Final 2023 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 104989-104996 [2024-30664]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 104989-104996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XE168]


Final 2023 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 2023 marine mammal 
stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability 
of 66 final 2023 SARs that were updated and finalized.

ADDRESSES: The 2023 final SARs are available in electronic form via the 
internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Schakner, Office of Science 
and Technology, 301-427-8106, [email protected]; Nancy Young, 
206-526-4297, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock 
assessments; Jessica McCordic, 508-495-2396, [email protected], 
regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock 
assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, [email protected], 
regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to prepare stock assessments 
for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the 
jurisdiction of the United States, including the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ). These SARs must contain information regarding the 
distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and 
trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury 
(M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the 
stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial SARs were 
completed in 1995.
    The MMPA requires NMFS and USFWS to review the SARs at least 
annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new 
information is available and at least once every three years for non-
strategic stocks. The term ``strategic stock'' means a marine mammal 
stock: (A) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds 
the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as 
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that 
may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); (B) which, based 
on the best available scientific information, is declining and is 
likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed 
as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA or is 
designated as depleted under the MMPA. NMFS and USFWS are required to 
revise a SAR if they determine the review indicates that the status of 
the

[[Page 104990]]

stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.
    In order to ensure that marine mammal SARs constitute the best 
scientific information available, the updated SARs under NMFS' 
jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NMFS Science Centers and by 
members of three regional independent scientific review groups 
established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS and the USFWS 
on marine mammals. As a result of the time involved in the assessment 
of new scientific information, revision, and peer-review of the SARs, 
the period covered by the 2023 final SARs is generally 2017 through 
2021.
    NMFS reviewed the status of all marine mammal strategic stocks and 
considered whether significant new information was available for all 
other stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction. As a result of this review, NMFS 
revised or developed new reports for 66 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, 
and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. The 2023 revisions 
to the SARs consist primarily of updated or revised human-caused M/SI 
estimates and updated abundance estimates. This publication also 
finalizes (1) a new SAR for a newly described species, Sato's beaked 
whale (2) revisions to the stock structure of West Coast harbor 
porpoise that splits the Northern California-Southern Oregon stock into 
two stocks (the Northern California-Southern Oregon stock and the 
Central Oregon stock) and (3) name changes for all stocks with '4-
Islands' in the name to 'Maui Nui' to align with the original Hawaiian 
names of various islands and places where the stocks reside.
    The 2023 revisions to the abundance and trend sections of the main 
Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale section of the false killer 
whale SAR are not being finalized at this time because of a delay in 
the publication of updated abundance estimates. The mortality and 
serious injury information has been updated together with the other 
false killer whale stocks represented in this SAR. The abundance and 
trend sections for main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales 
will be revised in a subsequent SAR cycle. The draft 2023 SAR for the 
Washington Inland Waters harbor seal stocks is not being finalized at 
this time given that the draft Pearson et al. estimates of abundance 
and trends remain unpublished. This SAR will be revised in a subsequent 
cycle when the abundance estimates for these stocks are published.
    NMFS received comments on the draft 2023 SARs from the Marine 
Mammal Commission (Commission); the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 
Canada (DFO); two fishing industry associations (Hawaii Longline 
Association (HLA) and Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA)); an 
environmental non-governmental organization (Center for Biological 
Diversity); two Alaska Natives Organizations (Chugach Regional 
Resources Commission and the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island); and 
the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Council). Our 
responses to substantive comments are below. We have not responded to 
comments that failed to raise a significant point for us to consider 
(e.g., comments that are out of scope of the draft SARs). We appreciate 
the Commission's program-level comments and will take them into 
consideration, as appropriate, in the future.
    In response to a comment from MLA that noted NMFS relied on an 
incorrect population size estimate for the NARW SAR, we have further 
revised the NARW SAR to include the latest and best available estimate 
on NARW abundance, which also now incorporates an improvement to the 
underlying model to allow for the potential of recruitment based on 
observed calves (Linden 2024a,b). However, we note that the issue of 
having multiple abundance estimates for the NARW population using the 
same general model is not new. It is an outcome of the timing of the 
SAR cycle and when the data are available to perform an updated model 
run.
    Since 2017, NMFS has produced annual NARW population size estimates 
in collaboration with the New England Aquarium, which are released at 
the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium's annual meeting, typically 
in October each year. In 2023, NMFS began publishing these estimates in 
stand-alone peer-reviewed Technical Memorandum to provide full and 
transparent documentation of the estimation process and results (e.g., 
Linden 2023, Linden 2024b). However, the timing of the release of these 
estimates has not allowed for their straightforward incorporation into 
the contemporaneous final NARW SAR. This is, in part, because NMFS' 
marine mammal SARs are typically reviewed by the SRGs in early spring, 
subsequently made available for public comment, and then finalized with 
a notice in the Federal Register. Abundance estimates produced in 
October are, therefore, not typically available for inclusion in the 
latest SAR before SRG review and public comment. Nevertheless, NMFS 
agrees with MLA that the NARW abundance estimates produced each October 
should generally be considered the best available scientific 
information on the population size of NARWs for that year, as long as 
all necessary review requirements, including peer review, have been 
satisfied. Furthermore, NMFS recognizes that having multiple abundance 
estimates for the NARW population publicly available in various stages 
of the SAR process, including multiple estimates for any given single 
year, creates confusion and ambiguity as to what is the best available 
and most recent estimate of the population size.
    To address this timing issue for the final 2023 SAR and minimize 
similar timing issues going forward, NMFS is modifying certain 
procedural steps in developing the NARW SAR. Specifically, the final 
2023 NARW SAR has been updated to include the latest abundance estimate 
published in Linden (2024b) in October 2024, along with the most recent 
human-caused mortality and serious injury data based on Henry et al. 
2024. In future SAR cycles, NMFS anticipates it will proceed similarly 
to include the most recent data available in the most recent NARW SAR 
when finalized.
    A key aspect of the NARW stock assessment process that allows for 
NMFS to incorporate the best available science into the final SAR is 
that unless the model used to estimate population abundance is 
significantly modified, additional runs of the model to produce newer 
estimates only necessitate a Level 1 review per NMFS' Guidelines for 
Preparing Stock Assessment Reports Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (NMFS 2023, hereafter the GAMMS). Per the GAMMS section 
3.6 Ensuring Appropriate Peer Review of New Information peer review, 
Level 1, ``For routine data updates and analyses using methods 
unchanged from previously peer-reviewed and published analyses for the 
affected stock, there is no need for additional peer review before 
including such information in draft SARs for review by the SRG and co-
management partners (when applicable).'' Under Level 1, updated annual 
abundance estimates and data on human-caused M/SI are explicitly 
provided as examples of new information that meets the criteria for 
Level 1 peer review, provided they ``employ[s] methods that are not 
substantively changed from previously peer-reviewed and published 
analyses.'' In cases where a model used for a marine mammal stock 
assessment is substantively changed, the GAMMS direct NMFS to follow 
Level 2 peer-review, which states that ``NMFS should consult with the 
SRG and co-management partners (when applicable)

