experiment. Although the 
sample size was small, ongoing analysis of these data will allow us to 
provide a preliminary value for g(0) for this species in the region. 
Use of existing values for g(0) is probably inappropriate given 
potential differences in populations, species, or study areas.
    Comment 52: The Commission recommends that NMFS give the 
determination of harbor porpoise stock structure throughout the region 
a high priority, particularly for this stock given the potentially high 
level of fisheries interactions.
    Response: We agree with the Commission that improving our 
understanding of harbor porpoise stock structure is a high priority. We 
collected data for genetics studies of harbor porpoise in the inland 
waters of Southeast Alaska during two vessel cruises in July and 
September 2016. One of the primary research priorities of these cruises 
was to collect environmental DNA (eDNA) from the fluke prints of harbor 
porpoise to inform evaluation of stock structure. We are currently 
analyzing the eDNA collected from the southern (Wrangell/Sumner Strait 
area) and northern (Glacier Bay/Icy Strait area) regions of the inland 
waters of Southeast Alaska.
    During the cruises, we also obtained photographs of harbor porpoise 
and collected acoustic samples from Dall's porpoise (to compare to our 
existing harbor porpoise acoustic samples) for a project to determine 
if Dall's porpoise and harbor porpoise can be differentiated 
acoustically. We anticipate that the results of these analyses will 
help inform whether separation of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise into 
two or more stocks is appropriate.
    Comment 53: The Organizations request that NMFS update Appendix 6, 
``Observer coverage in Alaska commercial fisheries,'' for each of the 
Alaska Region SARs. The current Appendix 6 shows observer coverage only 
for the years 1990-2009, which therefore omits observer coverage 
information for 4 out of the 5 most recent years included in the SARs. 
This is problematic especially because NMFS acknowledges that there is 
inadequate monitoring of Alaska commercial fisheries. Reporting current 
levels of observer coverage is imperative to understanding and 
improving monitoring and the interaction levels derived therefrom.
    Response: We have updated Appendix 6 in the final 2016 Alaska SARs 
to include the coverage for 1990 through 2014; the 2017 Alaska SARs 
will include coverage for 1990 through 2015.
    Comment 54: The Organizations comment that the limited amount of 
observer coverage in state-managed fisheries in Alaska creates 
uncertainty about the extent of M/SI, and this is a particular problem 
for humpback whales entangled in the Southeast Alaska salmon drift 
gillnets. Table 1 in the SAR for Central North Pacific humpback whales 
lists the fishery as ``SE Alaska salmon drift gillnet (Districts 6, 7, 
8)''--but this pertains to only a limited number of districts, leaving 
M/SI in the rest of the districts both unobserved and unestimated. NMFS 
acknowledges in the SAR for this stock that ``[s]ince these three 
districts represent only a portion of the overall fishing effort in 
this fishery, we expect this to be a minimum estimate of mortality for 
the fishery.'' The Organizations recommend that NMFS expand observer 
coverage, since the fishery is likely to interact with humpbacks in 
other portions of the range.
    Because of distribution of effort, it may not be possible to 
extrapolate the observed takes from these districts across the fishery 
in its entire range in southeast Alaska; however, it is clear that 
total M/SI is likely to be far higher than the limited data presented. 
The SAR lists mortality as 11 humpbacks. However, a draft report by the 
same author (Manly) extrapolated from this and estimated the number of 
mortalities for all of Southeast Alaska to be 68. Given the inadequate 
monitoring of the fisheries, NMFS must explain why observed M/SI were 
not extrapolated to the fishery in Southeast Alaska as was done by 
Manly in his draft and as would be consistent with fisheries listed in 
the annual List of Fisheries.
    Response: We acknowledge the need for monitoring state-managed 
fisheries for marine mammal interactions. Unfortunately, we had to 
discontinue operating the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program for 
state-managed fisheries due to a lack of resources. We continue to seek 
opportunities to improve our understanding of the interactions between 
state-managed fisheries and marine mammals.
    The extrapolation of humpback whale M/SI from 11 in the observed 
districts of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery to 68 
for all of Southeast Alaska was contained in a draft report but not 
carried over into the final report. During our review of the report, 
and consideration of what information to include in the SARs, we 
decided that

