[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56911-56912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28508]



[[Page 56911]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
I.D. 071798D


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Recovery Plans for Listed 
Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the final recovery plan for 
the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific stocks of blue whales (Balaenoptera 
musculus), as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the recovery plan may be submitted to 
Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Also, the final plan 
is provided on NMFS Protected Resources internet website at 
www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/cetacean/blue.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory K. Silber, Ph.D., Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, Phone: 301-713-2322; Fax: 301-713-0376.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq) (ESA) to protect species of plants and animals endangered or 
threatened with extinction. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
share responsibility for the administration of the Act. NMFS is 
responsible for most marine mammal species, including the blue whale. 
Listed endangered and threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction are 
identified in 50 CFR 222.23(a) and 50 CFR 227.4, respectively. The List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, which contains species under the 
jurisdiction of both agencies, is provided in 50 CFR 17.11(h). The blue 
whale is listed as endangered.
    Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS and FWS develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of 
endangered and threatened species, unless such plans would not promote 
the conservation of the species. A plan was prepared at the request of 
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries to promote the recovery of 
blue whales.
    NMFS published a notice of availability of the draft recovery plan 
for blue whales in the Federal Register on August 1, 1997 (62 FR 
41367). Comments were received from four people during the 60-day 
comment period. Reviewers' comments and NMFS' responses to the comments 
are identified here.
    Comment 1. The plan should place more emphasis than it currently 
does on blue whale stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean.
    Response. Changes have been made in various parts of the plan to 
reflect this comment. However, as noted in the plan, in the North 
Pacific Ocean, blue whale distribution in the North Atlantic Ocean is 
largely outside U.S. waters. Therefore, much of the emphasis on the 
North Pacific Ocean stocks remains.
    Comment 2. With regard to human interactions with blue whales, 
vessel strikes in particular, one commenter reported that 25 percent of 
the 355 blue whales photo-identified in the St. Lawrence River had 
scars attributable to vessel contact.
    Response. This observation has been added to the discussion of 
vessel disturbance in the Human Impact section.
    Comment 3. One comment indicated that toxic contaminants, 
particularly for ``blue whales found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, carry 
significant levels of PCBs and pesticides such as DDT.''
    Response. The discussion of contaminants in the Human Impact 
section was modified accordingly.
    Comment 4. One reviewer provided specific information on blue whale 
seasonal occurrence and distribution in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
    Response. The discussion in the section on distribution and habitat 
use was expanded to include this information.
    Comment 5. A reviewer noted that, while likely true that Northern 
Hemisphere blue whales are generally smaller than their Southern 
Hemisphere counterparts, a 92-ft (28-m) female was reported in Davis 
Strait catch records, larger than the 27-m (89 ft) whale reported in 
the draft plan.
    Response. This change has been made and appears in the section on 
Species Description and Taxonomy.
    Comment 6. One commenter pointed out that, inasmuch as fin whales 
are sympatric with blue whales in a number of locations in the North 
Atlantic, they should be considered significant competitors for prey 
consumed by blue whales.
    Response. This comment is addressed in the section on Competition 
with the statement that ``[a]ll baleen whale species that are sympatric 
with the blue whale eat euphausiids to some extent and are, therefore, 
potential competitors.''
    Comment 7. One commenter noted that the number of calves seen in 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence is low; only nine calves have been reported 
there in 19 years of research. Off Iceland, however, three calves were 
observed in only 10 days of surveys in July 1996 and July 1997. Also, 
several observations were provided on the sex ratio of calves and the 
timing of weaning.
    Response. These observations were incorporated into the discussion 
of reproduction.
     Comment 8. One commenter noted that 352 blue whales have been 
photo-identified in eastern Canadian and New England waters, and 32 
have been identified from waters off Iceland.
    Response. These data have been added to the Abundance and Trends 
section.
    Comment 9. Two reviewers indicated that the research recommended in 
the plan was focused on surveys which tended to document ``effects'' 
rather than ``causes.'' They suggested that the plan identify studies 
designed to examine testable hypotheses, e.g., why are only the 
Icelandic and California populations apparently recovering? They 
suggested that one could, for example, test the hypothesis that 
populations with slow (or no) recovery rates feed on pelagic 
aggregations which tend to be less dense and more patchy than the 
euphausiid aggregations on which the coastally feeding blue whale 
populations (Iceland and California) feed.
    Response. This suggestion has been included in section 3.3 of the 
step-down outline narrative.
    Comment 10. More studies need to be done on the effects of 
anthropogenic underwater sound, including those originating from 
military operations.
    Response. NMFS believes that this is a valid comment and shares the 
view that anthropogenic underwater sound may adversely affect whales 
and their habitat. While NMFS believes that studies are needed to 
better understand these affects, it believes that this is a ``second 
tier'' threat relative to more direct threats. Also, it believes that 
possible adverse affects from underwater noise is systemic to nearly 
all oceanic waters and not a problem specific to blue whales and the 
recovery of blue whales. Therefore, studies specific to the affects of 
noise on blue whales were not identified in the plan. Nonetheless, the 
discussion of the status of research on the effects of sound emission 
from the Acoustic