[[Page 104991]]

about further peer review, including that of the SRG, before such 
information is included in the draft SAR.''
    For the 2023 NARW SAR, the population abundance model was indeed 
substantively modified to improve the estimates by allowing the model 
to accommodate for potential recruitment into the population based on 
observed calves (Linden 2024a). Following this, the improved model was 
then used to produce an updated annual abundance estimate of the 
population (Linden 2024b). In accordance with the GAMMS Level 2 peer 
review guidance, NMFS requested a review of the model improvements 
(Linden 2024a) by the Atlantic SRG in October 2024 and received 
positive feedback, noting that the improved model provides the best 
available estimate of NARW abundance. Following this, NMFS also sought 
a review of its application of the improved model to produce an updated 
NARW abundance estimate from the Atlantic SRG. While the Atlantic SRG 
chair indicated SRG review was unnecessary given that the new 
information met the GAMMS Level 1 peer review guidance, the chair 
nonetheless provided a positive review of the new abundance estimate 
(Linden 2024b). For the updated information on human-caused M/SI that 
became available after publication of the draft 2023 NARW SAR (Henry et 
al. 2024), NMFS did not seek additional peer review given that the new 
information meets the GAMMS Level 1 peer review guidance. Additionally, 
NMFS had already provided the updated information to the Atlantic SRG 
for review at their annual meeting in February 2024.
    In summary, given MLA's comment and the best scientific information 
that has become available and peer reviewed since publication of the 
draft 2023 NARW SAR, the final 2023 NARW SAR has been updated to 
include the most recent and best available scientific information on 
NARW population abundance and human-caused mortality and serious injury 
of the stock.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS establish a 
consistent approach for describing M/SI within the text of the SARs, 
adhering to the current Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment 
Reports Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS 2023), and 
reporting total human-caused and fisheries-related M/SI in the summary 
tables by region.
    Response: We strive for consistency in all information in the 
summary tables. We continue to implement the revised GAMMS as we 
determine revisions are warranted on a stock-by-stock basis with the 
goal of improving consistency over time.

Comments on Alaska Issues

    Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS' annual reports of 
human-caused M/SI of marine mammals in Alaska be made available at the 
time of the public comment period to enable informed review, rather 
than citing an in-preparation report (e.g., Freed et al. (in prep.) is 
cited in the draft 2023 Alaska SARs). The Commission suggests that if 
the report has not yet been published by the time the draft SARs are 
released, the information should be made available in another way, such 
as a preliminary or abbreviated report.
    Response: We recognize that it may be helpful to SAR reviewers to 
access the supporting M/SI report while reviewing the draft SARs. The 
timelines for injury and mortality data acquisition and finalization 
(sometimes involving genetic analysis for species identification), 
injury severity determination and review, and report writing, review, 
and publication mean that a final report may not be available before 
draft SARs are released for public comment. Our current practice is to 
make the newest year of preliminary data available to the Alaska 
Scientific Review Group (SRG) and Marine Mammal Commission ahead of the 
annual Alaska SRG meeting. If future reports are not published before 
publication of the draft SARs, we will aim to make the 5-year 
preliminary dataset corresponding with the draft SARs and/or a draft 
report available to the public upon request.
    Comment 3: The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) 
provided information on research by its Alutiiq Pride Marine Institute 
and capabilities of its marine mammal program. The CRRC provided two 
reports that are not currently cited in the draft 2023 SARs: a report 
compiling marine mammal harvest data from 1984-2014 in the Chugach 
region (Keating et al. 2023), and a report summarizing the status and 
data available for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoise and 
Dall's porpoise in the CRRC region (Rehberg 2023).
    Response: We appreciate the proactive engagement by CRRC and the 
information provided in the two reports. We reviewed the reports 
specifically for information about Steller sea lions, the only species 
covered in the reports for which the SAR was revised in 2023, and 
determined the reports do not provide additional information that was 
not already presented in the SAR. We encourage CRRC to share 
information on any future surveys and harvest data that can be reviewed 
during future review and revisions of the SARs.
    Comment 4: The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island commented that 
the Eastern Pacific northern fur seal SAR was not revised in 2023 and 
an update is needed because newly available scientific research showing 
that nutritional limitations are one likely cause of the continued 
population decline would allow NMFS to more accurately determine the 
status of the stock. Specifically, they cited (1) McHuron et al. (2019) 
for finding evidence that food limitation could be contributing to 
reduced reproductive success and that long-term prey limitations could 
be causing reduced pup production; (2) McHuron et al. (2020) for 
concluding that increasing the prey available in important locations 
was the most feasible way to ``reduce maternal foraging effort and 
consequently increase pup growth rates;'' and (3) Divine et al. (2022) 
for reinforcing the conclusions of the two McHuron et al. papers by 
Indigenous knowledge holders.
    The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island also commented that the 
updated SAR must include an estimate of mortality due to prey 
competition from commercial fishing, claiming that such mortality is 
human caused and is incidental to human activities. They cited Short et 
al. (2021) as providing estimates of the mortality of first-year pups 
due to prey competition.
    Response: NMFS reviewed the strategic Eastern Pacific northern fur 
seal SAR at the beginning of the 2023 SAR cycle and determined that the 
new scientific information available, including published literature 
and updated M/SI estimates, did not indicate that the stock's strategic 
status under the MMPA had changed or that NMFS could more accurately 
determine the stock's status (see 16 U.S.C. 1386(c)(2)). As part of the 
annual SAR review for strategic stocks, NMFS reviewed the Eastern 
Pacific northern fur seal SAR in 2024 and determined, based on the best 
available scientific information, that a revision is warranted. We will 
consider the scientific information provided by the commenter as we 
develop the 2024 SAR.

