Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32093 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the West Coast Region (WCR) 

Protected Resources Division Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is expected or authorized from 

this activity. On April 5, 2018, NMFS 

WCR issued a Biological Opinion to the 

Federal Transit Administration 

concluding the project is not likely to 

adversely affect Southern Resident killer 

whales and the Western North Pacific 

and Central American humpback whale 

distinct population segments (DPSs). 

Therefore, NMFS determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in CE 

B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Kitsap 

Transit for the harassment of small 

numbers of marine mammals incidental 

to construction activities related to the 

Annapolis Ferry Dock Project, Puget 

Sound, Washington, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: July 5, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14753 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF566 

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 2017 marine mammal 

stock assessment reports (SAR). This 

notice announces the availability of the 

final 2017 SARs for the 75 stocks that 

were updated. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs 

are available on the internet as regional 

compilations at the following address: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region. 

A list of references cited in this notice 

is available at www.regulations.gov 

(search for docket NOAA–NMFS–2017– 

0065) or upon request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Lierheimer, Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–427–8402, 

Lisa.Lierheimer@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 (EEZ). These reports 

must contain information regarding the 

distribution and abundance of the stock, 

population growth rates and trends, 

estimates of annual human-caused 

mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from 

all sources, descriptions of the fisheries 

with which the stock interacts, and the 

status of the stock. Initial reports were 

completed in 1995. 

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS 

to review the SARs at least annually for 

strategic stocks and stocks for which 

significant new information is available, 

and at least once every three years for 

non-strategic stocks. The term ‘‘strategic 

stock’’ means a marine mammal stock: 

(A) For which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the potential 

biological removal level (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. 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 

(SRG), 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 2017, and 

the revised draft reports were made 

available for public review and 

comment for 90 days (82 FR 60181, 

December 19, 2017). NMFS received 

comments on the draft 2017 SARs and 

has revised the reports as necessary. 

This notice announces the availability 

of the final 2017 reports for the 75 

stocks that were updated. These reports 

are available on NMFS’ website (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Technical Corrections to the Final 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin Barataria 

Bay Estuarine System and Mississippi 

Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau 

SARS 

In the draft 2017 common bottlenose 

dolphin Barataria Bay Estuarine System 

(BBES) and Mississippi Sound, Lake 

Borgne, Bay Boudreau (MS Sound) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32094 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

SARs, we updated the abundance 

estimates but listed the recovery factor 

for both of these stocks as 0.5, which is 

the appropriate factor for stocks with 

unknown status (Wade and Angliss 

1997). We should have updated the 

recovery factor for each stock to 0.4 

because the coefficient of variation (CV) 

of the shrimp trawl mortality estimates 

for Louisiana bays, sounds, and 

estuaries (BSE) stocks (BBES SAR) and 

Mississippi and Alabama BSE stocks 

(MS Sound SAR) is greater than 0.8 

(Wade and Angliss 1997). Based on the 

recovery factor of 0.4, we recalculated 

PBR for both stocks; the PBR decreased 

from 21 to 17 for the BBES stock and 

from 29 to 23 for the MS Sound stock. 

In the final 2017 SARs for these two 

stocks, we have updated the ‘‘Potential 

Biological Removal’’ section, as well as 

the Atlantic SARs Summary Table 1, to 

reflect the update in recovery factor 

from 0.5 to 0.4 and adjusted PBR values. 

These technical corrections do not affect 

the strategic status for either stock. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received letters containing 

comments on the draft 2017 SARs from 

the Marine Mammal Commission; seven 

non-governmental organizations 

(Cascadia Research Collective, Center 

for Biological Diversity (CBD), Hawaii 

Longline Association, Humane Society 

Legislative Fund, The Humane Society 

of the United States, Point Blue 

Conservation Science, and Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation); 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 2017 

SARs. 

Comments on National Issues 

Comment 1: The Commission 

comments that the SARs are a valuable 

reference to scientists and managers and 

the parameters in the summary tables 

for each region are a vital resource for 

issues involving multiple stocks, or 

when managing at regional or national 

levels. The Commission notes the value 

of the tables would be improved if there 

were more consistency among regions in 

the types of information presented and 

how it is presented. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS convene a 

panel, including SAR authors from all 

three regions, to identify the key 

information to be included, decide how 

to present that information in a 

consistent manner in the summary 

tables for all regions, and facilitate the 

implementation of these changes for the 

final 2018 SARs. The Commission notes 

they would be interested in 

participating in the panel discussions. 