[[Page 56912]]

Thermometry of Ocean Climate experiment and from the U.S. Navy's Low-
Frequency Active sonar system testing is provided in the Habitat 
Degradation and Military Operations sections, respectively.
    Comment 11. With regard to the discussion on stocks in the North 
Pacific population, one commenter suggested adding the phrase `` 
...based on the presence of rare epizoites on blue whales which were 
not found on other species known to migrate north ...'' to the 
sentence, ``[h]owever, he recently concluded that the California 
population is separate from that in the Gulf of and eastern Aleutians 
(Rice 1992).''
    Response. This suggested change has been made.
    Comment 12. One reviewer challenged the assertion that blue whales 
regularly feed on the pelagic red crab, Pleuroncodes planipes, as 
reported by Rice (1974) and Rice (1986).
     Response. In response to this comment, the sentence that read 
``[o]ne exception to their near-total dependence on euphausiid prey is 
that blue whales regularly feed on pelagic red crabs, Pleuroncodes 
planipes, off Baja California (Rice 1974, 1986)'' in the draft has been 
changed in the final plan to read, ``[o]ne exception to their near-
total dependence on euphausiid prey is that blue whales have been 
observed feeding on pelagic red crabs, Pleuroncodes planipes, off Baja 
California (Rice 1974, 1986), although these observations have not been 
confirmed by subsequent observations or other analyses (e.g., fecal 
analysis).''
    Comment 13. A reviewer suggested a change in the discussion about 
blue whale prey in the Gulf of California, Mexico.
    Response. Two sentences on this subject have been changed to read, 
``[b]etween February and April, blue whales in the Gulf of California, 
Mexico, have been observed feeding on euphausiid surface swarms (Sears 
1990), consisting mainly of Nyctiphanes simplex engaged in reproductive 
activities (Gendron 1990, 1992). Sears (1990) regarded Nyctiphanes 
simplex as the principal prey of blue whales in the region, and results 
from recent fecal analyses confirmed this assertion (Del Angel-
Rodriguez and Gendron 1997).''
    Comment 14. One reviewer indicated that the section on Reproduction 
did not, but should, indicate that the Gulf of California is the only 
known nursing and probable calving ground in the North Pacific.
    Response. The following sentence has been added ``[t]herefore, this 
area is likely an important nursing and calving area for the species.''
    Comment 15. A reviewer pointed out that there are no regulations or 
guidelines for whale watching in Mexican waters and suggested that this 
be noted in the plan.
    Response. The boat disturbance discussion in the North Pacific 
section has been modified to reflect this comment.
    Comment 16. One reviewer noted that there are three (not two) blue 
whale photo-identification catalogs, including one for the waters off 
Baja California and portions of the Mexico mainland Pacific coast.
     Response. Under Narrative, section 2.3 of the Plan has been 
modified accordingly.
    Comment 17. A reviewer suggested that the importance of blue whale 
habitat in the Gulf of California be clarified in section 3.2 of the 
Narrative.
    Response. In response to this comment, the sentence on Mexico has 
been modified to read, ``[i]n Mexico, the waters of Baja California, 
particularly the southwestern portion of the Gulf of California where 
nursing, feeding, and probably calving occurs, are clearly of great 
importance to many eastern North Pacific blue whales, including whales 
that spend part of the year in U.S. waters.''

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 et seq.

    Dated: October 19, 1998.
Hilda Diaz-Soltero,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-28508 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F