Comments on Atlantic Issues

    Comment 5: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada disagrees 
with the country of origin assignments for observed human-caused 
mortality and serious injury in the North Atlantic

[[Page 104992]]

right whale (NARW) SAR for NARWs #3893, #3920, #4094, and #3125.
    Response: In regards to NARW #3893, #3920, #4094, and #3125, we 
refer DFO to our response to their comment on this issue in the Federal 
Register notice for the final 2022 SARs (88 FR 54592, 54593 (Aug. 11, 
2023) (response to comment #5)). We also note that the serious injury 
of NARW #4094 in 2017 is no longer included in the 2023 NARW SAR given 
that it was updated to include the available M/SI data from the most 
recent 5-year time (2018-2022).
    Comment 6: MLA states the NARW SAR must disclose the limits of the 
Pace model, explain how those limitations have been addressed, and 
clarify how new information is incorporated into the model. MLA 
identified the following limitations: the model remains sensitive to 
new data and has highly variable outputs, especially at the end of the 
time series when it is not known if an unseen whale has died or simply 
not been detected, does not account for natural mortality and predation 
and assumes all estimated mortality is human-caused, assumes an equal 
sex ratio and probability of mortality, and the model's initial 
estimated population decline from 2011 to 2015 occurred during a time 
when NARW geographic distribution shifted to areas lacking survey 
effort and recapture rates declined significantly.
    Response: Regarding model sensitivity to new data, natural 
mortality and assumed human-caused mortality, and limitations of the 
model due to geographic distribution shifts, MLA provided substantively 
identical comments on the 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has not presented any new 
information that was not considered and addressed in our response to 
their comments on these issues for the 2022 NARW SAR. Therefore, we 
refer to our responses on the 2022 NARW SAR (88 FR 54592, 54594 
(response to comment #6)).
    Regarding the model assuming an equal sex ratio and probability of 
mortality, in response to MLA's comment on this issue for the 2022 
SARs, we revised the NARW SAR to clarify that ``[t]he model does not 
assume an equal sex ratio and allows survival and capture rates to 
differ between the sexes.'' However, MLA comments that this issue 
remains and cites Pace (2021), which states, ``We estimated the 
relative effective detection effort as the mean adult female capture 
probability for the era.'' To clarify, the MLA incorrectly attributes a 
quote from Pace et al. (2021) to Pace (2021). Pace et al. (2021) was a 
specific analysis for exploring hypotheses related to undetected 
(cryptic) mortality. The population estimate in the 2023 NARW SAR, 
using the methods of Pace et al. (2017) and further refined in Pace 
(2021), specified separate capture and survival probabilities for males 
and females. In addition, the population model has now been further 
refined and improved to accommodate the potential for recruitment into 
the population based on observed calves (Linden 2024a,b), which 
underwent additional peer review by the Atlantic SRG and was determined 
to be the best available science on NARW abundance.
    Comment 7: MLA claims the draft NARW SAR does not include the best 
scientific information available on the population size because the 
draft SAR states that the NARW population size (as of 2021) is 340 
whales, and NMFS published a technical memorandum in October 2023 
reporting that the NARW population size was 364 whales in 2021 and 356 
whales in 2022. MLA claims this has major consequences for other key 
metrics in the SAR.
    Response: In response to MLA's comment on this issue, we have 
updated the final 2023 NARW SAR to include the most recent and best 
available scientific information on NARW population abundance and 
human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock (see Background 
section) that was just recently released in October. In addition, we 
updated the M/SI data in the NARW SAR to include data from the most 
recent 5-year time period (2018-2022) for which they are available.
    However, it is important to note that for NARWs, small changes in 
population size have minimal effect on their PBR level and, thus, 
management targets. The PBR level for NARWs has been 0.7 since the 
final 2021 NARW SAR was published and less than 1 since 1995 when the 
first NARW SAR was published following the 1994 amendments to the MMPA. 
PBR in the final 2023 SAR for NARWs is 0.73. While we have revised the 
SAR to include the most recent available estimate on the population's 
size, it does not significantly impact other metrics in the SAR. Until 
such time that the minimum population size is greater than 500 NARWs, 
the PBR level benchmark for the stock will remain below 1 individual 
whale. Moreover, regardless of the stock's PBR level, NARWs will remain 
a strategic and depleted stock under the MMPA as long as the species is 
listed under the ESA.
    Comment 8: MLA states that NMFS' determination that 87 percent of 
undetected, assumed carcasses represent whales killed by fishing 
entanglements is unsupported and arbitrary because the draft 2023 SAR 
states that entanglement is more likely to be detected than vessel 
strikes and which raises concern with NMFS' method of apportioning 
unknown sources of human-caused mortality. MLA also comments that 
significant discussion about vessel strike data and management was 
struck from the 2023 NARW SAR without any justification.
    Response: Regarding the percentage of undetected mortality assumed 
to be from entanglement, MLA provided substantively identical comments 
on the 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has not presented any new information that 
was not considered and addressed in our response to their comments on 
this issue for the 2022 NARW SAR. Therefore, we refer to our responses 
on the 2022 NARW SAR (88 FR 54592, 54594 (response to comment #7)).
    With respect to the removal of some discussion on vessel strike 
management measures, NMFS is striking this text because it believes it 
is overly detailed and already covered in general in the SAR and in 
more detail in the cited studies. The text simply elaborated on the 
specifics of the studies except in the case of Hayes et al. (2018), 
which we have now added. To keep the SAR concise while continuing to 
include the best available scientific information on vessel strike 
management measures, we are opting to generally summarize and cite 
relevant studies going forward. The sentence referring to the study by 
Kelly et al. (2020) was not stricken but instead moved up to the 
preceding paragraph to improve readability.
    Comment 9: MLA states the NARW draft SAR must estimate M/SI by 
fishery and failure to do so ignores the best scientific information 
available. Specifically, MLA states table 2 should be revised to 
summarize data on the country of origin of NARW entanglements during 
the relevant period, considering scientific observations of entangling 
gear and differences in conservation programs between countries.
    Response: MLA provided a substantively identical comment on the 
draft 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has not presented any new information that was 
not already considered and addressed in our response to their comment 
on the 2022 NARW SAR. We refer MLA to our response on the 2022 NARW SAR 
(88 FR 54592, 54595 (response to comment #8)).
    Comment 10: MLA comments that the draft 2023 NARW SAR does not 
include information on commercial fisheries that interact with the 
stock as required