Response: We acknowledge and 

appreciate the Commission’s suggestion, 

and agree with the Commission that 

consistency among the regions, 

particularly the information included in 

the summary tables, is important. We 

will look into convening a panel to 

address how the information we present 

in the summary tables for each region 

could be more consistent across the 

regions and would welcome the 

Commission’s participation in the panel 

discussions. However, due to timing 

constraints for the publication of the 

draft and final 2018 SARs and other 

priorities, we cannot commit to setting 

up a panel and incorporating any 

recommended changes in time to 

include in the final 2018 SARs. We will 

strive to have revised summary tables 

included in the draft 2019 SARs. 

Comment 2: The Humane Society of 

the United States, Humane Society 

Legislative Fund, and Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation (the 

Organizations) note that NMFS’ late 

release of the draft 2017 SARs led to a 

situation where the draft 2018 SARs 

were drafted and reviewed by the SRGs 

prior to the finalization of the 2017 

reports. The Organizations argue that 

this overlap in timing of the SARs did 

not allow the agency an opportunity to 

meaningfully consider public comments 

on the draft 2017 SARs before 

developing the 2018 reports. The 

Organizations argue that NMFS has 

failed to make its draft stock 

assessments ‘‘based on best scientific 

information available’’ and has 

repeatedly failed to meaningfully 

consider the advice of SRGs and the best 

available science when publishing its 

final stock assessments. The 

Organizations suggest that in order to 

properly consider public comment, SRG 

input, and best available science, NMFS 

should follow the following timeline 

each year: NMFS sends the draft SARs 

for the current year to the SRGs early in 

the year; the SRGs meet shortly after to 

discuss the drafts; the draft SARs are 

open for public comment; NMFS 

publishes the final SARs for the current 

year by the end of the year; NMFS sends 

the draft SARs for next year to the SRGs 

early the next year. 

Response: We acknowledge and agree 

with this comment regarding the 

importance of following the SAR 

process timeline so the current year’s 

draft SARs do not overlap with the final 

SARs from the previous year. 

Unfortunately, the publication of the 

draft 2017 SARs was delayed until the 

end of the year. This was an anomaly, 

and we are actively working to publish 

the 2018 draft SARs in order to have the 

2018 SARs finalized, with submitted 

public and SRG comments considered, 

by the end of the year (before the SRGs 

meet in early 2019 to review the draft 

2019 SARs). 

NMFS respectfully disagrees with the 

Organizations’ statement that we do not 

meaningfully consider the comments we 

receive from the public or the 

recommendations made by the SRGs. 

We carefully consider and respond to all 

substantial comments we receive from 

the public and the SRGs on the draft 

SARs and incorporate any revisions into 

the final SARs. In the event that a report 

changes substantively as a result of 

public comment after the SRG has 

reviewed the next cycle’s draft reports, 

we would provide the SRGs an 

opportunity to review such changes. 

Comment 3: The Hawaii Longline 

Association (HLA) continues to assert 

that the SARs are not based upon the 

best available scientific information 

because they are based upon data that 

are at least two years old—even when 

new, relevant data are otherwise 

available. NMFS has yet to provide a 

credible justification for continuing the 

present two-year delay in the use of 

information. HLA maintains that the 

MMPA’s requirement that the SARs be 

based on the ‘‘best scientific information 

available’’ is not being met as the SARs 

do not incorporate the most recent 

marine mammal interaction information 

that has been reported by observers and 

for which the agency has made a serious 

or non-serious injury determination. 

HLA notes that for marine mammal 

interaction purposes, those data are the 

best available, and yet NMFS does not 

report it. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32095 

Distinguishing Serious from NonSerious Injury of Marine Mammals 

(NMFS 2012), 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 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. 

Comments on Alaska Issues 

Comment 4: The Commission notes 

that information on subsistence hunting 

and harvest is becoming increasingly 

important in light of the pace of changes 

occurring in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. 

Over the past several years, the 

Commission has repeatedly 

recommended that NMFS improve its 

monitoring and reporting of subsistence 

hunting and harvest in collaboration 

with its co-management partners. The 

Commission appreciates the updates 

made by NMFS to the SARs in response 

to these recommendations and 

encourages NMFS to continue to 

provide updated information whenever 

it becomes available, even if it pertains 

only to a limited number of villages or 

a subset of years. 

The Commission states that tracking 

the numbers of marine mammals 

successfully hunted as well as the 

numbers struck and lost, is critical to 

the management of harvested stocks. 

The Commission noted that the struck 

and lost data in the U.S. subsistence 

harvest information for four stocks of 

beluga whales in the draft 2017 SARs 

was absent, presumably due to 

‘‘inconsistences in reporting.’’ The 

Commission encourages the inclusion of 

all available data, with any uncertainties 

or needed explanations about the values 

noted in the SAR, and recommends that 

NMFS include all available data in the 

SARs and clearly delineate landings, 

struck and lost, and total numbers 

harvested for each beluga whale stock. 