[[Page 29052]]

extrapolating from the three observed districts of the fishery to the 
unobserved districts of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet 
fishery was unreliable given the variability in fishing effort and 
humpback whale distribution. Instead, the one observed interaction was 
the basis for estimating that 11 M/SI occurred in the observed 
districts; and, since the observed districts represent only a portion 
of the overall fishing effort in this fishery, we expect this to be a 
minimum estimate of the total level of humpback whale M/SI in salmon 
gillnet fisheries in Southeast Alaska. This is consistent with how we 
handled the M/SI of harbor porpoise, which was extrapolated within the 
three districts but not beyond the three observed districts to the rest 
of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery.
    Comment 55: The Organizations note that NMFS states in the draft 
North Pacific sperm whale SARs that PBR is unknown for this stock (and 
the entire species is listed as a single endangered species under the 
ESA) but also concludes in the status of the stock section for this 
stock that total estimated annual level of human-caused M/SI (2.2 
whales) ``seems minimal.'' Given the uncertainty surrounding the degree 
of depletion and recovery of the North Pacific sperm whale population, 
the SARs should be precautionary in the analysis of impacts of M/SI 
resulting from commercial fishing. The practical impact of the SARs 
continuing to find PBR ``unknown'' for this stock is that the North 
Pacific stock of sperm whales assessed in the Alaska SARs may be 
receiving less protection than other U.S. stocks of sperm whales. This 
appears to be the only U.S. stock of sperm whale for which the 
fisheries interacting with it are not listed as Category I or II; NMFS 
does not require MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) authorization for fisheries 
interacting with the North Pacific Stock because, in this case, its PBR 
is said to be unknown.
    Response: As there are no available abundance estimates for the 
number of sperm whales in Alaska waters, Nmin is not available for this 
stock and therefore, the PBR is unknown. Assessing sperm whale 
populations presents considerable challenges, including the range and 
offshore distribution of the species, uncertainties regarding stock 
boundaries, the segregation by sex and maturational class that 
characterizes sperm whale distribution, and behavioral factors (e.g., 
long dive times) that make surveys difficult. Nonetheless, we plan to 
convene a working group to discuss the practicality of estimating sperm 
whale abundance and other issues surrounding assessment of this 
species. We have revised the text in the final 2016 sperm whale SAR to 
clarify that the estimate of annual fisheries-caused mortality and 
serious injury is a minimum estimate. We will also omit the 
characterization that an M/SI rate of 2.2 whales ``seems minimal.'' 
Even in the absence of a PBR, we continue to assess fishery 
interactions with sperm whales in Alaska, including efforts by the 
fishing industry to reduce interactions (e.g., the recent change to 
allow pot gear in the sablefish fishery to reduce depredation by sperm 
whales). Although we cannot conduct a quantitative tier analysis for 
stocks without PBRs, we can evaluate whether to classify fisheries by 
analogy to other similar fisheries based on various factors (50 CFR 
229.2).
    Comment 56: The Organizations suggest adding information to the 
Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR from a new study of spatial and temporal 
patterns in the calling behavior of beluga whales in Cook Inlet.
    Response: We will review this information and consider including it 
in a future Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.
    Comment 57: The Organizations point out that the last sentence on 
draft page 62 of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR should more correctly 
read: ``The next abundance estimate survey was conducted in June 2016 
and is currently undergoing analyses.'' On this same page, using the 
formula provided for calculating minimum abundance, it appears that the 
minimum population estimate in the stock should be 287 not 280.
    Response: We have incorporated these corrections into the final 
2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.
    Comment 58: The Organizations suggest that the Status of the Stock 
section of the Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR be updated to reflect that 
the recovery plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whales was finalized and 
published on January 4, 2017. Additionally, the Organizations suggest 
that the Habitat Concerns section be updated to reflect information 
that was in the draft and final recovery plan for this stock. These 
include a number of references.
    Response: We will add a statement about the final Recovery Plan to 
the Status of Stock section of the final 2016 Cook Inlet beluga whale 
SAR, and we will update the information on the Recovery Plan in the 
Habitat Concerns section of the draft 2017 Cook Inlet beluga whale SAR.
    Comment 59: The HLA notes that the draft 2016 SAR for the Central 
North Pacific humpback whale stock (``CNP Stock'') states that ``until 
such time as the MMPA stock delineations are reviewed in light of the 
DPS designations, NMFS considers this stock endangered and depleted for 
MMPA management purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery factor, stock 
status).'' Although the HLA appreciates that the MMPA humpback stock 
delineations do not align with the new humpback DPS designations, it is 
nevertheless inaccurate for the SAR to suggest that the entire CNP 
Stock is ``endangered'' and ``depleted.'' In fact, many whales within 
the CNP Stock's presently delineated range likely come from DPSs that 
are not ``endangered'' or ``threatened.'' At a minimum, they request 
that the SAR for the CNP Stock include a statement that the two 
observed CNP Stock interactions with the Hawaii-based longline 
fisheries occurred with animals from the Hawaii DPS, which is not 
listed as ``threatened'' or ``endangered.''
    Response: We have added the following statement to the end of the 
``Status of Stock'' section in the final 2016 Central North Pacific 
humpback whale SAR: ``Humpback whale mortality and serious injury in 
Hawaii-based fisheries involves whales from the Hawaii DPS; this DPS is 
not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.''

    Dated: June 21, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13369 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P