[[Page 104993]]

by Section 117(a)(4) of the MMPA and the SAR should include data on the 
severity of entanglements, citing New England Aquarium reports, and 
report observed data, such as the 90 percent decline in lobster gear 
entanglements since 2010. MLA claims that by omitting this relevant 
data, NMFS fails to comply with the MMPA. MLA also comments that the 
draft SAR inaccurately claims that scarring is a better indicator of 
fisheries' interaction than entanglement records, ignoring data that 
suggests most entanglements are minor, misrepresenting the effects of 
existing measures.
    Response: MLA provided a substantively identical comment on the 
draft 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has not presented any new information that was 
not already considered and addressed in our response to their comments 
on this issue for the 2022 NARW SAR. We refer MLA to our response to 
their comment on the 2022 NARW SAR (88 FR 54592, 54595 (response to 
comment #9)).
    Comment 11: MLA comments that the NARW SAR should include 
additional available scientific information about NARW behavior and 
associated risk of harm from fishing gear, specifically, the SAR should 
describe population density (e.g., the SAR should not strike language 
describing ``peak detection'' in Canadian waters and add these details 
where relevant), include recent scientific literature that confirms 
areas NARW have shifted their habitat usage (e.g., long-term passive 
acoustic data show that ``NARWs appear to have shifted from previously 
prevalent northern grounds, such as the Bay of Fundy and greater Gulf 
of Maine (regions 3 and 4) to spending more time in mid-Atlantic 
regions year-round''), and include recently published modeling work, 
which predicts ``decreased habitat suitability across the Gulf of 
Maine'' and ``suggest[s] that regions outside the current areas of 
conservation focus may become increasingly important habitats for 
E.glacialis under future climate scenarios.''
    Response: MLA provided substantively identical comments on the 2022 
NARW SAR while citing new scientific information. We revised the SAR to 
include the studies cited by MLA (e.g., Ross et al. 2023; Meyer-Gutbrod 
et al. 2023)); however, these studies further support the information 
included in the SAR. We refer to our responses on the 2022 NARW SAR (88 
FR 54592, 54594 (response to comment #10)). In addition, we note the 
2023 SAR includes an updated summary of distribution shifts and their 
relationship to climate changes throughout. Changes to the text, such 
as striking the previous reference to peak detections in Canada, were 
made to ensure the information summarized in the SAR is based on the 
best scientific information available, including more recent 
publications.
    Comment 12: MLA notes that the draft SAR under-reports calving data 
because it omits data describing the rebound in calving after 2018 and 
recommends renaming the ``Other Mortality'' heading to ``Vessel Strike-
Related Mortality and Serious Injury'' as is done for the section on M/
SI from fishery-related M/SI.
    Response: Regarding calving data and headings, MLA provided 
substantively identical comments on the draft 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has 
not presented any new information that was not already considered and 
addressed in our response to their comments on this issue for the 2022 
NARW SAR. We refer MLA to our previous response on the 2022 NARW SAR 
(88 FR 54592, 54596 (response to comment #11)). We note that Figure 4 
in the 2023 NARW SAR shows the calving rate data from 1990 to 2022, the 
most recent year for which full data are available, using an Apparent 
Productivity Index (API). We explain that the fluctuating abundance 
observed from 1990 to 2020 makes interpreting a count of calves by year 
less clear than measuring population productivity, which we index by 
dividing the number of detected calves by the estimated adult and 
subadult population each year. Finally, rather than give a year by year 
accounting of the calving rates in the body of the text (which is 
already presented in Figure 4), we have struck the sentence stating 
that ``[n]o calves were born in the winter of 2017-2018.''
    Comment 13: MLA comments that Kenney (2018) should not be cited in 
the SAR because it fails to account for biological processes (e.g., 
natural death) and assumes a constant calving rate that is higher than 
the rate included in the draft SAR.
    Response: MLA provided an identical comment on the 2022 NARW SAR. 
MLA has not presented any new information that was not already 
considered and addressed in our response to their comments on this 
issue for the 2022 NARW SAR. Therefore, we refer MLA to our previous 
response on the 2022 NARW SAR (88 FR 54592, 54596 (response to comment 
#12)).
    Comment 14: MLA states the decline in NARW body size does not 
correlate to observed birth rates, ignores potential causation by 
vessel traffic, and is not meaningful. MLA claims the decline in NARW 
body size does not correlate with calving rates and there are 
significant limits to the inferences that can be made from Stewart et 
al. (2021). MLA also claims NMFS' statement that ``entanglement will 
continue to impact calving rates, and the declining trend in abundance 
will likely continue'' incorrectly assumes that entanglements are a 
meaningful driver to the purported decline in body size.
    Response: Regarding NARW body size, MLA provided a substantively 
identical comment on the 2022 NARW SAR. MLA has not presented any new 
information that was not already considered and addressed in our 
response to their comments on this issue for the 2022 NARW SAR. 
Therefore, we refer MLA to our previous response (88 FR 54592, 54596 
(response to comment #13)). Regarding the statement on entanglements, 
we note that MLA mischaracterizes the interpretation of Stewart et al. 
2021 and 2022 in the NARW SAR with respect to the effects of 
entanglement. The SAR only briefly describes the empirical results of 
Stewart et al. 2021 and 2022 (i.e., North Atlantic right whale are 
growing to shorter adult lengths than in previous decades, and smaller 
females have longer inter-birth intervals than larger females) and 
notes that their findings (i.e., some calving rate variability is 
related to variability in nutrition) may be related to a combination of 
changes in feeding habitats and increased energy expenditures related 
to non-lethal entanglements, which is supported by several other 
studies (Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2014; Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2021; 
Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2023; Record et al. 2019; Rolland et al. 2016; 
Pettis et al. 2017; van der Hoop et al. 2017). Nevertheless, we have 
deleted the specific sentence, in part, because with the most recent 
abundance estimate, the population appears to no longer be declining.