In addition, the Commission 

recommends that NMFS work with the 

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee to 

improve the completeness of and 

consistency in reporting harvest data, 

with a focus on struck and lost 

information for these stocks. 

Response: We are actively working to 

improve reporting of struck and lost 

animals associated with beluga whale 

subsistence harvests. NMFS works 

closely with the Alaska Beluga Whale 

Committee, and there is consensus that 

collecting information on struck and 

lost animals, along with the numbers of 

harvested beluga whales, is important to 

document. We will continue to 

coordinate with the Alaska Beluga 

Whale Committee to improve this 

reporting so we can include these data 

in future SARs. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

referenced their previous comments on 

draft SARs for the Southeast Alaska 

(SEAK) stock of harbor porpoise and 

noted that the harbor porpoise 

abundance estimates were calculated 

using an assumption that g(0) (the 

probability of detection on the trackline) 

was 1.0, which they stated is almost 

certainly not adequate. They noted the 

agency had responded that preliminary 

data had been collected on g(0) and 

recommended that this information 

should be used in lieu of an assumption 

of 1.0; if this is not possible, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

choose a value from a study, or studies, 

that most closely matches the SEAK 

population and survey in terms of 

factors that most significantly influence 

g(0). 

Response: The Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center’s (AFSC) Marine 

Mammal Laboratory attempted to 

conduct an experiment to estimate g(0) 

during their 2012 vessel survey of 

harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska. 

Unfortunately, the analysis of the 

preliminary data indicated that the 

sample size from the survey was 

insufficient to compute g(0). In the 

absence of a g(0) specific to surveys of 

Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise, the 

AFSC will select an appropriate value of 

g(0) from similar surveys of other harbor 

porpoise populations to compute new 

abundance estimates from the 2010– 

2012 data for the inland waters of 

Southeast Alaska and for the northern 

and southern regions of the inland 

waters. After review by the Alaska 

Scientific Review Group, we will 

include these new estimates (and 

corresponding values for NMIN and PBR) 

in the draft 2019 Southeast Alaska 

harbor porpoise SAR. 

Comment 6: The Commission notes 

that for several years, NMFS has been 

reporting an M/SI estimate for the SEAK 

population of harbor porpoises based on 

data obtained by fisheries observers 

from the Yakutat salmon set gillnet 

fishery in 2007 and 2008, and from the 

SE Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery in 

2012 and 2013 (Districts 6, 7 and 8, 

only). That M/SI estimate, of 34 

porpoises per year, is considered to be 

a minimum because observations did 

not cover all the gillnet fisheries with 

the potential to take SEAK harbor 

porpoises. In addition, the estimate is 

imprecise (aggregate CV = 0.77) because 

of the very low observer coverage rates 

on which it is based (5.3 to 7.6 percent 

per year). 

Prior to 2017, because of the 

substantial uncertainty in M/SI 

estimates, NMFS classified the SEAK 

harbor porpoise stock as ‘‘strategic’’ 

under the MMPA. In the draft 2017 

SAR, NMFS proposed classifying the 

stock as ‘‘strategic’’ in light of the large 

difference between the estimated M/SI 

and the calculated PBR. Because of the 

bias in PBR associated with the g(0) 

estimate described above, the problem 

could be less severe than it appears or, 

because of the incomplete observer 

coverage, it could be worse. 

Additionally, knowledge of other harbor 

porpoise populations and preliminary 

research results presented at the 2018 

Alaska SRG meeting suggest that it is 

quite possible that what currently is 

delineated as the SEAK harbor porpoise 

stock in fact consists of two or more 

stocks. Until the stock structure, and the 

PBR and M/SI for each stock, are known 

with more certainty, the magnitude of 

the threat posed by gillnet fishing will 

not be fully apparent. In any case, 

applying the best available science and 

taking into account the uncertainty in 

the assessment, it is most likely that the 

level of take of SEAK harbor porpoises 

by gillnet fisheries is unsustainable. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

Commission’s comment and agree that 

we cannot fully understand the 

magnitude of the threat until we acquire 

more information on stock structure, M/ 

SI, and PBR. NMFS will continue to 

pursue avenues to better understand 

these parameters. 