Comments on Pacific Issues

    Comment 15: The Commission comments that the Pantropical spotted 
dolphin, Hawai[revaps]i Island SAR states that mean annual takes are 
undetermined for this stock, as well as for the O[revaps]ahu and Maui 
Nui Stocks. While the summary table lists M/SI as ``unk'' for the 
O[revaps]ahu and Maui Nui Stocks, it lists both fisheries and total 
human-caused M/SI as ``>=0.2'' for the Hawai[revaps]i Island Stock. The 
Commission recommends that NMFS either provide explanatory text within 
the SAR to justify the estimate of ``>=0.2'' for M/SI or change the 
estimate to be ``unk''.
    Response: The erroneous values in the summary table have been 
changed to

[[Page 104994]]

unknown,' to match what appears in the SAR.
    Comment 16: The Commission comments that descriptions of ``other 
factors'' that may be causing decline or impeding recovery were not 
included in the revised SARs for four strategic stocks: Sperm whale--
California/Oregon/Washington stock, blue whale--Eastern North Pacific 
(ENP) stock, fin whale--California/Oregon/Washington Stock, and sei 
whale--ENP stock. The Commission recommends that NMFS revise these SARs 
to describe any other factors and, if there are no data to indicate 
that other factors may be affecting the stock, then this should be 
clearly stated.
    Response: The draft ENP blue whale SAR included an ``other 
factors'' section, and we have added a summary of these factors to the 
SARs referenced above that lacked them.
    Comment 17: HLA comments that the draft 2023 SAR removes the 
Pelagic Stock designation without explanation and replaces it with a 
``management area,'' reporting all required information for this area 
instead of a stock. HLA disagrees with this because the MMPA requires 
information to be reported for ``stocks,'' not ``management areas'', 
NMFS did not follow its own guidance for revising stock designations. 
HLA also commented that the ``management area'' does not accurately 
represent the Pelagic Stock's range and the best available scientific 
information because animals have been tracked and recorded outside of 
the management area and using the management area for Nmin and PBR and 
comparing such to all fishery M/SI creates inaccuracies.
    Response: NMFS is neither replacing the Pelagic Stock with a new 
assessment area nor defining new demographically independent 
populations or designating new stocks. Rather, the draft SAR proposed 
to use information on what is the known range for the Hawai[revaps]i 
Pelagic False killer whale stock to identify an appropriate area over 
which to assess the stock (termed ``Management Area'' in the draft SAR 
and now ``Assessment Area'' in the Final SAR). This area reflects the 
most comprehensive synthesis of existing biological data on the stock, 
ensures comparisons of PBR to human-caused M/SI are commensurate, and 
follows NMFS' GAMMS. Specifically, Section 3.4.4 on transboundary 
stocks in the GAMMS states ``For non-migratory transboundary stocks 
(e.g., stocks with broad pelagic distributions that extend into 
international waters), an area-apportioned Nmin based on abundance 
estimates relevant to managing marine mammals under U.S. jurisdiction 
should be provided and used to calculate an adjusted PBR.'' The SAR has 
always noted that the range of the Hawai[revaps]i Pelagic Stock of 
false killer whales likely extends beyond the U.S. EEZ, but until the 
2023 SAR, NMFS only assessed the stock based on data from within the 
EEZ because data were not available to estimate abundance outside of 
the EEZ. Following the 2023 changes to GAMMS (NMFS 2023), NMFS re-
evaluated the appropriateness of only using data from within the EEZ to 
assess PBR relative to human-caused M/SI. The GAMMS (section 3.1) 
discourages reliance on political boundaries like the EEZ that do not 
represent a stock's true biological and ecological range and is counter 
to the MMPA's objective of maintaining stocks as functioning elements 
of their ecosystems. Based on the availability of data to estimate 
abundance outside of the EEZ following the density surface models for 
the central Pacific provided in Bradford et al. (2020) and a review of 