Comment 7: The Commission states 

that the uncertainty of the seriousness of 

the Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise 

bycatch problem centers on three 

factors: (1) Statistical uncertainty in the 

bycatch rate, (2) bias in the value of 

PBR, and (3) uncertainty regarding stock 

structure. To address these issues, the 

Commission recommends that NMFS: 

(1) Provide funding and work with the 

State of Alaska to increase observer 

coverage throughout all gillnet fisheries 

in SEAK to a level that will produce a 

bycatch estimate with a CV less than 

0.3; (2) improve the accuracy of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32096 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

abundance estimate by using the best 

available estimate of g(0) for this 

population or an appropriately selected 

estimate from a similar population; and 

(3) continue to give high priority to 

funding and conducting innovative 

eDNA investigations of SEAK harbor 

porpoise stock structure by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s recommendations. (1) 

While we recognize the need for more 

current observer coverage of Statemanaged fisheries, we do not currently 

have the funds necessary for the Alaska 

Marine Mammal Observer Program or a 

similar program that could provide 

these insights into marine mammal 

M/SI associated with these fisheries; (2) 

the AFSC will select an appropriate 

value of g(0) from similar surveys of 

other harbor porpoise populations to 

improve the accuracy of the abundance 

estimates for harbor porpoise in the 

inland waters of Southeast Alaska; and 

(3) NMFS agrees that funding research 

on eDNA investigations of Southeast 

Alaska harbor porpoise stock structure 

is a high priority and hopes to support 

this work at some level in FY18. 

Comments on Atlantic Issues 

Comment 8: The Commission notes 

that in the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s 

Whale SAR, the Stock Definition section 

was revised to include information on 

acoustic detections in addition to visual 

sightings, but it did not include 

citations for the acoustic detections. 

Sˇirovic ́ et al. (2013), Rice et al. (2014), 

and possibly Soldevilla et al. (2017) are 

three recent studies that reported on 

acoustic detections of Bryde’s whales. 

The Commission recommends that 

NMFS include the source documents for 

acoustic detections of Bryde’s whales in 

the Gulf of Mexico and update the map 

and caption for Figure 1 in the SAR 

accordingly. 

Response: NMFS has added the 

additional citations regarding acoustic 

detections of Bryde’s whales to the Gulf 

of Mexico Bryde’s Whale SAR. We have 

not updated the map with locations of 

acoustic detections (deployment 

locations for Marine Autonomous 

Recording Units and sonobuoys that 

recorded whale vocalizations) because 

this information would not alter what 

we know about Bryde’s whale spatial 

distribution at this time. 

Comment 9: The Commission points 

out that the Habitat Issues section of the 

Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s Whale SAR 

states that the estimated mortality of 

Bryde’s whales from the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill was 3.8 whales 

between 2011 and 2015, based on 

population modeling. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS report the 

estimate of oil spill-caused mortality of 

3.8 whales in the Human-Caused 

Mortality and Serious Injury section of 

the Bryde’s whale SAR to clarify how 

NMFS derived an annual mean 

mortality of 0.7 whales per year for the 

period 2011–2015, based solely on the 

reported 22 percent decline in 

abundance as a result of the oil spill. 

The Commission also recommends that 

NMFS add a statement to the Current 

Population Trend section to reflect the 

projected 22 percent decline in 

population size resulting from the spill, 

as was done for the Barataria Bay 

bottlenose dolphin stock. 

Response: We have taken the 

Commission’s recommendation and 

expanded the Other Mortality text 

within the Annual Human-Caused 

Mortality and Serious Injury section to 

clarify that the 0.8 (corrected from 0.7) 

annual mean mortality is derived from 

the mortality estimate of 3.8 whales for 

the period 2011–2015 due to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, 

we have not made any further edits to 

the Current Population Trend section as 

this section already makes a statement 

regarding the 22 percent decline in 

population size. 

Comment 10: One commenter pointed 

out that North Atlantic right whales and 

Gulf of Maine Humpback whales have 

undergone ‘‘significant mortality 

events’’ in the past year(s) which do not 

appear to be included in the M/SI 

estimates in the 2017 SARs. 

Response: See response to Comment 

3. The 2017 SAR covers data from 2011– 

2015. Mortality events in 2016 will first 

appear in the 2018 SARs, and those 

from 2017 will appear in the 2019 SARs. 

We will make an exception in the North 

Atlantic right whale 2018 SAR and 

include the unusual number of events in 

2017 in the text, but these events will 

not be included in the table or in 

estimates of mortality until the 2019 

SAR. 

Comment 11: One commenter 

suggested inclusion of data on the 

shifting baseline in the marine 

environment and habitat factors in the 

SARs for North Atlantic right whale and 

Gulf of Maine humpback whales, 

analogous to the Essential Fish Habitat 

component for fisheries management 

used under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Sustainable Fisheries Act. This type of 

data could provide insights on changes 

in distribution/abundance in space/ 

time. The shifting baseline phenomenon 

from increased human usage and 

environmental changes requires some 

type of dynamic component to the SAR 

models which would allow confidence 

intervals for the abundance and M/SI 

values. 