the available biological data on stock range, we determined that it was 
more appropriate to assess the stock based on the newly identified 
assessment area. An assessment of this stock over this area better 
reflects the stock's true status as compared to an assessment that only 
covers the EEZ, and it is based on biologically relevant false killer 
whale ranging data. As noted with previous boundary changes (in 
Bradford et al. 2015, 2020), NMFS revises the area over which the stock 
is assessed as new information or analyses become available that 
indicate the known stock range should be revised. This change, from 
assessing the stock within the EEZ to assessing within a broader area 
(i.e., assessment area) reflects application of the best available data 
on abundance and human-caused M/SI and is similar to other revisions 
NMFS makes when additional data, including data with broader spatial 
coverage, become available to assess a stock. In summary, the new 
assessment area better represents the known biological and ecological 
range of the Hawai[revaps]i Pelagic stock and more effectively allows 
for management of the stock over its full known distribution, 
consistent with MMPA objectives. NMFS has revised the SAR to clarify 
that the EEZ only population size, Nmin, and PBR are included for 
comparison to previous assessments only.
    The methodology and resulting Hawai[revaps]i Pelagic stock 
assessment area was reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group 
(PSRG) during their 2023 annual meeting and was modified based on their 
recommendations. At the time the area was established, there were no 
data available on the presence of false killer whales from the 
Hawai[revaps]i pelagic stock outside this area. NMFS did not receive 
any comments on alternative biologically data-driven approaches to 
define the assessment area, and as such, we are retaining the area as 
presently defined following the recommendations of the PSRG. As noted 
in the comment from HLA, a Hawai[revaps]i pelagic false killer whale 
tagged near the main Hawaiian Islands made a brief excursion a short 
distance outside of the current assessment area following PSRG review 
and the publication of the draft SAR. We have added clarifying language 
to the SAR to explicitly note that the assessment area does not 
represent the full stock range and therefore, Nmin, PBR, and 
human-caused M/SI are considered minimum estimates. NMFS will review 
the cited data along with the best scientific information available on 
the stocks range to determine whether a SAR revision is warranted. 
Comment 18: HLA comments that NMFS substantially underestimates the 
population size of the FKW Pelagic Stock and that the proposed 
``management area'' draws an arbitrary line within a portion of the 
full range of the Pelagic Stock, which NMFS estimates to contain 5,528 
whales.
    Response: The MMPA defines a stock as ``a group of marine mammals 
of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, 
that interbreed when mature.'' 16 U.S.C. 1362(11). The best scientific 
information available suggests that, based on their proximity and 
fidelity to central Pacific waters around Hawai[revaps]i, the 
Hawai[revaps]i pelagic false killer whales are a demographically-
independent population and as such, they are managed as a single stock 
under the MMPA. We know through telemetry tracks and resightings of 
individual whales that the whales regularly use and return to the 
waters around Hawai[revaps]i. Through reliance on data collected from 
these whales, we defined an assessment area (referred to as management 
area in the draft SAR) that represents the greatest known extent of the 
Hawai[revaps]i pelagic stock's range at the time it was established, 
and as such, the Nmin estimate derived from this area is the 
greatest Nmin estimate for the stock that is supported by 
the available data that still meets the requirement of the MMPA that 
Nmin ``(A) is based on the best available scientific 
information on abundance, incorporating the precision and variability 
associated with such information; and (B) provides reasonable assurance 
that the stock size

[[Page 104995]]

is equal to or greater than the estimate.'' (16 U.S.C. 1362(27)). HLA's 
comment references a larger abundance, which appears to be for false 
killer whales in the central Pacific. The relatively lower abundance 
estimated within the assessment area as compared to the abundance 
estimated for the full central Pacific is a reflection of the habitat 
suitability and the relatively lower densities of false killer whales 
in sub-tropical and temperate waters relative to the tropical 
equatorial region.
    Comment 19: HLA and the Council comment that recovery factor that 
is greater than 0.5 should be used because the Hawai[revaps]i pelagic 
stock of false killer whale is not considered depleted, strategic, or 
threatened, the status of the stock is known, and such is supported by 
the best available scientific information.
    Response: Section 3.2.4 of the GAMMS states the default recovery 
factor for depleted, threatened, and stocks of unknown status should be 
0.5 based on a coefficient of variation (CV) equal or less than 0.3; 
however, if the CV is greater than 0.3, the recovery factor should be 
decreased to 0.48 to 0.40 depending on the CV. The status of the stock 
relative to its Optimum Sustainable Population is unknown. Based on 
public comment, NMFS has reevaluated its choice of recovery factor and 
has modified the recovery factor and PBR within the SAR to reflect a 
recovery factor of 0.44, an intermediate value that is derived from the 
relative abundance of false killer whales within and outside of the EEZ 
and the greater certainty within the Hawai[revaps]i EEZ (CV <0.3) and 
significant uncertainty around the magnitude of M/SI attributed to 
foreign fleets operating outside of the EEZ but within the assessment 
area.
    Comment 20: HLA recommends the SAR should be revised to reflect 
zero M/SI from the deep-set fishery for both the insular and NWHI 
stocks based on the best available information.
    Response: The Hawai[revaps]i-based deep-set longline fishery's 
efforts overlap with a small portion of the Main Hawai[revaps]ian 
Islands (MHI) Insular stock and the Northwestern Hawai[revaps]ian 
Islands (NWHI) stock boundaries; although, there has not been an 
observed interaction within the overlap area with the MHI insular 
stock. There have been three observed interactions within the overlap 
area with the NWHI stock. The first two were in 2012, within the 
current Longline Exclusion Zone, prior to TRT changes that eliminated 
the seasonal contraction of that area. The third was in 2019, outside 
the current Longline Exclusion Zone but within the overlap area of the 
NWHI stock and the pelagic stock boundary. This interaction was first 
presented in the 2021 SAR and remains within the current assessment. As 
long as there is fishing effort within these stock boundaries or unless 
the stock identity of a bycaught animal is established, accounting for 
possible impact to the NWHI and MHI insular stocks is in accordance 
with current bycatch evidence and with GAMMS section 3.1.
    Comment 21: The Council recommends that NMFS not use the management 
area boundary and associated abundance estimate using the Species 
Distribution Models (SDMs) in the FKW SAR or for any management 
purposes. For the area inside the EEZ, the Council recommends that NMFS 
use the design-based abundance estimation approach as the basis for 
assessing the stock until such time that a more rigorous and 
independent evaluation of the SDM approach can be completed. The 
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) found that the 
design-based approach is the most appropriate for estimating abundance 
inside the EEZ around Hawai[revaps]i, as it utilizes data from the EEZ-
wide cetacean survey intended for deriving abundance estimates, and 
provides the most robust estimate of the abundance for the 
corresponding area at the time of the 2017 survey. The Council further 
recommends that NMFS prioritize conducting surveys outside the EEZ to 
gather additional tagging and genetics data suitable for assessing that 
portion of the population. Considering that the proposed management 
area encompasses all recent Hawai[revaps]i deep-set longline fishery 
interactions, the proposed boundary likely overestimates the relative 
impact of the U.S. fleet on the pelagic stock while underestimating the 
impact of foreign fleets.
    Response: As discussed in Comment 17, NMFS has clarified in the 
Hawai[revaps]i pelagic stock section of the SAR that EEZ-only 
population size, Nmin, and PBR are included for comparison to previous 
assessments only. The SSC's recommendation to rely upon the design-
based estimates neglected to consider the potential biases associated 
with encounter rate variation for this and other stocks. The issue was 
explored in depth within Bradford et al. (2020) and by the PSRG and 
forms the basis of NMFS' use of the model-based estimates for 
assessment purposes, as detailed within the SAR. The full abundance 
approach (i.e., the design and model-based estimates) was reviewed by 
three independent experts and the PSRG, collectively including several 
experts in quantitative assessments, including SDMs. NMFS recently 
completed a 30-day survey outside the assessment area (referred to as 
management area in the draft SAR) and in a region of predicted high 
false killer whale density, with the explicit goal of collecting 
additional biological data to inform analysis of population structure 
for pelagic false killer whales. NMFS will review the best scientific 
information available, including survey and tagging data, to determine 
whether a SAR revision is warranted during the next SAR review cycle. 
The magnitude of possible foreign fleet bycatch does not alter the 
conclusion that the U.S. fleet incidental M/SI exceeds PBR and must be 
managed according to the take reduction process mandated in the MMPA.
    Comment 22: The Council requested NMFS provide an explanation for 
the reduced abundance estimate for the pelagic stock inside the EEZ in 
the draft SAR (2,038) compared to Bradford et al. 2020 (2,086).
    Response: The discrepancy between the draft 2023 SAR and Bradford 
et al. 2020 is noted in the draft SAR. This discrepancy is because the 
abundance estimate of 2,038 Hawai[revaps]i pelagic false killer whales 
refers to the abundance of animals within the EEZ portion of the 
assessment area (referred to as management area in the draft SAR); 
there is a small portion of the EEZ that is outside of the assessment 
area, which accounts for the small reduction in abundance between the 
two estimates.

References

    Bradford, A.L., E.M. Oleson, R.W. Baird, C.H. Boggs, K.A. 
Forney, and N.C. Young. 2015. Revised stock boundaries for false 
killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in Hawai[revaps]ian waters. 
NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-PIFSC-47. 37pp.
    Bradford, A.L., E.A. Becker, E.M. Oleson, K.A. Forney, J.E. 
Moore, and J. Barlow. 2020. Abundance estimates of false killer 
whales in Hawai[revaps]ian waters and the broader central Pacific. 
NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-PIFSC-104. 78pp.
    Divine, L., M.J. Peterson Williams, J. Davies, M. LeVin, and B. 
Robson. 2022. A synthesis of Laaqudax (northern fur seal) community 
surveys and commercial fishery data in the Pribilof Islands Marine 
Ecosystem, Alaska. J. Mar. Sci. and Eng. 10(4): 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10040467
    Hayes, S.A., S. Gardner, L. Garrison, A. Henry and L. Leandro. 
2018. North Atlantic Right Whales--Evaluating their recovery 
challenges in 2018. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE 247. 24p.
    Henry, A., M. Garron, D. Morin, A. Smith, A. Reid, W. Ledwell, 
T. Cole. 2024. Serious injury and mortality determinations for 
baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East 
Coast, and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2018-2022. NOAA CRD 24-10. 
60pp.