Response: NMFS thanks the 

commenter for raising concerns about 

the shifting baseline phenomenon and 

the importance of including habitat 

factors and note that we are taking these 

issues into consideration in our 

modeling approaches. For example, we 

are currently working on seasonal 

habitat models for all cetaceans that 

may be useful in tracking humpback, fin 

and sei whale area use patterns because 

they are based on malleable 

oceanographic features. 

Comments on Pacific Reports 

Comment 12: The Commission notes 

that NMFS has reported a substantial 

recent increase in the number of 

entanglements of humpback and blue 

whales on the West Coast. Prior to 2015, 

no entanglements of blue whales had 

been reported, but 12 blue whale 

entanglements were confirmed between 

2015 and 2017. From 1982 to 2013, the 

number of confirmed West Coast 

entanglements of humpback whales 

averaged 2.1 animals per year. The 

Commission stresses that the substantial 

number of entanglements of humpback 

whales that have occurred recently on 

the West Coast is a matter of concern 

and may reflect a problem that has gone 

undetected for much longer. 

The Commission points out that with 

the addition of M/SI from other causes 

(e.g., entanglements in other gear types 

and ship strikes), the average confirmed 

M/SI over 2011–2015 was 9.2 whales 

per year, which is very close to the PBR 

of 11 whales for this stock. Considering 

undetected entanglements, the average 

M/SI of humpback whales almost 

certainly was greater than PBR for this 

period. The uncertainty associated with 

undetected M/SI is compounded by 

undetected ship strikes. Two recent 

publications (Rockwood et al., 2017 and 

Nichol et al., 2017) assessing largewhale ship-strike risk on the West Coast 

were not cited in the draft 2017 Pacific 

SARs. 

The MMPA requires SARs for 

strategic stocks be reviewed at least 

annually and updated when necessary, 

as in the case of a significant increase 

in M/SI. Given recent increases in 

entanglements and in M/SI, the 

Commission notes the delay in 

reviewing these two stocks is 

unacceptable and recommends that 

NMFS either incorporate the best 

available science into the 2017 SARs or 

prepare draft 2018 SARs for the West 

Coast humpback and blue whale stocks, 

to be reviewed intersessionally by the 

Pacific SRG, so that they can be 

included in the final 2018 SARs. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32097 

Response: We acknowledge and 

appreciate the Commission’s concerns. 

The publication of the Rockwood et al. 

(2017) vessel strike estimates occurred 

after the draft 2017 SARs had been 

submitted for agency clearance. We 

have updated the final 2017 SARs to 

note the availability of these new 

estimates, and we will incorporate the 

results of those vessel strike estimates 

into the draft 2018 SARs for both 

humpback and blue whales. 

Comment 13: Point Blue and Cascadia 

Research suggest that NMFS incorporate 

the results from their recent publication 

(Rockwood et al., 2017) on the 

assessment of mortality from ship 

strikes for both blue and humpback 

whales into the 2017 SARs. This 

publication uses a new approach to 

estimate one of the key parameters 

regarding ship strike mortality, the 

underreporting rate, and shows that 

based on this new analysis (that is 

consistent with other data on recovery 

rates) ship strike mortality is being 

severely under estimated. They note the 

SARs have acknowledged that 

documented cases of ship strikes are 

certain to be underestimates of the true 

number of deaths, and assert that their 

research provides a metric for how 

many ship strike deaths actually occur 

relative to the number documented. 

Rockwood et al. (2017) reports a best 

conservative estimate of 18 blue and 22 

humpback whale deaths per 6-month 

season. Based on these predictions and 

the average annual strike reports from 

2006–2016 (1.0 for blue and 1.4 for 

humpback whale), they calculated that 

95 percent of blue whale and 94 percent 

of humpback whale strike deaths go 

undocumented. Given the uncertainty 

in accounting for whale collision 

avoidance, they also calculated strike 

mortality in the case of no avoidance, 

producing estimates of 40 blue and 48 

humpback whale deaths. In addition, 

Point Blue notes that the lack of 

detected blue whale strike deaths from 

2011–2015 results in an assumption of 

zero strike mortality and a 

determination that the current level of 

serious injury and mortality is less than 

10 percent of PBR. They stress that the 

Rockwood et al. (2017) results should be 

included in the 2017 SAR since it 

provides evidence that blue whale ship 

strike mortality is almost certainly 

ongoing and well above zero. 

Response: See response to 

Comment 12. 

Comment 14: Cascadia Research notes 

the CA/OR/WA humpback whale SAR 

does not include that in addition to the 

underestimated ship strike mortality, 

fishery mortality is also being 

dramatically underestimated based on 

information available at the time of the 

draft document that would certainly put 

this overall stock well above PBR. 