[[Page 104996]]

    Keating, J. M., C. Woodard, M. Brown, and D. Koster. 2023. 
Marine mammal harvest in the Chugach Region, Alaska. Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game Special Publication No. 2023-01, 
Anchorage. Kelley, D.E., J.P. Vlasic and SW Brillant. 2020. 
Assessing the lethality of ship strikes on whales using simple 
biophysical models. Mar. Mam. Sci. 37: 251-267.
    Lettrich, M.D., M.J. Asaro, D.L. Borggaard, D.M. Dick, R.B. 
Griffis, J.A. Litz, C.D. Orphanides, D.L. Palka, M.S. Soldevilla, B. 
Balmer, S. Chavez, D. Cholewiak, D. Claridge, R.Y. Ewing, K.L. 
Fazioli, D. Fertl, E.M. Fougeres, D. Gannon, L. Garrison, J. 
Gilbert, A. Gorgone, A. Hohn, S. Horstman, B. Josephson, R.D. 
Kenney, J.J. Kiszka, K. Maze-Foley, W. McFee, K.D. Mullin, K. 
Murray, D.E. Pendleton, J. Robbins, J.J. Roberts, G. Rodriguez-
Ferrer, E. Ronje, P.E. Rosel, T. Speakman, J.E. Stanistreet, T. 
Stevens, M. Stolen, R. Tyson Moore, N.L. Vollmer, R. Wells, H.R. 
Whitehead and A. Whitt. 2023. Vulnerability to climate change of 
United States marine mammal stocks in the western North Atlantic, 
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. PLoS ONE 18(9): e0290643.
    Linden, D.W. 2024a. Using known births to account for delayed 
marking in population estimation of North Atlantic right whales. 
bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.11.617830
    Linden, D.W. 2024b. Population size estimation of North Atlantic 
right whales from 1990-2023. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE 324. 20pp.
    McHuron, E.A., J.T. Sterling, D.P. Costa, and M.E. Geobel. 2019. 
Factors affecting energy expenditure in a declining fur seal 
population. Conserv. Physiol. 7(1): coz103. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coz103
    McHuron, E.A., K. Luxa, N.A. Pelland, K. Holsman, R. Ream, T. 
Zeppelin, and J.T. Sterling. 2020. Practical application of a 
bioenergetic model to inform management of a declining fur seal 
population and their commercially important prey. Front. Mar. Sci. 
7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.597973
    Meyer-Gutbrod, E.L., and C.H. Greene. 2014. Climate-associated 
regime shifts drive decadal scale variability in recovery of North 
Atlantic right whale population. Oceanography 27(3):148-153.
    Meyer-Gutbrod, E.L., C.H. Greene, K.T.A. Davies and D.G. Johns. 
2021. Ocean Regime Shift is Driving Collapse of the North Atlantic 
Right Whale Population. Oceanography. 34. 22-31.
    Meyer[hyphen]Gutbrod, E.L., Davies, K.T., Johnson, C.L., 
Plourde, S., Sorochan, K.A., Kenney, R.D., Ramp, C., Gosselin, J.F., 
Lawson, J.W. and Greene, C.H., 2023. Redefining North Atlantic right 
whale habitat[hyphen]use patterns under climate change. Limnology 
and Oceanography, 68, pp.S71-S86.
    NMFS. 2023. Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports 
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Protected Resources 
Policy Directive 02-204-01.
    Pettis, H.M., R.M. Pace and P.K. Hamilton P.K. 2022. North 
Atlantic Right Whale Consortium: 2021 annual report card. Report to 
the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. www.narwc.org
    Record, N.R., J.A. Runge, D.E. Pendleton, W.M. Balch, K.T.A. 
Davies, A.J. Pershing, C.L. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z. Feng, 
S.D. Kraus, R.D. Kenney, C.A. Hudak, C.A. Mayo, C. Chen, J.E. 
Salisbury and C.R.S. Thompson. 2019. Rapid climate-driven 
circulation changes threaten conservation of endangered North 
Atlantic right whales. Oceanography. 32(2):162-169. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2019.201
    Rehberg, M. 2023. Status of marine mammals for Chugach Regional 
Resources Commission--Final Report. Alaska Department of Fish and 
Game, 13 p.
    Rolland, R.M., R.S. Schick, H.M. Pettis, A.R. Knowlton, P.K. 
Hamilton, J.S. Clark and S.D. Krauss. 2016. Health of North Atlantic 
right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: From individual 
health to demographic and population health trends. Mar. Ecol. Prog. 
Series. 542:265-282.
    Ross, C.H., Runge, J.A., Roberts, J.J., Brady, DC, Tupper, B. 
and Record, N.R., 2023. Estimating North Atlantic right whale prey 
based on Calanus finmarchicus thresholds. Marine Ecology Progress 
Series, 703, pp.1-16.
    Short, J.W., H.J. Geiger, L.W. Fritz, and J.J. Warrenchuk. 2021. 
First-year survival of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) can 
be explained by pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) catches in the Eastern 
Bering Sea. J. Mar. Sci. and Eng. 9(9): 975. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090975
    Stewart, J.D., J.W. Durban, A.R. Knowlton, M.S. Lynn, H. 
Fearnbach, J. Barbaro, W.L. Perryman, C.A. Miller, and M.J. Moore. 
2021. Decreasing body lengths in North Atlantic right whales. 
Current Biology 31:3174-3179.
    Stewart, J.D., J.W. Durban, H. Europe, H. Fernbach, P.K. 
Hamilton, A.R. Knowlton, M.S. Lynn, C.A. Miller, W.L. Perryman, 
B.W.H. Tao, and M.J. Moore. 2022. Larger females have more calves: 
influence of maternal body length on fecundity in North Atlantic 
right whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 689:179-189.
    van der Hoop, J.M., P. Corkeron and M.J. Moore. 2017. 
Entanglement is a costly life[hyphen]history stage in large whales. 
Ecol. and Evol. 7:92-106. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2615

    Dated: December 18, 2024.
Evan Howell,
Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-30664 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P