Entanglement mortality of humpback 

whales off California went through a 

dramatic increase starting in 2015 and 

continuing through 2016 and 2017. 

Fishery mortality in the draft SAR is 

based on a 5-year average through 2015 

so only includes one of these three years 

of elevated mortality in the 5-year 

average. Cascadia Research suggests the 

SAR should mention this increased 

mortality known for those added years 

and that new calculations conducted in 

a similar fashion with the known 2016 

or 2017 entanglements would have put 

the 5-year average above the PBR. 

Further, like ship strike mortality, 

observed entanglement rates 

dramatically underestimate true 

mortality and no correction for this 

underreporting is made in the SAR. The 

concerns above that would result in 

mortality exceeding PBR do not include 

this under-reporting and compound the 

downward bias to how this is 

represented in the SAR. 

Response: See response to Comment 

3. The review cycle for the draft 2017 

SARs results in data through 2015 being 

available for incorporation into the draft 

reports. Entanglement data through 

2016 will be incorporated into the draft 

2018 SARs for blue and humpback 

whales. 

Comment 15: Cascadia Research notes 

that the humpback whale SAR may give 

the mistaken impression that the new 

status of humpback whales under the 

ESA may change how the PBR’s are 

calculated and alter the mortality 

exceeding PBR. However, they suggest 

that as the small endangered Central 

America humpback whale DPS is made 

up almost entirely of whales that feed 

off the California coast, the observed 

mortality will exceed PBR in future 

years due to the California 

entanglements regardless of how the 

new calculations are made. 

Response: As described in our 

Federal Register notice requesting 

comments on the Draft 2017 Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (82 

FR 60181, December 19, 2017), NMFS is 

currently in the process of reviewing 

stock structure under the MMPA for all 

humpback whales in U.S. waters, 

following the change in ESA listing for 

the species in 2016, to determine 

whether we can align the stocks with 

the DPSs under the ESA. The most 

current SAR does not delineate a 

Central America DPS of humpback 

whales as a stock under the MMPA. 

Until such time that the humpback 

whale stock structure under the MMPA 

with respect to the ESA listing has been 

completed, we are retaining the current 

stock delineations and it is premature to 

hypothesize calculations of PBR in 

future years. Any changes in stock 

delineation or MMPA section 117 

elements (such as PBR or strategic 

status) will be reflected in future stock 

assessment reports. 

Comment 16: CBD comments that 

NMFS is required to review and 

incorporate new scientific information 

in the stock assessments and revise the 

assessment for strategic stocks, such as 

the humpback whale, at least annually. 

While NMFS began the process to 

examine the stock structure in the 

spring of 2016, including considering 

revising the stock assessment to 

incorporate information about the 

breeding population, it has not finalized 

its analysis. CBD stresses that NMFS 

should not further delay publishing a 

final revision to the humpback whale 

stock assessment report in accordance 

with the best available science to reflect 

the distinct population segments off the 

U.S. West Coast. They note the practical 

implication of the delay is that ship 

strikes and fisheries continue without 

adequate mitigation, including 

recategorizing West Coast pot and trap 

fisheries, which present the largest 

known fisheries threat to humback 

whales, as ‘‘Category I.’’ CBD asserts 

that assessing PBR at the level of the 

distinct population segment (DPS) is 

more informative for determining the 

population impact of the effect of ship 

strikes on humpback whales. 

Response: We agree that revising the 

stock structure for humpback whales is 

a high priority; however, the process of 

reviewing stock structure under the 

MMPA has taken longer than 

anticipated. See response to Comment 

15 above. 

Comment 17: CBD comments that 

humback whale stocks on the West 

Coast should correspond to the distinct 

population segments (as listed under the 

Endangered Species Act in 2016) and 

the Mexico and Central America DPSs 

should not be considered in one stock. 

They assert that to protect the 

precariously low abundance of Central 

America humpback whales, the PBR for 

whales off California, Oregon and 

Washington should be based on the 

abundance of the Central America DPS 

(a PBR level of 0.8), and all injury and 

mortality of humpback whales that 

occurs off California should be assigned 

to the Central America DPS. CBD is 

concerned that the delay in action 

jeopardizes the future of humpback 

whales in the Central America distinct 

population segment and recommends 

that NMFS revise the draft stock 

assessment to show that at a maximum, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
32098 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 

the smallest stock of humpback whales 

on the West Coast has no more than 411 

individuals. 

Response: As described in our 

response to Comment 15 above, we are 

in the process of reviewing the MMPA 

humpback whale stock delineations; 

until such time that the humpback 

whale stock structure under the MMPA 

with respect to the ESA listing has been 

completed, we are treating existing 

MMPA stocks that fully or partially 

coincide with a listed DPS as depleted, 

and stocks that do not fully or partially 

coincide with a listed DPS as not 

depleted for management purposes. 

Therefore, in the interim, we will 

continue to treat the California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock as endangered and 

depleted. Currently, there is no Central 

America DPS stock of marine mammals 

delineated under the MMPA. 

Comment 18: CBD requests that the 

final stock assessment report for 

Southern Resident Killer whales 

accurately reflects the recent decline 

and alarmingly low population. The 

death of the two-year-old male orca 

known as ‘‘J52’’ was confirmed in 

September 2017 by the Center for Whale 

Research, which reported malnutrition 

as the likely cause. The population of 

critically endangered Southern Resident 

killer whales, which makes its home in 

Puget Sound and migrates along the 

West Coast, dipped from 83 in 2016 to 

only 76 by the end of 2017. This change 

represents the biggest decline in 

population from year-to-year ever 

recorded. CBD suggests that especially 

in light of the decline, NMFS should 

update the draft SARs to ensure it 

contains accurate and timely 

information. 

Response: NMFS drafted the 2017 

SAR before the end-of-year 2017 

population size estimates were 

available. We will include new 

estimates in the draft 2018 SAR for 

southern resident killer whales. 

Comment 19: The HLA recognizes 

that the false killer whale draft 2017 

SAR appropriately calculates separate 

M/SI rates for only the years 2013 

through 2015, so that the fisheries, as 

currently managed, can be more 

accurately evaluated against the relevant 

PBRs. However, HLA reiterates that 

NMFS should eliminate the five-year 

look-back period and report only data 

generated after the False Killer Whale 

Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP) 

regulations became effective, and the 

data prior to 2013 should no longer be 

used because it is no longer part of the 

best available scientific information. 

HLA suggests that, at a minimum, 

NMFS should not continue to use pre2013 data for the Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular FKW Stock (Insular Stock) and 

asserts that the TRP has resulted in 

decreased interactions with the Insular 

Stock because (i) the TRP regulations 

closed the fishery to almost all of the 

Insular Stock’s range, (ii) effort in the 

Insular Stock’s range has drastically 

reduced to almost zero as a 

consequence, and (iii) the fishery has 

had zero interactions with the Insular 

Stock since 2013. They stress that this 

is the situation contemplated by the 

Guidelines for Assessing Marine 

Mammal Stocks (GAMMS), which 

recommends ‘‘if within the last five 

years the fishery has changed (e.g., 

fishing effort or the mortality rate per 

unit of fishing effort has changed), it 

would be more appropriate to use only 

the most recent relevant data to most 

accurately reflect the current level of 

annual mortality.’’ HLA states that if 

NMFS continues to regulate the deep-set 

fishery as if it has interactions with the 

insular stock, it will undermine any 

TRT discussions regarding the Insular 

Stock and HLA may also be forced to 

reconsider its position on the Insular 

Stock closure. 

Response: NMFS has responded to 

similar versions of this comment 

previously. As noted in prior responses, 

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 using only the years since 

regulations were implemented. The SAR 

contains information preceeding and 

following the FKWTRP, 2008–2012 and 

2013–2015 respectively, and reports 

M/SI for these two time periods as well 

as the most recent 5-year average. Both 

the 3 year post-TRP average take rate, as 

well as the 5-year average that spans the 

period before and after the TRP, indicate 

the pelagic stock fishery take is below 

PBR; and, therefore, the stock is not 

considered strategic. NMFS continues to 

report the 5-year average in the Status 

of Stock section for the pelagic stock 

because various assessments of 

FKWTRP effectiveness note that neither 

overall take rate nor the rate of nonserious injury for the pelagic stock are 

significantly reduced through the 

implementation of the FKWTRP. NMFS 

does agree with HLA that the expanded 

longline exclusion area implemented 

under the FKWTRP offers near complete 

protection to this stock from 

interactions with the longline fishery, 

and as such has modifed the Status of 

Stock section for this stock to reflect this 

change. 

Comment 20: The HLA notes that for 

a decade (until this year) 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; 81 FR June 14, 2016, 

comment 44; and 82 FR June 27, 2017, 

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 (NMFS 2012) 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 two surveys of the entire 

Hawaii EEZ, an insufficient number to 

appropriately assess trend, shifts in 

distribution, or any examination of false 

killer whale population health; and (3) 

the available survey data were collected 

with different protocols for assessing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Notices 32099 

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 21: The HLA notes that the 

draft false killer whale SAR updates the 

Insular Stock population estimate to 167 

based upon an unpublished paper by 

Bradford et al., which concludes that 

the population size of the Insular Stock 

of false killer whales in certain study 

areas has consistently ranged between 

144 and 187 animals over a 16-year 

period. However, in reporting 167 as the 

population size for the Insular Stock, 

the Draft SAR states that the Bradford et 

al. annual estimate ‘‘represents only the 

animals present in the study area within 

that year.’’ HLA suggests that, if the 

reported 2015 abundance estimate of 

167 applies only to a study area that is 

smaller than the range of the Insular 

Stock of false killer whales, then the 

actual abundance of the entire Insular 

Stock must be some amount higher than 

167. HLA states that they are unable to 

sufficiently comment on this issue 

because the Bradford et al. paper is 

unpublished and not available for 

public review. 

Response: NMFS notes that although 

the abundance estimates provided in 

Bradford et al. are limited to the number 

of animals in the survey area in each 

survey year, they are still the best 

available estimates of population size. 

The new estimates account for many 

sources of potential bias, and although 

we expect that limiting estimates to the 

surveyed area for a given year does 

likely result in an under estimation of 

abundance in years when the surveyed 

area is smaller than the stock area, we 

do not have sufficient information to 

correct annual estimates for the extent 

of the survey area. NMFS feels the use 

of estimates derived from the best 

available data spanning 15 years of 

surveys is far better than use of catalog 

size, the previous metric for the 

minimum population estimate (Nmin) 

in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) 

insular false killer whale SAR. Further, 

the Nmin derived from the new markrecapture estimates meets the definition 

of Nmin provided within the GAMMS 

(NMFS 2016). Although cited as ‘‘in 

review,’’ the Bradford et al. paper was 

reviewed by the Pacific SRG at its 2017 

meeting and is currently in review for 

journal publication. 

Comment 22: The HLA incorporates 

by reference its more specific comments 

on previous draft SARs related to: (1) 

The assignment of a recovery factor to 

the pelagic stock of false killer whales, 

and continues to maintain that NMFS 

should apply a recovery factor to the 

pelagic stock that is greater than 0.5; (2) 

the 2010 Hawaiian Islands Cetacean 

Ecosystem and Assessment Survey 

(HICEAS) and the assumptions made by 

NMFS based upon the data from that 

survey, and assert that NMFS has 

inappropriately withheld acoustic data 

that should be publicly disclosed and 

reported; and (3) NMFS’ assumption 

that the insular stock of false killer 

whales has declined is speculative. 

Response: NMFS reiterates its 

responses to these comments from 

previous SARs. Specifically: (1) 

Reanalysis of existing datasets to derive 

more precise estimates does not 

constitute an increase in population 

size. 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. (2) NMFS has not 

made any attempt to withhold the 

acoustic data from the HICEAS 2010 

survey. It can be made available by 

request. NMFS has used the HICEAS 

2010 data for a variety of analyses, 

including the development of 

automated routines to detect and 

classify false killer whale and other 

species’ sounds, to assess false killer 

whale sub-group spatial arrangements, 

and other projects. There were many 

changes in array hardware during the 

survey, complicating streamlined 

analyses of these data, such that a fullscale analysis of this dataset for 

abundance is not appropriate, efficient, 

or cost-effective at this time. (3) 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. 

Dated: July 6, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14811 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Coral Reef 

Conservation Program; Notice of 

Intent; Scoping Period Announcement 

AGENCY: Office for Coastal Management 

(OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement 

of public scoping period and request for 

written comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Office for Coastal Management 

announces its intention to prepare a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PEIS) in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) for its Coral Reef 

Conservation Program (CRCP), which is 

managed out of NOAA’s National Ocean 

Service in Silver Spring, MD, and 

implemented in coastal areas and 

marine waters of Florida, Puerto Rico, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, Gulf of Mexico, 

Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, American 

Samoa, the U.S. Pacific Remote Island 

Area, and targeted international regions 

including the wider Caribbean, the 

Coral Triangle, the South Pacific, and 

Micronesia. Publication of this 

document begins the official scoping 

period that will help identify issues and 

alternatives to be considered in the 

PEIS. 

DATES: Written comments on the intent 

to prepare a PEIS will be accepted on or 

before Wednesday, August 15, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit scoping 

comments for the CRCP PEIS by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/NOAANOS-2018-0077. Click the ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ icon, complete the required 

fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Please direct written 

comments to Harriet Nash, Deputy 

Director, NOAA’s Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, Office for Coastal 

Management, 1305 East-West Highway, 

N/OCM6, Room 10404, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NOAA is preparing a Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (DPEIS) for coral reef 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES